Man kills girlfriend after finding out she has HIV

[Spritely]

There is absolutely no way to justify murdering a woman and then leaving her dead body around for her young children to find. He just traumatized those children for the rest of their lives.

It's not particularly common for a man to contract HIV during unprotected sex with a female. *I'm not saying it doesn't happen, simply that it requires various factors to be in play.* because of that, it's unlikely he even contracted the disease. Should she have told him before they ever had sex? Heck yeah. And she could have been prosecuted for not disclosing the fact and should have. But in no way shape or form do I think he should have done what he did. Especially considering his low chance of even having the disease.

[Jokerfiend]

That's why she should be prosecuted for fraud or grievous bodily harm.

Not SLAUGHTERED. (changed that for you.)

You're right. Though, given what happened. He will walk with man-slaughter, not murder. Any lawyer, that wasn't bottom of his class, will get this man man-slaughter. IMO, that is peer justification of said actions, sanctioned by the courts themselves.

[jbombard]

That's why she should be prosecuted for fraud or grievous bodily harm.

Not murdered.

I'd go with attempted manslaughter. And I agree that he shouldn't have killed her. But it isn't hard to imagine him not in the right mental state to make good decisions after finding out that your girlfriend just gave you HIV(in his mind). Honestly I feel bad for him making that stupid mistake, I don't feel bad for her at all.

[Kasierith]

You're right. Though, given what happened. He will walk with man-slaughter, not murder. Any lawyer, that wasn't bottom of his class, will get this man man-slaughter. IMO, that is peer justification of said actions, sanctioned by the courts themselves.

Eh.... the children finding of the body might throw a wrench into the decision. When children are affected its a bit harder to predict what will happen with court proceedings.

[Epiphanes]

but its pretty clear he killed her. therefore, he is guilty of said act. killing in anger is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter". they dont make exceptions for being angry.

Given the context of the situation and his proclaimed reason for why he committed the act, in his own eyes he was justified. If I were in a similar situation in a custom tailored context, I feel that I would be justified in committing the same crime. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or I say. The end result comes from those who uphold common law; they will be the ones who pass judgement based on a list of irrefutable laws and not opinion.

Edit: I wouldn't exactly say "irrefutable" because common law is inherently flawed by design because man created it and anything associated with it. The point is that it's objective. It is concrete and precise. It is not subjective nor is it based one random factors such as opinions or baseless statements.

[Dezerte]

Scary shit right here, 37% think it was justifiable.

[Jokerfiend]

Eh.... the children finding of the body might throw a wrench into the decision. When children are affected its a bit harder to predict what will happen with court proceedings.

At this mans emotional state, he will walk. The children have nothing to do with it. They have a father and will not be homeless, or in the system. Sure, they will need someone to talk to, and they will grow to hate the man. Yet, maybe they might see what their mother did as heinous, because it certainly was heinous.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, I agree with his actions. She took the liberty of exposing this man to HIV, and regardless to how anyone here feels, he obviously felt this was a grave situations. I am not going to attempt to defend his actions withy some kind of pop mental problem, but that is because i don't feel it is required.

Every person reacts differently when they are on the other end of someones poor decision. But in life if you play this kind of game, just know not everybody going to respond in some cookie cutter way.

The only way this situations could have been prevented under these circumstances is if she took the responsiblity she was obligated to, and let him know.

[Epiphanes]

Yes, I agree with his actions. She took the liberty of exposing this man to HIV, and regardless to how anyone here feels, he obviously felt this was a grave situations. I am not going to attempt to defend his actions withy some kind of pop mental problem, but that is because i don't feel it is required.

Every person reacts differently when they are on the other end of someones poor decision. But in life if you play this kind of game, just know not everybody going to respond in some cookie cutter way.

The only way this situations could have been prevented under these circumstances is if she took the responsiblity she was obligated to, and let him know.

Ding, ding. We have a winner. Someone who recognizes the importance of context.

[semaphore]

At this mans emotional state, he will walk.

Not really a chance of that.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:32 AM ----------

Given the context of the situation and his proclaimed reason for why he committed the act, in his own eyes he was justified.

Whether or not he thinks it is justified is quite irrelevant. The "reasonable person" will not find killing someone because they MIGHT have infected to be a reasonable justification, and that's all there is to it. There would be mitigation for being in the heat of the moment, but he's almost certainly going to jail.

[jbombard]

Not really a chance of that.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:32 AM ----------


Whether or not he thinks it is justified is quite irrelevant. The "reasonable person" will not find killing someone because they MIGHT have infected to be a reasonable justification, and that's all there is to it. There would be mitigation for being in the heat of the moment, but he's almost certainly going to jail.

Depends on too many things we don't know yet to say. What his defense will be? Will it be a jury trial? Will he have a good lawyer? If Johnie Cochran comes back from the grave and uses the Chewbacca defense, he walks.

[Jokerfiend]

Not really a chance of that.

He will walk with man-slaughter. Not murder. No one is going to convict him of murder, given the circumstances. If he doesn't have a prior background of severely aggressive behavior. This isn't a case of premed. This isn't cold blooded. Man-slaughter with MAYBE 1-2 prison time. My guess is 1 with 5 years probation.

