1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News HIV-Positive gay men targeted by St. Louis County Police

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Aldrick, Jul 23, 2015.

Thread Tools

Thread Tools

Page 1 of 2
  1. Aldrick

    Aldrick
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    The article came from here.

    Okay, let's set aside the fact that he allegedly did not disclose his status. Of course, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Instead, let's look at what the cops were doing.

    In order to do this, the cops had to purposefully setup a sting operation on hookup sites and likely apps as well. They were pretending to be gay men who were interested in having sex with other men. They then would meet with them, and encourage them to disclose their HIV status. Then after that disclosure, they had to demand that they submit to testing to prove whether or not they were HIV Positive. If they were then they were arrested.

    Okay, first of all this isn't a crime. Second of all, this is a very transparent attempt to intimidate and harass gay men, particularly closeted gay men. They can no longer go after us for violating sodomy laws, which the SCOTUS struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. So now they are relying on HIV phobia to do the same thing. If you are positive with HIV they get to arrest you, and get to force you out of the closet if you are not already out. Now, the entire community not only knows that you are gay but that you are also HIV positive. Congratulations, double stigma.

    Anyone who is hooking up through apps or websites should be taking reasonable precautions that will protect them against HIV anyway, so disclosure--while obviously desirable--is not really necessary. Every sane gay man knows that if you are doing random hookups with strangers, that you cannot and you should not trust that they are going to tell you the truth about their status. Hell, even when you do trust people and are in a committed relationship you should continue to play safe. It is not just the responsibility of the HIV positive person to play safe, it is the responsibility of everyone. Because the cop did not actually have sex with him, we don't know if he was intentionally trying to expose people to HIV. For all we know, he could have insisted, and even demanded that a condom be used and safety precautions taken. He could have done all of this without disclosing his status, thus ensuring the protection of his sex partner. There is no law that requires HIV positive people to admit their status.

    The cops are targeting gay men. What they are counting on is HIV phobia in the gay community from keeping us from coming to the defense of such men swept up in their entrapment operations. They can lie and say it is about protecting the gay community, but this is bullshit. They are actively seeking to harass and intimidate the gay community in general, and in particular the most vulnerable: those in the closet and those with HIV.
     
    #1 Aldrick, Jul 23, 2015
  2. Aldrick

    Aldrick
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    Holy crap. No one even finds this remotely unsettling?
     
    #2 Aldrick, Jul 24, 2015
  3. DreamerBoy17

    DreamerBoy17
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    United States
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    That's awful. I can't believe in this day and age, gay men are still being targeted by the police like this.
     
    #3 DreamerBoy17, Jul 24, 2015
  4. ErickWolf

    ErickWolf
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Virginia, US
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Those cops were specifically seeking out guys like that to out them. Between the half-mast flag incident and this, Missouri is quickly becoming a state I don't want to visit. "Missouri: The Bigot State."
     
    #4 ErickWolf, Jul 24, 2015
  5. kageshiro

    kageshiro Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    in your soul
    hmm, but on the flip side if he was HIV positive and having sex with uninformed partners, I don't feel sympathy for him. You have to be the worst person in the world to do that.
     
    #5 kageshiro, Jul 24, 2015
  6. Aldrick

    Aldrick
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    The thing is we don't know that is true. First, he may not have even known he was HIV positive. Second, we don't know if the police are lying. Since they were actively setting up a entrapment operation to target and out gay men (just as they did prior to Lawrence v. Texas), we don't know if they were just testing every guy they came into contact with to see if he had HIV so they had the pre-text to do this.

    There is a huge population of gay men who don't know that they are HIV positive out there. So it is conceivably possible that he found out he had HIV when the test the cops obviously had to run came back. Of course, they then proceeded to arrest him, which means that not only his sexuality but his HIV status is outed to his family, friends, and the entire world.

    Also, even if we just outright assume guilt on his part, it is an ethical breech and not illegal. He broke no laws, and yet right now he is in jail with a $50,000 cash-only bail. It is unlikely that he will be able to pay, which means he will remain behind bars until his trial... which could take who knows how long, and will ultimately be thrown out since he broke no laws.
     
    #6 Aldrick, Jul 25, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2015
  7. RainDreamer

    RainDreamer
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too unsettling that I have no word for it.
     
