Orangeville police close investigation into claims person with HIV wasn’t disclosing condition prior to sexual activity

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2016 8:07 PM GMT


    Since that occurred, health unit officials have informed police that in the absence of a person with a positive HIV-antibody test coming forward to aid the investigation, further inquiries into the allegations can’t be pursued.

    "At this point, the police investigation has concluded," said Orangeville police Const. Scott Davis. "We have no further course of action."

    http://www.orangeville.com/news-story/6245175-orangeville-police-close-investigation-into-claims-person-with-hiv-wasn-t-disclosing-condition-prior/


    This seems to be the logical approach. Someone needs to be infected before any prosecution can take place. Whether they have tested POZ or not. Even then it should be a health care issue, not criminal.

    This part seems suspect" Investigators were called to an Orangeville home on Thursday (Jan. 14) where a local resident claimed a person had been sleeping with partners without informing them of the condition." How does that person even know? Was it a jealous ex? Retribution?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2016 5:10 PM GMT
    Of course this is the proper approach, and shows that the mere existence of a law allowing prosecution for infecting others with AIDS doesn't require the same. The police proceeded wisely here; the accuser(s), not at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2016 8:13 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidOf course this is the proper approach, and shows that the mere existence of a law allowing prosecution for infecting others with AIDS doesn't require the same. The police proceeded wisely here; the accuser(s), not at all.


    HIV exposure laws do not require actually HIV transmission.

    While "health unit officials have informed police that in the absence of a person with a positive HIV-antibody test coming forward to aid the investigation, further inquiries into the allegations can’t be pursued." that does not change the antiquated laws.

    It's wise that the police are heeding health officials opinions. What about cities or states that are not as enlightened? Hundreds have been incarcerated for simply being HIV. Without infecting anyone. While I applaud the health dept and the police above, as long as these laws are on the books they can be misused.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 12:16 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidOf course this is the proper approach, and shows that the mere existence of a law allowing prosecution for infecting others with AIDS doesn't require the same. The police proceeded wisely here; the accuser(s), not at all.


    HIV exposure laws do not require actually HIV transmission.

    While "health unit officials have informed police that in the absence of a person with a positive HIV-antibody test coming forward to aid the investigation, further inquiries into the allegations can’t be pursued." that does not change the antiquated laws.

    It's wise that the police are heeding health officials opinions. What about cities or states that are not as enlightened? Hundreds have been incarcerated for simply being HIV. Without infecting anyone. While I applaud the health dept and the police above, as long as these laws are on the books they can be misused.

    Just where exactly, and when? Cuba, the leftist Disneyland, comes most immediately to mind, but if you know of any contemporary US "cities or states" using these laws to do so, by all means list them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 2:04 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidOf course this is the proper approach, and shows that the mere existence of a law allowing prosecution for infecting others with AIDS doesn't require the same. The police proceeded wisely here; the accuser(s), not at all.


    HIV exposure laws do not require actually HIV transmission.

    While "health unit officials have informed police that in the absence of a person with a positive HIV-antibody test coming forward to aid the investigation, further inquiries into the allegations can’t be pursued." that does not change the antiquated laws.

    It's wise that the police are heeding health officials opinions. What about cities or states that are not as enlightened? Hundreds have been incarcerated for simply being HIV. Without infecting anyone. While I applaud the health dept and the police above, as long as these laws are on the books they can be misused.

    Just where exactly, and when? Cuba, the leftist Disneyland, comes most immediately to mind, but if you know of any contemporary US "cities or states" using these laws to do so, by all means list them.


    stupid and smug!! What a combo!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 2:22 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    This part seems suspect" Investigators were called to an Orangeville home on Thursday (Jan. 14) where a local resident claimed a person had been sleeping with partners without informing them of the condition." How does that person even know? Was it a jealous ex? Retribution?

    That may raise some interesting legal questions for US citizens, if this had occurred here rather than in Canada. Does the accused individual have the right to obtain the "tipster's" name, for possible action for libel? The US Constitution guarantees the right to face one's accuser, but is that only if a case proceeds to court? We see these "anonymous tip lines" for the police all over. But evidently this informer wasn't an anonymous voice on the phone, as the police got the information at the tipster's home.

    And would this qualify as libel, in the US or in Canada? It certainly must have caused this HIV+ man a great deal of stress and perhaps legal costs already. Was the identity of the accused protected in this process? Would it be protected in the US?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 3:08 AM GMT


    Estimates are at least 300 in the USA alone. I've heard 450, it could be more. These people were or are in prison purely for nondisclosure, no HIV transmission resulted.

    Imprisoned over HIV: One man's story


    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/health/criminalizing-hiv/

    Since then Rhoades has been freed and his record expunged. That great for him and the people of Iowa, what about the others?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 5:06 AM GMT
    Right, one (1) man's story. Where are the remaining 299-449? And, why so silent on Cuber? Probable answer: you're flaming out, don't have the facts to support your position, but persist in maintaining your right. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 5:35 AM GMT
    My take on the story is that the police and crown prosecutor simply realized they needed a victim to proceed. It's not much different from an investigation where they receive a tip that someone is a burglar; they need actionable evidence.

    Who knows what motivated the accuser? Could be a family member who know the person is HIV+ and has grounds to belueve they aren't disclosing it. The article clearly stated that, in Canada, the Supreme Court has already ruled a crime is committed in certain circumstances if the HIV+ person doesn't disclose their status even if the sex partner doesn't contract the disease.

