Texan gets 45 years for spreading HIV through sex

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    May 29, 2009 7:47 PM GMT
    AP



    McKINNEY, Texas (AP) - A jury sentenced a suburban Dallas man to 45 years in prison Friday for knowingly infecting six women with the AIDS virus.

    Philippe Padieu, described by his own lawyer as a "modern-day Casanova," shook his head and looked down when the decision was read. Jurors sentenced him to 45 years on five counts and 25 years on the sixth, to be served concurrently. Padieu had faced up to 99 years.

    The Collin County jury convicted 53-year-old Padieu (pah-DOO') on Wednesday on six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Since HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, prosecutors contended Padieu's bodily fluids were a deadly weapon.

    Padieu is a former martial arts instructor who continued to have unprotected sex after he tested positive for HIV in 2005.

    Assistant District Attorney Lisa King in Collin County told jurors earlier Friday that Padieu deserved a life sentence.

    But defense attorney Bennie House said Padieu may have made mistakes as a "modern-day Casanova," but did not intentionally spread the virus. He said a 20-year sentence would be fair.

    Jurors heard testimony was Thursday in the punishment phase, including from women who described the harm that the HIV diagnosis had done them.

    Padieu himself also took the stand, saying he was a victim of overzealous prosecutors. He said the women who accused him had all had multiple partners.







    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98G3H0G0&show_article=1

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

    May 29, 2009 9:48 PM GMT

    I think if it can be proven that a person knew they were positive and had "unprotected" sex with someone, they should do prison time, now how much is debatable: should it be considered assualt with a deadly weapon or just battery, but it should be something. Since AIDS is really the only deadly disease that can be spread through sex with the infected person's complete knowledge, this is a new occurance, but laws are flexible for this very reason. My personal opinion is, reducing the spread of the deadly disease should be a shared societal responsiblity. This person infected 6 people who could go on to infect six more apiece and so on. He has caused suffering the same way one does if they yell "fire" in a crouded theatre or rob a bank. For this reason, infecting with prior knowledge should be an offense unto itself instead of being stapled onto some existing offense. The added knowlege that he knew the women had multiple partners compounds his gult, not reduces it. He knew full well he wasn't only infecting them, but also their multiple partners and their partners.

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

    May 29, 2009 9:51 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    I think if it can be proven that a person knew they were positive and had "unprotected" sex with someone, they should do prison time, now how much is debatable: should it be considered assualt with a deadly weapon or just battery, but it should be something. Since AIDS is really the only deadly disease that can be spread through sex with the infected person's complete knowledge, this is a new occurance, but laws are flexible for this very reason. My personal opinion is, reducing the spread of the deadly disease should be a shared societal responsiblity. This person infected 6 people who could go on to infect six more apiece and so on. He has caused suffering the same way one does if they yell "fire" in a crouded theatre or rob a bank. For this reason, infecting with prior knowledge should be an offense unto itself instead of being stapled onto some existing offense. The added knowlege that he knew the women had multiple partners compounds his gult, not reduces it. He knew full well he wasn't only infecting them, but also their multiple partners and their partners.





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

    May 29, 2009 9:56 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    I think if it can be proven that a person knew they were positive and had "unprotected" sex with someone, they should do prison time, now how much is debatable: should it be considered assualt with a deadly weapon or just battery, but it should be something. Since AIDS is really the only deadly disease that can be spread through sex with the infected person's complete knowledge, this is a new occurance, but laws are flexible for this very reason. My personal opinion is, reducing the spread of the deadly disease should be a shared societal responsiblity. This person infected 6 people who could go on to infect six more apiece and so on. He has caused suffering the same way one does if they yell "fire" in a crouded theatre or rob a bank. For this reason, infecting with prior knowledge should be an offense unto itself instead of being stapled onto some existing offense. The added knowlege that he knew the women had multiple partners compounds his gult, not reduces it. He knew full well he wasn't only infecting them, but also their multiple partners and their partners.



    Yup! what he said, if you knowingly cause harm. You should be held accountable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 10:40 PM GMT
    As far as finding out when he had it well I know that in Texas once the test is positive it will be informed to the state of Texas of the status. So there isn't anyway of getting around that.

