Missouri man exposed 300-plus to HIV

Okay I think the guy should have not done this, but at the same time people who have unprotected sex with strangers need to take some responsibility to... Not sure if it should be a crime though

(CNN) - Prosecutors in rural Missouri have charged a man with exposing his partner to HIV and say he may have exposed more than 300 other people to the virus that causes AIDS.

David Mangum told police he had at least that many unprotected sexual encounters with people he met online or in parks since he was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, Dexter, Missouri, detective Sgt. Corey Mills told CNN. Mills said it will be difficult to find and warn those people, since Mangum "usually only knew his partners' first names."

Mangum was arrested after his former partner told police that Mangum had lied to him about his status, a police affidavit states. He was arraigned Thursday morning in Stoddard County, about 160 miles south of St. Louis, with bail set at $250,000. The former partner has tested positive for HIV, according to police.

Mangum, 36, told police that between 50 and 60 of his partners lived in Stoddard County, according to court records.

Knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent is a felony under Missouri law that can bring prison terms up to 15 years. Infecting someone can bring a life term.
http://us.cnn.com/2013/09/05/justice/missouri-hiv-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Lets put that into perspective. If I was in my car driving in a lane opposite yourself and made a conscious decision to intentionally veer into your lane and crash into you ...would I be excused from responsibility if you weren't wearing your seat belt?

The answer is of course no, lock this predator up.


..and that goes from heterosexual AIDS carriers as well.

 

But if you have unprotected sex with a random stranger, you have some personal responsibility don't you if you get some disease... right?

 

but he knew them by there first names only, it was true homo love by those others..

 

he knew that he had HIV. If he warned his partners, and they said to drive them home anyway, then there is no crime. If he did not inform them, then yes, he should be held accountable.

 

there is no personal responsibility in liberal la la land, such a thing is frowned upon as its well known that all of your problems are caused by someone else and you are always the victim.

 

Sure you do, you have the burden of the disease for the rest of your life.

 

Today's "Homos Gone Wild" thread...

I wonder how many heteros with an STD have unprotected sex with unknowing partners...

And yes, he should be prosecuted.

 

So you are agreeing that the victim isn't really a victim?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it his responsibility to disclose he has HIV?

 

I almost went with Homos gone wild !

 

The man has a life threatening disease in which there is no known cure. Yet, you’re questing why it is his reasonably?

 

Getting him off the street is probably the best solution since he's unable to contain (no pun intended) himself, especially if he Knew he was HIV+.

 

Sure he should be arrested. I don't see how this is any less criminally negligent than driving drunk.

 

i agree that you are trying to protect the psycho spreading aids. just as my point, you are not blaming the guy knowingly spreading the disease one bit, once again a case of liberals blaming someone else for his deed.

 

I'll agree with this. Gay men, especially, meeting up with strangers they meet online to have unprotected sex? One word: Darwinism. They're helping to clean up the human gene pool. At least, that's how it used to be. AIDS is a big issue in the gay community, which means it's a big issue to liberal Democrats, and money that could have gone towards fighting other diseases was spent on AIDS instead, to the point where it is no longer a fatal disease. It is now a "chronic condition" like multiple sclerosis, and takes about the same amount of time off someone's life. People get MS through no fault of their own, whereas most people with AIDS get it by engaging in the same reckless behavior described in the above article. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

 

If you have a dangerous open manhole, you should put up warning signs around it. Just saying..... To do otherwise is reckless. If you are reckless and cause human injury or death, you can be criminally and civilly liable.

 

What a dirtbag!

 

Now, it means decades of expensive drug cocktails and medical treatment. One way or another, everyone else is paying for it.

 

http://straightfromthea.com/2011/12...-after-knowingly-infecting-12-women-with-hiv/

Another thread that tells half a story.

 

Oh really? The other half of the story in the OP is this unrelated black pro-wrestler?

 

This one man contagion should move to San Francisco where the Gay Mafia runs the city and fought successfully to keep the bath houses open and screamed like banshees for more AIDS research money.

 

Execute him. how is this any different from walking around poking people with an infected needle?

 

I have zero sympathy for anyone who contracts HIV because they had unprotected sex with this guy. In this day and age you DO NOT DO THAT.......PERIOD. This also isn't the first time this happened as I have heard stories about people purposefully passing on HIV to other people years ago. There is no excuse for anyone that gets HIV from unprotected sex. You get what you deserve for being and idiot and I can only hope that those people never have kids they are current recipients of the Darwin award.

 

It took the Left's social revolution to let AIDS plague America.

 

This one is a little thicker and has veins. Also the injection site is different.