Man kills girlfriend after finding out she has HIV

[Annapolis]

If people didn't keep you readily informed how would you even know that HIV exists ?

I agree, you might not know it exists. But if you didn't know it existed and you killed someone over it wouldn't that be equally ridiculous? Don't you see how acting crazy on an assumption is a bad idea? If he was an HIV researcher and then killed her because he was sure that their intercourse had lead to him having HIV then I'd at least know he knew what he was doing. This guy has no idea, he just assumed and then acted.

But this is again all irrelevant because he took the justice process into his own hands and took a life. Never OK.

[Lenonis]

So all it takes is bone marrow to cure HIV? or his radiation cancer treatment? i don't completely get it

I'd have to re-read the article, but from what I understand a leukemia patient who had a bone marrow transplant ended up cured.

What I believe was the case was that the treatment basically destroyed his own bone marrow and immune system and replaced it with the donor's -- who happened to have the rare mutation that makes him HIV immune. This resulted in the patient ending up with no trace of the disease.

That being said, as you might imagine destroying your bone marrow and replacing it with a donor's is rather extreme -- and not likely for routine cases. However this unexpected side effect has given researcher's new avenues to seek a cure.

[Deleted]

So acting on an incorrect assumption is somebody else's fault because they did not update him with new information? Since when is the onus on others to keep you informed? If you are going to kill somebody over an assumption you had better make sure that assumption is true. Not to mention even if you do murder someone you're still in the wrong.

This argument is getting ridiculous. If what he did was "justifiable" then the "justice department" would not be preparing to prosecute him. Very simple.

Well he killed someone so they "have" to prosecute him, if he gets a sentence is a totally other question. It is not a ridiculous argument, people use it all the time when it comes to self defense only based on assumptions, and we know how far people can be pushed in situations where they feel threatened on their life. I would think this guy would claim temporary insanity ofc not self defense.

[Lenonis]

I would think this guy would claim temporary insanity ofc not self defense.

I don't think he can really claim self defense as his life was not in any immediate danger at the time.

Now if she was on top of him, holding him down, and told him right before taking a ride on the pogo stick, that would be the scenario that you might claim self defense.

But telling him the morning after? notsomuch. I'm sure they'll go temporary insanity.

[Deleted]

No I perfectly understand what you where trying to say. You think that just because the chances of getting sick from HIV are almost as small as getting sick from second hand smoking, that he was a retard for getting revenge or "justice" as you call it. And since i don't believe the two cases can even be remotely be compared because of the reasons i mentioned i told how it was a failed analogy... Just deal with it

No you don't understand, else you would realize the two cases are just as retarded as one another. And that is not what I was trying to say at all

"Just deal with it."

To clarify: I dont think the guy was retarded and I would think the same if it was a 100% chance. I can understand how he felt but it was still shortsighted and wrong.
I think people who are okay with drastic self-righteous judgement because of sympathy towards victims are retarded.

[Deleted]

I agree, you might not know it exists. But if you didn't know it existed and you killed someone over it wouldn't that be equally ridiculous? Don't you see how acting crazy on an assumption is a bad idea? If he was an HIV researcher and then killed her because he was sure that their intercourse had lead to him having HIV then I'd at least know he knew what he was doing. This guy has no idea, he just assumed and then acted.

But this is again all irrelevant because he took the justice process into his own hands and took a life. Never OK.

It's like if he got shot with a gun, and since he thought he would die from it, he then launches from his hiding spot towards the shooter in a last attempt to kill the person who shot him before he dies himself. Afterwards he finds out it was just a flesh wound and that he most likely wouldn't have had any problems dealing with it besides the scar it would leave. (yes i know it's a crazy storie)

It's like saying he should have been knowledgeable in medicine to the point where he could evaluate the severity of the wound, and being uninformed of how much the human body can handle is no excuse! he shouldn't have killed the person that could potentially have caused his death, if he in hindsight wouldn't die from what happened to him.