    I would like to know why the women thought it was okay to have unprotected sex with or without having multiple partners. I am not saying that he was right or wrong but some blame does need to be put on these women who were obviously not raped and made a decision on what they did. In this day and age people need to know the consequences and realize that just because the law says they are of age to have sex they may not be mature enough to actually have it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 10:58 PM GMT
    Not advocating or railing against anything here, but, I wonder what would happen if it was proven that someone knowingly gave someone a different disease.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 11:07 PM GMT
    McGay saidNot advocating or railing against anything here, but, I wonder what would happen if it was proven that someone knowingly gave someone a different disease.


    Interesting question McGay. And to use a high profile example, would people be reacting differently if Tommy Lee gave Pam Anderson HIV instead of Hep C? In either case I think the consequences should be the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 11:11 PM GMT
    McGay saidNot advocating or railing against anything here, but, I wonder what would happen if it was proven that someone knowingly gave someone a different disease.


    How many years for passing a cold virus?
    Herpes? (Edit: quick-fingers GS beat me to that one)
    Does it become less of a crime as AIDS becomes a more manageable condition? (with breakthroughs in drugs and research)

    Wasn't some guy recently quarantined against his will for flying with an untreatable contagion?

    Ambitious Lawyer Alert: there's a potential spotlight here.
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    May 29, 2009 11:21 PM GMT
    I have no problem with his prison sentence for being held accountable for the harm he did to these women, but as it was said before the women could have easily prevented their own situation and I am curious to know if this was brought up in the trial.

    Additionally, the point of "The added knowlege that he knew the women had multiple partners compounds his gult, not reduces it. He knew full well he wasn't only infecting them, but also their multiple partners and their partners" doesn't sit well with me. He is in control and responsible for his own behavior not someone else's.

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 12:00 AM GMT

    and they held him responsible for the six people he infected. i just shared my opinions here on why i think he deserved exactly waht he get for what he did. You weren't in the bedroom, you don't know how much lying or manipulation was in play. Also, some people are ignorant about transmission. To see an athletic martial arts instructor, they let their guard down because they expect to see someone sick. Protecting yourself every time is a moral issue, a common sense issue, a responsibility issue yes, but if defrauded, assaulted, or murdered any other citizen has the right to justice no matter how ignorant, morally inept, or irresponsible they are. A woman who is raped in a dark alley or walks home at night from the library and is assaulted. She shouldn't be in dark alleys at night, that is unsafe and walking home alone at night is irresponsble too. Her rapist should walk? I made it clear that this crime intentionally causes harm to someone and yes, with the added knowledge that your actions will lead to more suffering does compound your guilt. The guy above argues it's not....so why is it illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre? You can't be held responsible if everyone flies into a panic and someone gets trampled....that's exactly why it's a crime, even if people should be more responsible than to panic and act irrationally during such a situation.
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    May 30, 2009 12:15 AM GMT
    GG: You have your opinion and I have mine...and NEITHER of us has 100% of the information. I'm not arguing...I didn't say you were wrong...I just don't believe I share that sentiment.

    I believe there is room in this great big world of ours for both of our opinions.

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 12:23 AM GMT
    Oooh, two of da sexiest mens on RJ in disputation. I think y'all should be settlin this with a nekkid wrasslin' match.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 12:27 AM GMT

    I was defending my position and challenging yours, not dismissing it alltogether. I made that clear by defending my statement not just stating that I disagreed with you. Yes, we both have our seperate opinion, but this is a place to discuss them. Ok, also, argue them if need be. I'm not beyond doing that for what I beleive. No one has all the facts, guilt is always based on a preponderance of the evidence. The final nail in the coffin me thinks in this case, his total complete knowledge that he was indeed passing a deadly disease.
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    May 30, 2009 12:35 AM GMT
    GuiltyGear said...
    "guilt is always based on a preponderance of the evidence"

    No, it's not...sometimes there is a reasonable person standard: which is "what would a reasonable person assume given the information at hand"...and this point is somewhat off topic so, if we want to go back and forth on this we can start a new thread or feel free to message me directly...

    It's hard to predict what MIGHT happen so, I believe it is hard to hold him accountable to that other folks these women MIGHT have had sex with...I also believe anyone can insist on condoms that is the control they had in influencing their infection outcome...

    Don't get me wrong...I don't agree with what he did, but I am curious [especially in Texas] whether these other factors were discussed in the trial...