    #7 RainDreamer, Jul 25, 2015
  8. BobObob

    BobObob
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The pre-conviction punishments people receive in America is messes up. The accused will usually have to pay ~10% of the bail to get a bail bond, so the $50,000 bail is really a $5,000 file he has to pay to get out of jail (relevant clip from Last Week Tonight). Some people who don't get bailed out really quickly lose their jobs because of the pre-trial incarceration. I think that bail should usually not be imposed on people with only non-violent charges and no prior convictions.

    If he did go to trial he will have lots of expenses in fighting the charges. There are reasons why the vast majority of criminal defendants do NOT take cases to trial. Instead, nearly everyone (~95-98%) is convicted via "plea bargain". If he doesn't want an assigned public defender, he has to pay through the nose for a decent lawyer unless he's lucky enough to get someone to do pro-bono work for him.

    Also, the system is set up to sentence those who are convicted via trial to more severe punishment that those who accept a plea bargain. Legally, this isn't suppose to happen, but with prosecutors offering punishments much less severe than the recommended sentence for plea bargains, the system is structured in such a way that it effectively does happen. Prosecutors will typically stack up all possible charges when going to trial.

    The fact that police outed him to everyone as both gay(or bi) and HIV positive is also messed up pre-trial punishment.
     
    #8 BobObob, Jul 25, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2015
  9. MysteriousMadam

    MysteriousMadam Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New York
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This might be completely unrelated. But this reminds of the 80's when gay men are accused of "creating" HIV/AIDS and were targeted and stereotyped by the public and the police as well. I don't know why, but that's the first thing the article reminded me of because I researched that whole thing back in 8th grade. It's very sad, the whole situation :/
     
    #9 MysteriousMadam, Jul 25, 2015
  10. Chip

    Chip
    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,559
    Likes Received:
    4,757
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    My stance is a bit different. I have a friend, P, who started a relationship with a guy, J. P was into safer sex and regularly insisted on condoms. J was extremely persuasive, saying he was negative and would never do anything to hurt P, and he "liked the intimacy" of barebacking. P reluctantly agreed. A few days after they started having sex, P was at J's apartment, and went into the bathroom and noticed antiviral medications (this was long before PrEP). He questioned J, but J's story kept changing. Eventually, J admitted he was HIV+, but claimed it had 'just happened' and he was 'still dealing with it'.

    P became HIV+ as a direct result of his exposure to J (and, of course, his stupidity in agreeing to bareback.) And further investigation showed that J had been HIV+ for more than 2 years, and was widely known for convincing young guys to bareback with him, and having hundred of bareback hookups, and never disclosing his status. He likely singlehandedly infected dozens of people.

    People like J are the scum of the earth. They are so self-centered that they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves, and all because they're too selfish to wear a condom that, properly used, cannot even be felt. Yes, there's stigma for people who are HIV+. And with few exceptions, people who are HIV+ got that way through their own bad choices, so unfortunately, they have to live with the consequencees and stigma of their choices.

    There are an awful lot of people like J. and quite frankly, there isn't much way to catch them other than operations like this. If people didn't lie about their status, and didn't selfishly think of themselves rather than considering the costs of their actions on others, these sorts of actions would not be necessary.

    It's unfortunate that those who are HIV+ and are good citizens get lumped in with the losers like J in situations like these. But that can be minimized. It should not be that difficult to verify whether or not someone knew they were positive... Medical records, searches of social media where people commonly talk about such things, interviews with friends, etc.

    Sometimes I think people are a little too quick to pull out the persecution flag. At the least, these sorts of operations might send a messsage to the assholes like J and discourage the behavior.
     
    #10 Chip, Jul 25, 2015
  11. BobObob

    BobObob
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Those who know they are HIV positive, deceive others about their HIV status, and have bareback sex with them are scum. But in this case, so far as I know, there's no evidence that the accused knew he was HIV positive and no evidence that he intended to have unsafe sex. Those are the two most important aspects to the alleged crime.