[Spritely]

The fact that he is un-repentant will mean he will likely see no reduction in sentencing. He would still kill her all over again without it being a snap decision. He acted in a way that he knew would result in her death, with the intent to kill her. Manslaughter is generally reserved for cases where a person snaps and unintentionally kills another person. In those cases the person is usually horrified after seeing the results of their actions and and repentant.

I'm not saying he definitely won't get charged with manslaughter here, the DA could choose to take it easy on him or may simply give him a plea bargain. Just saying how the law generally is applied.

[jbombard]

The fact that he is un-repentant will mean he will likely see no reduction in sentencing. He would still kill her all over again without it being a snap decision. He acted in a way that he knew would result in her death, with the intent to kill her. Manslaughter is generally reserved for cases where a person snaps and unintentionally kills another person. In those cases the person is usually horrified after seeing the results of their actions and and repentant.

I'm not saying he definitely won't get charged with manslaughter here, the DA could choose to take it easy on him or may simply give him a plea bargain. Just saying how the law generally is applied.

It doesn't matter how he seems now. What will matter is how good of a show the defense can put on during the trial. Frankly if it is a jury trial, I don't see a jury convicting him of murder.

[semaphore]

He will walk with man-slaughter. Not murder. No one is going to convict him of murder, given the circumstances. If he doesn't have a prior background of severely aggressive behavior. This isn't a case of premed. This isn't cold blooded. Man-slaughter with MAYBE 1-2 prison time. My guess is 1 with 5 years probation.

He first went to the kitchen to get the knife and then come back to stab her to death. That is very arguably indicative of malicious aforethought, which makes it murder. On top of that given that the odds are stacked against him contracting HIV from her, I doubt he'll have too much success in court.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:43 AM ----------

Depends on too many things we don't know yet to say. What his defense will be? Will it be a jury trial? Will he have a good lawyer? If Johnie Cochran comes back from the grave and uses the Chewbacca defense, he walks.

I won't say he is definitely going away for life, but the chances of him walking is really very low given the known circumstances. Having a defense only goes so far when you confess to murder.

[Jokerfiend]

The fact that he is un-repentant will mean he will likely see no reduction in sentencing. He would still kill her all over again without it being a snap decision. He acted in a way that he knew would result in her death, with the intent to kill her. Manslaughter is generally reserved for cases where a person snaps and unintentionally kills another person. In those cases the person is usually horrified after seeing the results of their actions and and repentant.

I'm not saying he definitely won't get charged with manslaughter here, the DA could choose to take it easy on him or may simply give him a plea bargain. Just saying how the law generally is applied.

I can give you examples of cases of "murder" after acts of heinous crimes and the person walks. He might not feel sorry for what he did, but that is because he believe it was justified. Rightfully so, IMO. A jury will have to convict. Yet, I don't see them convicting of murder.

[jbombard]

He first went to the kitchen to get the knife and then come back to stab her to death. That is very indicative of malicious aforethought, which makes it murder. On top of that given that the odds are stacked against him contracting HIV from her, I doubt he'll have too much success in court.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:43 AM ----------


I won't say he is definitely going away for life, but the chances of him walking is really very low given the known circumstances. Having a defense only goes so far when you confess to murder.

People with far worse cases walk everyday in our current legal system. Not saying it's right. But really it will come down to the trial, his lawyer and the jury selection.

[semaphore]

People with far worse cases walk everyday in our current legal system.

Cite one for every day of the week then...

I mean, again, I'm not saying he has no chance whatsoever. I'm just pointing out that he isn't likely to get off with a slap on the wrists, and saying "well there are exceptions and statistical outliers" doesn't really change that he has a terrible case on his hands.

[Spritely]

I can give you examples of cases of "murder" after acts of heinous crimes and the person walks. He might not feel sorry for what he did, but that is because he believe it was justified. Rightfully so, IMO. A jury will have to convict. Yet, I don't see them convicting of murder.

One source says he stabbed her twice in the chest, which killed her, and then slit her throat just to make sure she couldn't be saved. I don't care to spend the time to see the full police report.

In any case, you seem to have an odd definition of "walk". Getting convicted of manslaughter does not mean he walks. He's still convicted of a felony serious enough to make him not be hire-able. Whether he spends 1 year or 10 years or more in jail, his entire life is ruined, HIV positive or not (and he's most likely not). Being convicted is NOT walking.

That said, I'm going to bed. Having a conversation in this context with someone with an avatar alluding to heroine use is just odd.

[Jokerfiend]

He first went to the kitchen to get the knife and then come back to stab her to death. That is very arguably indicative of malicious aforethought, which makes it murder. On top of that given that the odds are stacked against him contracting HIV from her, I doubt he'll have too much success in court.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:43 AM ----------


I won't say he is definitely going away for life, but the chances of him walking is really very low given the known circumstances. Having a defense only goes so far when you confess to murder.

Ok, how far is the kitchen? In my house, I can be in the living room and step to the kitchen in less 5 seconds and grab my Wustuf, which in a block. In a panicked, fear driven, hyper adrenaline state, that would be in a blink of an eye, an action taken without fore-thought.

Have you ever been that panicked? Have you ever experienced a true emotional state like that? His emotion state at that moment... and even continued state, is something you can't just describe. It's something you can only experience, in a very rare cases. This isn't a usual case.