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 12:39 AM GMT
    if these women had unprotected sex then they are at fault too - no mater what the circumstance they need to be held responsible for their own health and well-being
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 12:47 AM GMT
    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 1:17 AM GMT
    Down here in oz it is a criminal offence to know you have HIV, and have unprotected sex, and not inform the person you are putting at risk.. People doing this is nothing new. I seen it time and time over agin in my time working for a bathhouse in the 80s. But back then there was no law to make a person who was HIV+, responsible for their actions. I know I went to the police to try to put a stop to all the evil I was witnessing first hand at work. Was not until a female prostitute was putting heterosexual men at rick that action was taken, and new laws come in to effect.

    I read in a Melbourne paper this week: that some-one in Europe has suggested all people with HIV be branded on the ass, so all we have to do to check a persons HIV status, before sex with em, is to roll em over and have a look, Switzerland is outraged at the suggestion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 2:34 AM GMT
    dfrourke saidGuiltyGear said...
    "guilt is always based on a preponderance of the evidence"

    No, it's not...sometimes there is a reasonable person standard: which is "what would a reasonable person assume given the information at hand"...anyone can insist on condoms that is the control they had in influencing their infection outcome...
    I am curious [especially in Texas] whether these other factors were discussed in the trial...

    The standard that applies in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no "assumption of the risk" defense as there might be in a civil case, since criminal law assumes that you cannot consent to be assaulted.
    The foolish conduct of the defendant's sex partners could have been raised in mitigation of punishment, but judging by the sentences meted out, it doesn't seem as if the jury bought that argument.
    BTW the defendant's lawyer, Bennie House, is not exactly a star of the profession.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear saidAIDS is really the only deadly disease that can be spread through sex with the infected person's complete knowledge


    Don't forget the Hepatitis C
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2009 1:14 AM GMT
    It take two to pass on HIV....if your not wearing protection, then dont blame the pos guy from infecting you. YOU ALONE ARE RESPONABLE FOR YOUR STATUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2009 1:27 AM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    I think if it can be proven that a person knew they were positive and had "unprotected" sex with someone, they should do prison time, now how much is debatable: should it be considered assualt with a deadly weapon or just battery, but it should be something. Since AIDS is really the only deadly disease that can be spread through sex with the infected person's complete knowledge, this is a new occurance, but laws are flexible for this very reason. My personal opinion is, reducing the spread of the deadly disease should be a shared societal responsiblity. This person infected 6 people who could go on to infect six more apiece and so on. He has caused suffering the same way one does if they yell "fire" in a crouded theatre or rob a bank. For this reason, infecting with prior knowledge should be an offense unto itself instead of being stapled onto some existing offense. The added knowlege that he knew the women had multiple partners compounds his gult, not reduces it. He knew full well he wasn't only infecting them, but also their multiple partners and their partners.



    Not sure I can agree with you GG. A gun, a bomb, etc are weapons. Any adult having unprotected sex these days should know he/she is taking very dangerous chances. If I play in traffic and get hit by a car, I think I should be held responsible for any injury I sustain. Sure a careful driver might not hit me but I know the risks.

    Would you let me put a gun to your head and pull the trigger if I told you the gun was not loaded? I hope not. It would be wrong for me to blow your brains out. And for that I would be responsible. But even still you would say "go ahead pull the trigger it's ok you said the gun isn't loaded"?

    Not saying what this man did is ok. It is not. In fact, it is reprehinsive. And I hope he rots in hell! I still think what he did is different than if he were randomly firing a gun into a crowd. As a theater patron I have no way to protect my self from someone yelling fire. I know how to protect my self from stds. I'm not falling for the "I'm clean routine."

    These women surely must have known unprotected sex is dangerous. They had the sex.

    What's next arresting people for not knowing thier HIV status? Slippery slope here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2009 1:24 PM GMT
    sfinboston saidIt take two to pass on HIV....if your not wearing protection, then dont blame the pos guy from infecting you. YOU ALONE ARE RESPONABLE FOR YOUR STATUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    I agree! This is 2009, and people KNOW how to protect themselves. Where is the accountability of the "victim" in this matter? Why aren't they using condoms? Why are they having unprotected sex with a virtual stranger? If you wouldn't trust someone enough to give them your ATM number, or keys to your home while you were away for a week, why would you trust them enough to ejaculate inside you?????