    Whether or not he knew he was HIV positive and intended to have bareback sex, he is person is being punished long before any trial begins. He has already had his name published along with the fact that he's an HIV+ man who is interested in sex with other men. He is being judged in the court of public opinion long before he has a fair trial in a real court. In fact, if his case is like most criminal cases in America, he'll probably end up convicted via “plea bargain” without any trial, regardless of whether or not he's guilty, since many innocent people agree to plea bargains to avoid the lengthy1 and expensive trial process and to avoid stacked charges2.

    Something needs to be done about people maliciously, selfishly, and recklessly spreading diseases, especially ones that are lifelong and life changing. However, given all that pre-trial punishment for cases like this, I would consider these charges to be an injustice unless law enforcement already found clear and convincing evidence via medical records, social media, interviews with acquaintances, etc before charging him.

    1 As an example of how lengthy the trial process can be, I served on a jury for a criminal case involving misdemeanor child endangerment/attempted DUI for an alleged crime that happened over a year earlier. We ended deliberations hung on all counts, and so far as I can tell she hasn't been re-charged. Although the actual trial itself from jury selection through deliberations was only 6 in-court days, it took over a year, possibly multiple years if it still hasn't been resolved by now, for the case to go through the system.

    2 Regarding Stacking charges, the defendant in the case I was a juror on faced up to 21 months in jail for the 4 overlapping misdemeanor charges she faced: Child endangerment, attempted child endangerment, attempted DUI, and public intoxication. Had she taken a plea bargain, I think she probably would have only faced a conviction of one or two of those on her record, rehab, probation, and maybe a jail sentence of less than a month.

    If you happen to have 18 minutes of free time, that clip I posted from Last Week Tonight on bail is worth a watch.

    ---------- Post added 25th Jul 2015 at 03:01 PM ----------
    For comparison, here is an example of someone who got only 5 days in jail, a dropped child endangerment charge, and minimum fines for taking a plea deal. That's a lot less than 21 month of jail and $2,000 in fines that my defendant could've been sentenced to.
     
    #11 BobObob, Jul 25, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2015
  12. Chip

    Chip
    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,559
    Likes Received:
    4,757
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    You make good points.

    And there's an additional piece that I didn't address above: With some exceptions, most everyone that is having hookups on craigslist or elsewhere are broken people who are trying to get something (connection, love, attention) they didn't get earlier in life. Self-esteem is often in the shitter, and these people may have not been willing to ask for what they needed (i.e., insist on using condoms) for fear the person would leave... because their shame was so difficult. So at some level, they deserve compassion, but they also need to be held accountable for their actions regardless of what drives the behavior.

    I also agree that the system is really broken and there's no parity between charges for different types of crimes.

    It's complicated. I do think the intent of these actions is more about public health and safety than it is a veiled attempt to act out homophobia against gay people.
     
    #12 Chip, Jul 25, 2015
  13. BobObob

    BobObob
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    That was the initial impression I got when I saw the story and didn't think about it much. However, given the fact that (so far as I know) they charged him without any evidence that he either knew he was HIV positive or that he intended on having bareback sex, it's not far-fetched to suspect that homophobia played a role in the decision to charge him.

    While prosecutors should scrupulously ensure that no one is publicly charged unless there is clear and convincing evidence of guilt, they should be especially scrupulous in a cases like this in which the charges themselves out someone. So far as I know, they weren't. That, in itself, is an injustice even if convincing evidence found later demonstrates that he really was guilty of attempting to have bareback sex with a man while knowing he was HIV positive.

    Of course, I keep saying for all I know, because it's certainly possible that there's more to the story than what I've found online, and that law enforcement in St. Louis County really were scrupulous (although I have my doubts).
     
    #13 BobObob, Jul 25, 2015
  14. WeirdnessMagnet

    WeirdnessMagnet
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klein sexuality bottle
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Another point is that this sting apparently targeted gay men specifically. And the "straight" version of this kind of sting almost always is a sideline to a prostitution sting and thus almost exclusively targets women.

    A straight man, even if he does the exact same things J. from Chip's post did has zero chance of ever being brought to the court over it, and any serious effort to catch straight men like him via a sting operation would cost a fortune and, I suspect, wouldn't be exactly well-received by the voters.

    So, while it's necessary to do something about people like him, I don't think it's a job for the police to do it.
     
