Gay Guy Left HIV+ Lover to Die During ChemSex & Set Fire to His Body

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

2 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

"He definitely killed a murderer"

Even if that's truth (which is not because  transmission of HIV is grievous bodily harm and not murder) that's still murder, not self defense. 

You're entitled to your opinion but the justice system worked the way it is supposed to work.

I disagree. This person could have got HIV and never got treatment got sick and turns into AIDS. boom. He's dead. It's definitely possible. We can agree to disagree. I'm not changing my opinion. His boyfriend was in essence a murderer and could have caused the death of his so beloved boyfriend. If anything, I would fight for the right for the man to be free.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

Just now, BrianxRyan said:

I disagree. This person could have got HIV and never got treatment got sick and turns into AIDS. boom. He's dead. It's definitely possible. We can agree to disagree. I'm not changing my opinion. His boyfriend was in essence a murderer and could have caused the death of his so beloved boyfriend. If anything, I would fight for the right for the man to be free.

We can agree to disagree but that won't change the fact that transmitting HIV is not considered murder in the UK, it's grievous bodily harm which is punishable but doesn't justify self defense.

Also no judge would ever count a murder like this as self defense. He covered his body with a duvet to shut him up, then he set fire to the place a few days later to get rid of the evidence. It's definitely a murder of a murderer and not self defense. Even if he wasn't if jail for murder he would be in jail for complicity of a murder.

I do feel bad for him but you can't do anything for him after he basically ****ed up all his chances to plead innocent.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

6 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

We can agree to disagree but that won't change the fact that transmitting HIV is not considered murder in the UK, it's grievous bodily harm which is punishable but doesn't justify self defense.

Also no judge would ever count a murder like this as self defense. He covered his body with a duvet to shut him up, then he set fire to the place a few days later to get rid of the evidence. It's definitely a murder of a murderer and not self defense. Even if he wasn't if jail for murder he would be in jail for complicity of a murder.

I do feel bad for him but you can't do anything for him after he basically ****ed up all his chances to plead innocent.

Oh well. It's unfair law. I hope the guy gets off for good behavior early if that happens in the UK or gets an appeal and walks away free. Of course, I think he should be required to see a therapist though. Perhaps. Then again he definitely acted out of self-defense just my opinion. I'm sorry my opinion does not agree with the people in the charge. Still, I find it to be BS.

[Spyro 8,438]

4 hours ago, BrianxRyan said:

I consider it self defense. I do not think he should have got time. 

That's....that's not how this works.  That's not how this works at all.  

[Dominic 11,922]

2 hours ago, BrianxRyan said:

Oh well. It's unfair law. I hope the guy gets off for good behavior early if that happens in the UK or gets an appeal and walks away free. Of course, I think he should be required to see a therapist though. Perhaps. Then again he definitely acted out of self-defense just my opinion. I'm sorry my opinion does not agree with the people in the charge. Still, I find it to be BS.

I understand what you mean but the fact is it isn't self-defense, especially because the man was tied up. He simply left the man to die and then later went back to dispose of the body and cover his tracks which as a result shifts to murder. If he hadn't gone back to conceal the evidence he would have had a much lesser sentence.

If the man was still alive he would have faced serious charges for knowingly transmitting HIV. He would have been charged with GBH or worse depending on if he was aware of his status and how many victims he passed this onto. He would have been punished in the eye of the law and not by the hands of another. Sadly, both are now to blame. 

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

don't be so quick to judge g.u.y.s
a) the dude was high 
b) any of you psycho or not would react violently high or not if you received that kind of info 

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

5 hours ago, Dominic Marc said:

I understand what you mean but the fact is it isn't self-defense, especially because the man was tied up. He simply left the man to die and then later went back to dispose of the body and cover his tracks which as a result shifts to murder. If he hadn't gone back to conceal the evidence he would have had a much lesser sentence.

If the man was still alive he would have faced serious charges for knowingly transmitting HIV. He would have been charged with GBH or worse depending on if he was aware of his status and how many victims he passed this onto. He would have been punished in the eye of the law and not by the hands of another. Sadly, both are now to blame. 

I disagree. If you knowingly give someone a sexually transmitted disease, I think you deserve the right to kill them. I consider it self-defense and hopefully the law books will in the future.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

4 hours ago, Ferrer Zorola said:

don't be so quick to judge g.u.y.s
a) the dude was high 
b) any of you psycho or not would react violently high or not if you received that kind of info 

Yea, we have been together for months and you knowingly gave me HIV then announce while we're having sex again. Oh I'm totally just going to get up and call the cops high or not. Yeah. Right.

[Dominic 11,922]

7 hours ago, BrianxRyan said:

I disagree. If you knowingly give someone a sexually transmitted disease, I think you deserve the right to kill them. I consider it self-defense and hopefully the law books will in the future.

That's fair enough if you disagree but facts are facts. Simply put.  

[Andrew Warhola 12,992]

7 hours ago, BrianxRyan said:

I disagree. If you knowingly give someone a sexually transmitted disease, I think you deserve the right to kill them. I consider it self-defense and hopefully the law books will in the future.

"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

It's not considered self-defense, since the harm has already been done and you're not defending yourself from any "apparent threat" or "immediate violence" from that point onwards (especially in this case, given that he was tied up and in no position to attack). That's simply retaliating for what that person has done to you. 

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

15 minutes ago, Andrew Warhola said:

"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

It's not considered self-defense, since the harm has already been done and you're not defending yourself from any "apparent threat" or "immediate violence" from that point onwards (especially in this case, given that he was tied up and in no position to attack). That's simply retaliating for what that person has done to you. 

 

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

1 hour ago, Dominic Marc said:

That's fair enough if you disagree but facts are facts. Simply put.  

And facts can easily change.

[Dominic 11,922]

1 minute ago, BrianxRyan said:

And facts can easily change.

If you put in the work and effort, definitely. However you first need to learn what those facts currently are before you try to change them. 

[ryanripley 86,575]

1 minute ago, BrianxRyan said:

And facts can easily change.

if facts could easily change, science would be all over the place  lol i'm just imagining a scientist being like "welp, today the earth is flat my dudes"  

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

Just now, Dominic Marc said:

If you put in the work and effort, definitely. However you first need to learn what those facts currently are before you try to change them. 

I'm quite aware. I consider it self-defense. I don't care if the law does... of course I wouldn't do it cause I'm aware of the law. Silly. I think the guy should have had a better lawyer and I think the guy got his just desert. I'm happy the guy didn't get life. I think future cases like this should be handled much differently. Anything else?