Man kills girlfriend after finding out she has HIV

[semaphore]

Ok, how far is the kitchen?

Doesn't matter. He went out of his way to get a weapon that he used to kill with deliberation. That's malicious aforethought, while the actions demonstrated a clear intent to kill.

In a panicked, fear driven, hyper adrenaline state

You make it sound like he was experiencing a home invasion or something. "I have HIV" aren't even fighting words. But regardless, again, his actions showed or can be quite reasonably argued to have shown malicious aforethought as well as deadly intent. He may plea down to manslaughter but he's not walking without some colossal upset.

[Jokerfiend]

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.

Look, if I kill someone like this and I only get a year in prison. That is a walk, in my book. I'd go as far to say in most people's book. So what if he isn't hireable, he won't go without, there are systems in place.

Section 8, food stamps, and SS will get him more than he needs without even working again. My family is shit, born from shit, and will die in shit. I'm one of few, with little jail time, and nothing on my Adult record. They are all on the system, none of hardly any of them work due to being non hireable by convicted felony records. Sadly, most live better than I do, with a College education and a stable job.

As a person, that nearly killed someone as a teenager, for hitting my mother. I went to Juvenal for 2 years, 16-18. When you fucking do shit like this, and put people in those places, you can't say what you would do. So yeah, I know where this guy is coming from and how easily it would be to go overboard.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 02:05 AM ----------

Doesn't matter. He went out of his way to get a weapon that he used to kill with deliberation. That's malicious aforethought, while the actions demonstrated a clear intent to kill.


You make it sound like he was experiencing a home invasion or something. "I have HIV" aren't even fighting words. But regardless, again, his actions showed or can be quite reasonably argued to have shown malicious aforethought as well as deadly intent. He may plea down to manslaughter but he's not walking without some colossal upset.

Walking with Man-slaughter is a win in his book. It's basically a justification. That's how I view it.

[semaphore]

Walking with Man-slaughter is a win in his book. It's basically a justification. That's how I view it.

Pleaing down to manslaughter is not "walking". If you are just going to redefine words like that then sure anything could be a win in your book.

[Jokerfiend]

Pleaing down to manslaughter is not "walking". If you are just going to redefine words like that then sure anything could be a win in your book.

If you are looking at life in prison, getting it plead down to a year and some probation is a win and justification. The fact they would even offer him a plea. Means the DA is unsure of a murder conviction and would rather a man-slaughter charge, for a guaranteed conviction.

That right there is justification.

I'm not redefining anything, I'm using real world meaning. See, when you get plead down, that is considering "walking with". So when someone tells you they walked with man-slaughter, they mean they were charged with Murder but WALKED WITH man-slaughter. Get it? Sorry, prison talk and all....

[jbombard]

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.

I don't argue that he has a bad case. That said, maybe I am too cynical but it seems to me that the American Justice system has little to do with justice and more to do with how much money you have. If you can afford a "quality" defense you can get away with murder, literally. Granted I don't think Dunn will have a "quality" defense, (but that remains to be seen) so he will likely end up guilty of something. Also as the poll here has shown it is going to be tough to find a jury willing to unanimously convict him of murder. If the defense handles the jury selection properly manslaughter is a far more likely scenario than murder IMHO.

[Bryntrollian]

Doesn't matter. He went out of his way to get a weapon that he used to kill with deliberation. That's malicious aforethought, while the actions demonstrated a clear intent to kill.


You make it sound like he was experiencing a home invasion or something. "I have HIV" aren't even fighting words. But regardless, again, his actions showed or can be quite reasonably argued to have shown malicious aforethought as well as deadly intent. He may plea down to manslaughter but he's not walking without some colossal upset.

Holding the fact that you are HIV positive from your sex partner is a crime

[Gemazarus]

A difficult one...

Didn't I hear somewhere, that knowingly risking transmition of HIV to somebody who does not have it practically equal to manslaughter anyway? Could she not had been tried herself had she survived?

Do we know, how she told him that he could have it? Did she do it maliciously? For somebody who knowingly has HIV to not tell any possible sexual partner about it, is despicable in itself. If she did it maliciously, to me, I can't say that I wouldn't snap either. I'm an eye for an eye kinda guy.

Does admitting murder become irrelevent if your are deemed "not sane" at the time of the admition? If you are deemed "not sane" at any time, can any action, "deadly intent" or not, be seen in the same context as somebody who is sane at the time of the same action?

My feeling is this, and I may be wrong as I havent read either the story, or 98% of this thread, but it seems she told him maliciously, or did it on purpse. If this is true, and he snapped and killed her, I can see his reasoning. If not, and she didn't know, or was an accident, then this man needs to be jailed.

There are too many factors, and as far as I know, not enough information.

Interesting topic though.

BTW,

"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. "... Brilliant. Welcome to my signature.

[semaphore]

I'm not redefining anything, I'm using real world meaning. See, when you get plead down, that is considering "walking with". So when someone tells you they walked with man-slaughter, they mean they were charged with Murder but WALKED WITH man-slaughter. Get it? Sorry, prison talk and all....