    #14 WeirdnessMagnet, Jul 26, 2015
  15. Cider

    Cider
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Iowa
    They aren't targeting gay men.

    They go on Craigslist and try to fish out people that are either HIV+ or underage, and this happens with straight people too
     
    #15 Cider, Jul 26, 2015
  16. BobObob

    BobObob
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The police did not know he was HIV positive when they agreed to meet him. The police did not know he was HIV positive until after he consented to being tested after they met. As far as I know, the police knew very little about him other than the fact that he's interested in men before they agreed to meet.

    Here's another thing to consider: Why would he consent to being tested for HIV (meaning he could've chose not to be tested by the police) if he knew he was HIV positive? While some people are intimidated into giving police consent to do things that find incriminating evidence, it makes a lot more sense for someone who believes they're HIV negative to consent to being tested by law enforcement.

    Side note: In general, for legal reasons it's best to not consent to anything with law enforcement except for a speeding ticket, even if you think you're innocent.
     
    #16 BobObob, Jul 26, 2015
  17. Tightrope

    Tightrope
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    5,415
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yes. It is unsettling. I saw this earlier and didn't comment. I might believe this story in some back waters kind of place, but St. Louis, a city???

    Did they say what sex act was being proposed? Oral sex, in most cases, does not transmit the virus. Other ways to get off should not transmit the virus.

    This is gross on 2 levels - that they targeted this man because of his demographics and that his HIV status is now public knowledge.

    And one of my past complaints here has fallen on deaf ears. If a person is carted off to prison, I believe it's important to know the HIV status of those in there. The last thing I would want is for someone to be subjected to non-consensual sex in prison and turning up HIV + as a result of it. That's just plain wrong yet I'd be willing to wager it has happened.

    ---------- Post added 26th Jul 2015 at 04:04 PM ----------
    Very good advice and worth noting.
     
    #17 Tightrope, Jul 26, 2015
  18. Cider

    Cider
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Iowa
    You do give good points. Maybe the police are targeting gay people. Maybe they're specifically targeting HIV positive gay people. And maybe he actually didn't know that he was HIV positive when he agreed to meet up.

    But here's another thing, maybe the police went after this particular guy because he's been accused of stuff in the past? And why would someone have sex without knowing their HIV status?

    I'm sorry, but it's extremely hard for me to feel sympathy towards this person, after seeing one of my neighbors die from someone that knowingly infected him with HIV. People should treat everyone that they meet like they're HIV positive, (by always using protection) and HIV positive people should also disclose their status before having sex with someone, especially if it's unprotected.

    I think this story is a good lesson to everyone, whether HIV positive or negative.
     
    #18 Cider, Jul 26, 2015
  19. Sarii

    Sarii
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Boonies (halp)
    Ok but for real, there isn't a law that says you have to tell your partner you have HIV in Missouri? You can just lie about that? I don't really believe you have to tell your co-workers but the person you're gonna sex with?!
     
    #19 Sarii, Jul 26, 2015
  20. BobObob

    BobObob
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Emphasis added to the "maybe"s. Maybe he knew he was HIV positive or maybe not. Criminal prosecution should not be based off of maybe's. It should be based off of convincing evidence. Maybe he's been accused of this stuff in the past, but maybe not.

    If he didn't know that he was HIV positive, then he shouldn't be charged. If he was charged in spite of there being no clear and convincing evidence to support that he was HIV positive, then charging him was unjust. It's unjust because merely charging him with this crime, even if he's never convicted in a court of law, subjects him to a lot of punishment.

    If I were on a jury, and the prosecutor didn't present any more evidence than what is contained in the articles I've found on the case, it would be an easy decision for me to acquit him. However, being acquitted does not mean he isn't punished by the system, or acquitted in the court of public opinion.

    Perhaps because they only engage in low-risk sex, and they don't want to get tested every single time they have sex. Unless you've been celibate for several months, it's nearly impossible to know with absolute 100% certainty that you're HIV-. My understanding is that it takes 3 months for the HIV to reach detectable levels in the blood, and it's possible (although a lot less likely) to get HIV while using protection. So unless you haven't had sex in 3 months, it's impossible to absolutely know you're HIV negative.
     
    #20 BobObob, Jul 26, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2015
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2