American Star reveals he has HIV

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Did she know she had the infection then. I thought she was only diagnosed after she got home.

Well she must have suspected. She'd been treating people with Ebola FFS.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well she must have suspected. She'd been treating people with Ebola FFS.

She was working in a third world country where people. especially people not used to such conditions often get ill with many diseases, not just ebola..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She was working in a third world country where people. especially people not used to such conditions often get ill with many diseases, not just ebola..

Come off it.  Quite frankly, the whole thing was absurd - it's such a risky business anyway.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Come off it.  Quite frankly, the whole thing was absurd - it's such a risky business anyway.

The only absurd thing here is you comparing a nurse who went over to a third world country to try to save lives, to a sex mad morally depraved arsehole who thought he could play Russian roulette with peoples lives when he slept with them without divulging the fact he was HIV.

eddie wrote:To be really honest and very simply put, I think it's a definite sign of bad characters to deliberately not tell someone you have a potentially infectious deadly disease - come on Rags!

If my daughter was full of cold, but felt well and asked me to go to nursery, I'd respect  other mothers and their children and not send her.
It's kind of like a on unwritten rule that you wouldn't let your child cough and splutter all over other children.

What Sheen did was despicable actually; he wilfully had unprotected sex knowing he was infected.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The only absurd thing here is you comparing a nurse who went over to a third world country to try to save lives, to a sex mad morally depraved arsehole who thought he could play Russian roulette with peoples lives when he slept with them without divulging the fact he was HIV.

The intention of the nurse is not the issue. I don't suppose Charlie Sheen intended to pass on the HIV virus either. If he was morally depraved, so were the prostitutes and the people who blackmailed him.

Quite honestly, I think that if none of these women are HIV positive, they should thank their lucky stars and move on. Lessons have been learnt I'm sure.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:To be really honest and very simply put, I think it's a definite sign of bad characters to deliberately not tell someone you have a potentially infectious deadly disease - come on Rags!

If my daughter was full of cold, but felt well and asked me to go to nursery, I'd respect  other mothers and their children and not send her.
It's kind of like a on unwritten rule that you wouldn't let your child cough and splutter all over other children.

What Sheen did was despicable actually; he wilfully had unprotected sex knowing he was infected.

But he says that the women knew he was infected. We shall see. At the moment it's his word against their word. Two of his exes have tested negative, so they should move on IMO.

Loads of people go out with colds and infect other people, but we don't sue them. Sometimes I think they should be sued - especially when they have a cold a couple of weeks before Christmas and infect others a few days beforehand.  

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The intention of the nurse is not the issue. I don't suppose Charlie Sheen intended to pass on the HIV virus either. If he was morally depraved, so were the prostitutes and the people who blackmailed him.

Quite honestly, I think that if none of these women are HIV positive, they should thank their lucky stars and move on. Lessons have been learnt I'm sure.

I'm sure lessons have been learned.... probably not by him though if the self pitying interview he gave is   anything to go by.
Hopefully no one else  has been infected by his behaviour....I still think he had better start saving up for all the law suits that will surely come his way though.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But he says that the women knew he was infected. We shall see. At the moment it's his word against their word. Two of his exes have tested negative, so they should move on IMO.

Loads of people go out with colds and infect other people, but we don't sue them. Sometimes I think they should be sued - especially when they have a cold a couple of weeks before Christmas and infect others a few days beforehand.  

That's Sod's law biting you in the arse

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm sure lessons have been learned.... probably not by him though if the self pitying interview he gave is   anything to go by.
Hopefully no one else  has been infected by his behaviour....I still think he had better start saving up for all the law suits that will surely come his way though.

I thought it was a good interview.

I see you approve of the pound sign in eyes business.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought it was a good interview.

I see you approve of the pound sign in eyes business.

It was a good interview, I thought the interviewer asked all the right questions.

The American court system is often centred around multi million dollar settlements.....if/when he is sued my opinion matters not a jot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It was a good interview, I thought the interviewer asked all the right questions.

The American court system is often centred around multi million dollar settlements.....if/when he is sued my opinion matters not a jot.

Like I said - it's the country where you can sue for something that didn't actually happen. Fancy putting yourself through a court case when you don't even have HIV. Still, I expect it might be worth it to them financially - if he's got any money left that is.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Like I said - it's the country where you can sue for something that didn't actually happen. Fancy putting yourself through a court case when you don't even have HIV. Still, I expect it might be worth it to them financially - if he's got any money left that is.