[Katza]

Both actions were reprehensible, in different ways. I find hers worse on a moral compass, and his worse on a scope-based compass.

She knowingly endangered someone she supposedly cared about, not telling him that she could give him a disease that could (even if 'controllable') shorten his lifespan greatly. There's a reason this sort of thing is considered assault or even aggravated sexual assault in some areas. The fact that she did this -knowingly- puts it beyond the pale, to me.

He, having been told after the fact, went apeshit and killed her. This was worse on a results point of view. He took a life willingly, in a painful manner and left her for her children to find.

What he -should- have done is called the police and put her up on charges. What he -should- have done is trusted the legal system to deal with it. While I think death is a viable option at times, this cannot and should not be done by an individual. It's for society to decide.

[FathomFear]

It's primal. It's the left over shit from the Apes. He went Berserk, and that's the only explanation worthy of description. That's my last piece on the subject.

This guy will walk with nothing more then some probation, regardless of what he did after. You cannot even being to fathom this mans head at that news.

It's easy to blame our own weaknesses on pseudo-genetics of "Primal urges arose!" The fact of the matter is that countless people get bad news on a daily basis--including things like HIV diagnoses--and don't go apeshit like this guy did.

It is true that some people really struggle with anger and acting impulsively. But these are personal faults, not universal human traits like having brown hair or blue eyes.

This guy is going to get a much harsher sentence than probation. I'd be pretty shocked if he didn't.

[Deleted]

No you don't understand, else you would realize the two cases are just as retarded as one another. And that is not what I was trying to say at all

"Just deal with it."

To clarify: I dont think the guy was retarded and I would think the same if it was a 100% chance. I can understand how he felt but it was still shortsighted and wrong.
I think people who are okay with drastic self-righteous judgement because of sympathy towards victims are retarded.

Don't get me wrong, i wouldn't have killed the woman, i think he overreacted in a big way. But at the same time i understand that i "can't" understand a person that honestly thinks his life has just ended, because someone lied to him, and i don't think you would know your true feelings towards such a person before you where in the same situation. I think the 1/3 of the pole are people able to put themselves in that situation.

[Annapolis]

It's like if he got shot with a gun, and since he thought he would die from it, he then launches from his hiding spot towards the shooter in a last attempt to kill the person who shot him before he dies himself. Afterwards he finds out it was just a flesh wound and that he most likely wouldn't have had any problems dealing with it besides the scar it would leave. (yes i know it's a crazy storie)

No, that is not the same situation because in your situation the shooter still has a loaded gun. In this case she is only armed with consensual sex. Unless he thought she was going to rape him which I would find hard to believe.

[Eroginous]

Up to 500,000 people die worldwide each year because of the flu. So if someone tells me they have the flu after they have sex with me, I can kill them right? Cause I might die from the exposure?

Nope. The flu is easily treatable, can even be prevented by getting a flu shot each year, and is only potentially fatal to people who already have a compromised immune system (children, old people, and people who are already sick with things like Cancer and Aids). The Flu and HIV aren't comparable in any fashion.

Now that being said, I'm not trying to say the two are equivalent and I'm in no way trying to marginalize HIV....but the line of reasoning you have can be taken to absurd degrees.

It's not a line of reasoning. It's the reaction to a crime that someone committed in response to another crime, and based on the severity of both crimes, I'm not going to split hairs and cry foul. HIV/AIDS is a tragedy to humanity, and no one should ever have to deal with having it. The kind of person who knowingly risks the lives of other people by risking the spread of a deadly virus which has no known cure, is a piece of shit no matter how you slice it, and deserves to die.

[BananaHandsB]

She was in the wrong, but there's nothing justifiable about revenge, especially murder.

[Deleted]

Don't get me wrong, i wouldn't have killed the woman, i think he overreacted in a big way. But at the same time i understand that i "can't" understand a person that honestly thinks his life has just ended, because someone lied to him, and i don't think you would know your true feelings towards such a person before you where in the same situation. I think the 1/3 of the pole are people able to put themselves in that situation.