Well then you seem to be the only one using that customised "real world meaning" where getting jailed for a crime is "walking". For pretty much the rest of the world, it's apparently means "to walk free".

Holding the fact that you are HIV positive from your sex partner is a crime

So? I didn't say it wasn't.

[Collegeguy]

While I don't agree with what he did, I understand it. Anyone who willingly gives someone a virus is up there with the worst scum on Earth.

In this case I chose justifiable, but it depends on the context of justifiable. I feel what he did was justified in my opinion, so I would feel fine with sitting next to him in a coffee shop. He did purposeful harm to someone who did purposeful harm to him. If we were in a court of law though, his actions aren't justifiable if I was the judge. Although I wouldn't throw the book, he would get something severe.

[anabolicz]

She had it coming... sorry. if u have HIV plz do tell before sexeh-time

[Jokerfiend]

Well then you seem to be the only one using that customised "real world meaning" where getting jailed for a crime is "walking". For pretty much the rest of the world, it's apparently means "to walk free".

It's obvious you have never spent any real time in prison before. Cause you know, walking with - is totally the same meaning as - walking free. There is no way in hell this guy isn't getting something. I'm saying he is facing murder 2 and is WALKING WITH man-slaughter... god! Semantic much?

[Deleted]

that was pure revenge. not justifiable at all.

now don't get me wrong, knowingly putting someone at risk of a potentially deadly illness is a horrible crime. someone who does this should be put to jail. it must be ensured that they can't spread their little viruses any more.

however, there're lots of holes in the article, we basically don't know anything.
we don't even know if they had safer sex or if she was under medical treatment (it might prevent infection in certain cases). we don't know if the murderer got the virus in the end. we know nothing.

without this information, it's a bit short sighted to say she put his life at peril. she actually might not. either way round, what he did was murder. not justifiable. ever.

[llubtoille]

I've thought about it before (numerous times) and pretty much all roads lead to revenge of some manner.

It's like putting a deadly poison in your lovers drink, giving it to them, watching them drink it, then telling them 'oh yeah, there's totally poison in there'.
she did something that had a good chance of causing irreparable damage, she then receives the consequences.

she also shouldn't get a sympathy vote for having kids, although it is a sad for them.

[Vargur]

The question is, why? If she didn't know about it (let's say she didn't), then why would she deserve death? If she did know, how is death going to help you in any fashion?

You think she just found out? Surely she knew for quite a while, but didn't want to jeopardize her and her children's "security" in the form of an older and possibly richer man. She has sex with him, protected or not, knowing she has AIDS. Seriously, how dumb can she be?
One less idiot on this Earth. And another in jail.

[Deleted]

I am honestly shocked that 37% of the people that voted here are saying it is justifiable to kill someone because of a 0.4% chance that she transmitted HIV.

What she did was wrong, and she should go to jail, there's no arguing with that. But it doesn't justify killing her.

[Deleted]

this reminds me kinda of the case of nadja (former member of the once-popular band no angels)

as for the "murder" part in the on topic story:
nadja was sentenced for "grievous bodily harm" (one partner got infected) and two of attempted bodily harm (no infections in previous partners)

i think you have to differ between "(attempted) murder" and "(attempted) bodily harm"... but neighterless having unprotected sex with a new partner THOUGH knowing of oneselves infection is plain stupid
no wonder the guy snapped after hearing the news..

personally:
on the one hand i feel bad for the kids..
on the other one... "bitch deserved it" (though the guy could have himself tested for hiv first)

[anabolicz]

Hope this case send's a message to Hiv people, Do not have sexeh time before u say i have HIV, have sexeh-time with HIV people u can find dating sites and more for this

[haxartus]

I am honestly shocked that 37% of the people that voted here are saying it is justifiable to kill someone because of a 0.4% chance that she transmitted HIV.

0.04%. Lower if she was on medications.

[semaphore]

Surely she knew for quite a while, but didn't want to jeopardize her and her children's "security" in the form of an older and possibly richer man.

There's nothing "surely" about that, it's pure speculation.

[Jokerfiend]

I am honestly shocked that 37% of the people that voted here are saying it is justifiable to kill someone because of a 0.4% chance that she transmitted HIV.

What she did was wrong, and she should go to jail, there's no arguing with that. But it doesn't justify killing her.

So then, I bet that is the first thing you would think, if this news got dropped in your lap. Oh, only .4% chance.. WHEW. Better get checked. Or you might just snap... you never know.

Now .4% chance EACH TIME, under very normal, and very lab specific results. Ok, now by the sounds of the article, it seems they were in a relationship, which would assume they had sex more then once.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 03:05 AM ----------

There's nothing "surely" about that, it's pure speculation.

No it's not, the husband clearly stated she had known for 2 years. It's makes you wonder why there is an ex husband anyways. Sounds to me, she liked to sleep around, got burnt by HIV, and got left to rot.