    PS The OP put undue emphasis on the health authorities telling the police to drop the case. They don't make the call on whether to proceed to trial or even whether or not the police charge someone. They offered common sense advice, in this case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 6:36 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidRight, one (1) man's story. Where are the remaining 299-449? And, why so silent on Cuber? Probable answer: you're flaming out, don't have the facts to support your position, but persist in maintaining your right. icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you saw the video there are others. If you went to the web sites there are many others. For a prosecutor you are very uninformed. A real lawyer never asks a question they don't know the answer to.

    WTF does "Cuber" have to do with anything?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 7:47 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidRight, one (1) man's story. Where are the remaining 299-449? And, why so silent on Cuber? Probable answer: you're flaming out, don't have the facts to support your position, but persist in maintaining you're right. icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you saw the video there are others. If you went to the web sites there are many others. For a prosecutor you are very uninformed. A real lawyer never asks a question they don't know the answer to.

    WTF does "Cuber" have to do with anything?

    You're confusing cross-examination with your gross speculation; I didn't think you held a JD. So just where are these videos? Answer: you don't know, have no proof to support your claims - and don't even remember JFK's accent. You become more ridiculous with each new post. Keep it up! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 9:25 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidRight, one (1) man's story. Where are the remaining 299-449? And, why so silent on Cuber? Probable answer: you're flaming out, don't have the facts to support your position, but persist in maintaining you're right. icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you saw the video there are others. If you went to the web sites there are many others. For a prosecutor you are very uninformed. A real lawyer never asks a question they don't know the answer to.

    WTF does "Cuber" have to do with anything?

    You're confusing cross-examination with your gross speculation; I didn't think you held a JD. So just where are these videos? Answer: you don't know, have no proof to support your claims - and don't even remember JFK's accent. You become more ridiculous with each new post. Keep it up! icon_biggrin.gif


    "HIV IS NOT A CRIME" video is right above you insipid ostrich. Just because you don't look doesn't mean it's not there.


    HIV Is Not A Crime: Criminalizing It Is!

    "Jason Tafoya gave a very powerful speech about his son, who is currently serving time in prison for having sex with someone while living with HIV. Mr. Tafoya told us about the homophobic, HIV-phobic, ignorant ways his son has been treated since the day he was arrested. He spoke about his son being denied his medication while in jail, and how the family was actually happy when he was transferred to prison because he was guaranteed to have better health care in there. He spoke about the ways the police, the judge, and the prosecution discriminated against his son based on his status and the ignorant statements that were made. Mr. Tafoya’s son didn’t pass HIV to anyone, there was no transmission. He is in prison for having sex while living with HIV".

    http://www.hiveonline.org/hiv-is-not-a-crime-criminalizing-it-is/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 9:34 PM GMT
    In Texas in May 2008, a homeless man was sent to jail. He was convicted of committing a serious offence while being arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct – namely, harassing a public servant with a deadly weapon. Because of his past encounters with the law, the system ratcheted up the gravity of what he did, and he ended up being sentenced to 35 years in jail – of which he must serve at least half before he can apply for parole [1].

    The man had HIV. The 'deadly weapon' he used against the public servant was his saliva. He was jailed because he spat at the officers who were arresting him.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2635346/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 9:54 PM GMT
    "Rhoades’ is not an isolated case. Over the last decade, there have been at least 541 cases in which people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, criminal charges for not disclosing that they were HIV-positive, according to a ProPublica analysis of records from 19 states. The national tally is surely higher, because at least 35 states have laws that specifically criminalize exposing another person to HIV. In 29 states, it is a felony. None of the laws require transmission to occur.

    Defendants in these cases were often sentenced to years — sometimes decades — in prison, even when they used a condom or took other precautions against infecting their partners. In 60 cases for which extensive documentation could be obtained, ProPublica found just four involving complainants who actually became infected with HIV. Even in such cases, it can be hard to prove who transmitted the virus without genetic tests matching the accused’s HIV strain to their accuser’s.

    People with HIV have even done time for spitting, scratching or biting. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spitting and scratching cannot transmit HIV, and transmission through biting “is very rare and involves very specific circumstances” — namely, “severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood.”

    http://www.propublica.org/article/hiv-criminal-transmission
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2016 10:11 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidRight, one (1) man's story. Where are the remaining 299-449? And, why so silent on Cuber? Probable answer: you're flaming out, don't have the facts to support your position, but persist in maintaining your right. icon_rolleyes.gif



    n'est–ce pas? I am right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2016 9:01 AM GMT
    You protest a lot about this. I am starting to be concerned it is out of self interest. You advocate for a complete abolition of laws which act as a deterrent to those HIV poz people who do not take responsibility for not passing on their infection. I do think in jurisdictions where a victim is not required, the law should be adjusted, but abolished is only going to diminish the responsibility of HIV poz people taking appropriate steps to reduce risk to the public.

    If for eg. judges had authority under laws that do not require a victim to force the defendant to attend regular treatment, how would that be a bad thing. Also the very heart of your arguement has been for 12 months at least that a person HIV status is their own business, which is how it should be in Employment, Health, Housing ect. as the risks to public health are not relavent. However if you engage in sexual acts and do not disclose nor take the community/legally accepted form of Safe Sex (condoms; I know you hate them but Gillead your employer will forgive you if you agree their good once or twice).

    How do you come to the conclusion that removing deterrents which are together with increased access to testing a affordable treatment as a package (none on their own though) and encouragement to (gag the likes of you) and revert to proper use of condoms plus Prep, make the 2020 HIV free community possible. Unfortunately people like you demonstrate you have a self interested hate inspired agenda to partially accept the full package of measures, but really your just cherry picking according to your own BB fettish of which you clearly wish to see spread
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2016 5:16 PM GMT
    Sydney, it's simple: If undetectable and/or use condoms, and no infection, no one should be in jail.