Perhaps. But yeah like I said, I can understand why the guy got so upset, even if it was clearly wrong, legally, morally AND "factually", it's just what I described seems to be a widespread attitude, not just in THIS case but in a lot other cases too, just take a look at every death penalty thread for example.

Full of people advocating medieval torture methods and vendettas on those "sickos" who they really don't know anything about, or their motivations or mental issues.

But perhaps you are right and it is less relevant here (but lots of people nontheless ooze the same attitude).

[Darsithis]

Hence, the go fuck yourself part. My point is, even though what I did was wrong. It was right at the same time. I can understand where this man got that emotion. He lost it and went overboard. Just like I did.

How so? You know how many people are infected with HIV every day? Even I was, in the same manner as this article describes he might have been. I've murdered no one, and I have yet to hear of really anyone that does beyond this, or it wouldn't be such big news.

He didn't control himself. That is on him. It's not genetics or a primal urge.

[Deleted]

No, that is not the same situation because in your situation the shooter still has a loaded gun. In this case she is only armed with consensual sex. Unless he thought she was going to rape him which I would find hard to believe.

Well the comparison og being shot, is being told the woman you just had sex with has HIV, if it was consensual or not is not the case, she didn't tell him of her condition, and that is just as bad as if she had raped him.

[Deleted]

I'd have to re-read the article, but from what I understand a leukemia patient who had a bone marrow transplant ended up cured.

What I believe was the case was that the treatment basically destroyed his own bone marrow and immune system and replaced it with the donor's -- who happened to have the rare mutation that makes him HIV immune. This resulted in the patient ending up with no trace of the disease.

That being said, as you might imagine destroying your bone marrow and replacing it with a donor's is rather extreme -- and not likely for routine cases. However this unexpected side effect has given researcher's new avenues to seek a cure.

i see, thanks

[Annapolis]

Well the comparison og being shot, is being told the woman you just had sex with has HIV, if it was consensual or not is not the case, she didn't tell him of her condition, and that is just as bad as if she had raped him.

No, my point is that in your shooting case, jumping at the assailant stops further harm to yourself (they can shoot you again). Whereas in the real situation after the man had sex with the woman (equivalent to being shot in your argument) then the woman is no longer armed with anything. She isn't likely to be able to try it again. Big difference.

[Deleted]

How so? You know how many people are infected with HIV every day? Even I was, in the same manner as this article describes he might have been. I've murdered no one, and I have yet to hear of really anyone that does beyond this, or it wouldn't be such big news.

He didn't control himself. That is on him. It's not genetics or a primal urge.

You havent murdered anyone, but i assume whoever got you HIV didnt have sex with you first and told you after?
Accidents happen, but her not telling him wasnt so much of an accident.
i'm not saying its ok he killed her its not, but im surprised people don't see that you can act quickly out of anger
and things can go out of hand, i do it too, when i'm in an arguement, i say things without thinking

I'm very surprised with some of the things i almost did, and actually did do when i wasnt thinking clear because of anger

[Darsithis]

You havent murdered anyone, but i assume whoever got you HIV didnt have sex with you first and told you after?
Accidents happen, but her not telling him wasnt so much of an accident.
i'm not saying its ok he killed her its not, but im surprised people don't see that you can act quickly out of anger
and things can go out of hand, i do it too, when i'm in an arguement, i say things without thinking

I'm very surprised with some of the things i almost did, and actually did do when i wasnt thinking clear because of anger

No, it's exactly the same. He told me the next day, and a few months later I found out I was infected. I still didn't kill him.

[Deleted]

No, it's exactly the same. He told me the next day, and a few months later I found out I was infected. I still didn't kill him.

oohhhh i see, but even at that point you didnt do or say anything you normally wouldnt have?
if you werent mad