Well according to him he has jobs lined up and  is demand.....course, that's if you believe anything he says now.

Syl wrote:Hundreds of thousands of people have proved that though....without all the unsavoury stuff that he has brought with him.

Yes he looks OK dressed.

Stormee wrote:If anyone has sex with someone when they know said person has such a disease they are nuts.

Sheen may have gone with women but the women go with their spouses, boyfriends and every Tom, Dick, Aala and Abdul these days.

Syl wrote:What this sorry saga may do (hopefully) is once more bring home to people that they should protect themselves if they sleep about.
I remember when the AIDS virus was first in the news ....I knew of a couple of people who would not sleep with a new partner till they had been tested and had documentation to prove they were clear.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've been reading about Bree Olson, one of his ex girlfriends. She's saying that now when people hear her name, they'll think of HIV. It might help if she wasn't giving interviews about not being HIV positive.

She says that her more recent exes think she's given them HIV, and she's getting nasty messages on Twitter. I don't think he can be blamed for that really.

She says he never told her, but he wasn't diagnosed until after they broke up apparently. He should have told her when he found out really, but I don't think she can sue him for not doing so, and I don't think she's planning to do so.  

Syl wrote:What this sorry saga may do (hopefully) is once more bring home to people that they should protect themselves if they sleep about.
I remember when the AIDS virus was first in the news ....I knew of a couple of people who would not sleep with a new partner till they had been tested and had documentation to prove they were clear.

Stormee wrote:

Syl wrote:What this sorry saga may do (hopefully) is once more bring home to people that they should protect themselves if they sleep about.
I remember when the AIDS virus was first in the news ....I knew of a couple of people who would not sleep with a new partner till they had been tested and had documentation to prove they were clear.

Protecting themselves ain't that easy, you can get infected by saliva, gonna regret saying that.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've been reading about Bree Olson, one of his ex girlfriends. She's saying that now when people hear her name, they'll think of HIV. It might help if she wasn't giving interviews about not being HIV positive.

She says that her more recent exes think she's given them HIV, and she's getting nasty messages on Twitter. I don't think he can be blamed for that really.

She says he never told her, but he wasn't diagnosed until after they broke up apparently. He should have told her when he found out really, but I don't think she can sue him for not doing so, and I don't think she's planning to do so.  

Of course he should have told her, the fact that they had broken up is immaterial...going by the dates .he was probably infected when they were together, even if he wasn't aware of it.
HAD she been infected by him she could have passed it on to God knows who, all exes should be told.

Syl wrote:

Stormee wrote:

Protecting themselves ain't that easy, you can get infected by saliva, gonna regret saying that.

But the point is IF you are with someone who is infected you take all the precautions you can.
If you don't know a person is infected you cant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:What this sorry saga may do (hopefully) is once more bring home to people that they should protect themselves if they sleep about.
I remember when the AIDS virus was first in the news ....I knew of a couple of people who would not sleep with a new partner till they had been tested and had documentation to prove they were clear.

It might actually do some good. Another famous person who's now willing to talk about it might help - a heterosexual one too. I did read he thinks he got it from a transsexual, which I presume means a male person, so perhaps it won't help.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

But the point is IF you are with someone who is infected you take all the precautions you can.
If you don't know a person is infected you cant.

You should anyway really. You can't tell if someone has HIV by looking at them.

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps he could now sue the ones who blackmailed him and get his money back ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course he should have told her, the fact that they had broken up is immaterial...going by the dates .he was probably infected when they were together, even if he wasn't aware of it.
HAD she been infected by him she could have passed it on to God knows who, all exes should be told.

Yes, but if he wasn't aware that he was infected, he couldn't be sued for not telling her at the time. It would have been nice of him to tell her later so she could tested, but she wouldn't be able to sue him.

eddie wrote:To be really honest and very simply put, I think it's a definite sign of bad characters to deliberately not tell someone you have a potentially infectious deadly disease - come on Rags!

If my daughter was full of cold, but felt well and asked me to go to nursery, I'd respect  other mothers and their children and not send her.
It's kind of like a on unwritten rule that you wouldn't let your child cough and splutter all over other children.

What Sheen did was despicable actually; he wilfully had unprotected sex knowing he was infected.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You should anyway really. You can't tell if someone has HIV by looking at them.

No exactly, that's why people should be open.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps he could now sue the ones who blackmailed him and get his money back ...

In California, where he lives, you can't be prosecuted for infecting another unless it can be proved you intended the infection.  Very difficult to prove unless there is an admission--of the intent, not the fact.

Blackmail is a criminal offense, related to extortion.  Those who blackmailed him will probably face prosecution.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but if he wasn't aware that he was infected, he couldn't be sued for not telling her at the time. It would have been nice of him to tell her later so she could tested, but she wouldn't be able to sue him.

I think you are right....he cant be sued for not telling her something he didn't know himself.

After they had split and he found out, he should have told her obviously....I doubt whether he could be sued for that though.

However just say she HAD been infected and went on to unknowingly infect others.....it could become even more complicated.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No exactly, that's why people should be open.

And why people should be careful.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:To be really honest and very simply put, I think it's a definite sign of bad characters to deliberately not tell someone you have a potentially infectious deadly disease - come on Rags!

If my daughter was full of cold, but felt well and asked me to go to nursery, I'd respect  other mothers and their children and not send her.
It's kind of like a on unwritten rule that you wouldn't let your child cough and splutter all over other children.

What Sheen did was despicable actually; he wilfully had unprotected sex knowing he was infected.

Which is not criminal.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps he could now sue the ones who blackmailed him and get his money back ...

In California, where he lives, you can't be prosecuted for infecting another unless it can be proved you intended the infection.  Very difficult to prove unless there is an admission--of the intent, not the fact.

Blackmail is a criminal offense, related to extortion.  Those who blackmailed him will probably face prosecution.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In California, where he lives, you can't be prosecuted for infecting another unless it can be proved you intended the infection.  Very difficult to prove unless there is an admission--of the intent, not the fact.

Blackmail is a criminal offense, related to extortion.  Those who blackmailed him will probably face prosecution.

In California can you be sued for not telling a sexual partner you are infected?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And why people should be careful.

Sometimes a long term partner messes around and infects an innocent partner....not everything is black and white.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Sometimes a long term partner messes around and infects an innocent partner....not everything is black and white.

Innocent as in doesn't "deserve" HIV?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

In California can you be sued for not telling a sexual partner you are infected?

Yes, civil liability depends upon what duty is owed.  That in turn depends on the facts.

In criminal law, the duty is specified in a statute.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In California, where he lives, you can't be prosecuted for infecting another unless it can be proved you intended the infection.  Very difficult to prove unless there is an admission--of the intent, not the fact.

Blackmail is a criminal offense, related to extortion.  Those who blackmailed him will probably face prosecution.

So far, he doesn't appear to have infected anyone. Can you be sued there for not telling someone about your HIV status, regardless of whether or not they get infected?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, civil liability depends upon what duty is owed.  That in turn depends on the facts.

In criminal law, the duty is specified in a statute.

Thanks. In the interview it was said in 35 states it's against the law not to inform....so presumably in the others it's not against the law.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So far, he doesn't appear to have infected anyone. Can you be sued there for not telling someone about your HIV status, regardless of whether or not they get infected?

You can be sued for anything, it depends upon the facts.  Civil liability has a flexible theory of duty.  Criminal liability must involve intent to infect.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can be sued for anything, it depends upon the facts.  Civil liability has a flexible theory of duty.  Criminal liability must involve intent to infect.

So knowing you are infected and having unprotected sex without informing your partner you are infected .....whether or not the person is infected or not after the encounter....could that be described as 'criminal intent'?

Exposing someone to HIV is a felony only if intent to infect that individual can be proven, as stated in California Health and Safety Code Section 120291: “Any person who exposes another to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or eight years. Evidence that the person had knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, shall not be sufficient to prove specific intent.”

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

So knowing you are infected and having unprotected sex without informing your partner you are infected .....whether or not the person is infected or not after the encounter....could that be described as 'criminal intent'?

I would guess, No.  I think the act is criminal, regardless of the consequences.  The difficult part is showing intent...it can't be inferred.  That's why I say it practically has to be an admission.  Anyway, something that shows that's why you were doing the fookin' with that particular person.