The case of Charles Ssenyonga, AIDS and the law.

This is my rough draft for my law course on a very interesting case in Canadian law. I would really like to hear what you have to think:

Should he and other have been charged with murder? Is it the victims fault? Is society threatened by persons like him? What should we do about it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Ssenyonga willingly & knowingly & with sound mind threatened the life of another, then he attempted murder at least. No doubt the murder law was already written in a comprehensive way that implicitly included communicable diseases. There need not have been a law that specifically required Ssenyonga to inform his partners of his disease. His mental condition sounds like a lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is manslaughter at the very least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are having sex, unprotected sex, it up to you to find out if the person is HIV postive. Unless you are suicidal then have unprotected with every person in the tri-county area.

 

Sorry, it's not up to you. That's like saying it's up to a woman to know her date is not a rapist.

 

Sure it is up to a woman to find if her date is it rapist, unless she wanted to get rape.

 

As much as she may want to know, knowing is impossible. So no, it's not up to her.

 

Sounds like your an expert in this field. With all this search capabilities on the web one can find personal info on certain individuals.

 

No, it's just a fact that you can't know what is in someone else's head. The law doesn't require you to know what you can't know.

 

Ignorance of the law is not a defence

 

How is that relevant?

 

It's not it's Pablo Savey...

 

Undecided: Your undecidied

 

Pablo, by that "logic," somebody who's at a bank during a robbery and gets shot is at fault.

 

Yes, because the person should be on the ground, making peace with whatever god/ spiritual force they are alligned with.

 

http://aidsmyth.addr.com/index1.htm

The link is just a starter. Do you beleive that defendants charged with some form of assault associated with a so called "AIDS infection" scenario shouldhave an opportunity to defend against the assumption that HIV causes AIDS? Like putting the burden on the state to prove that 1) HIV exists and that 2) HIV causes AIDS?

NO society is threatened by robotic legal scholars like yourself who, at a extremely early aart of your ledgal existence, you have obsessively latched onto a classic fascist mechanism that is designed to avoid the inefficient "technicalities" of constitutional limitation of state power, including limiting of judicial power that has assumed that the "probabilities" of the existence of an extremely harmful situation justifies invoking "emergency exceptions" to the unacceptable exercise of constituional power of the the state, Cbnada, that seems bent on making an example of the defendant described by yourseklf as having committed so insidiously heinous series of criminal acts as to be undeserving of justice othewise meted out daily to ordinary murderers, rapists, arsonists, and attornies.
I think we should educate the judiciary to the fact that it is primarily the statwe that has defined the HIV = AIDS scienario. It is the state defining therapy and other forms of activity directed at the AIDS masses, victims, industry and propaganda processes.. It is the FDA (in the US) that publically pescribes medicines for those testing positive for the HIV.
Did you know that the 'HIV test for AIDS' is a test for a partial segment of protein (a DNA segment) sequence alleged to be from the anti-body to HIV? And where the DNA segment is common to a half dozen non-AIDS diseases? DId you know the standards for the HIV test are disastrously flawed? That lives have bneen trashed, suicides committed for the simple fact of having been informed that one is "HIV positve"? Did you know that (in the US) there is no federal research money used to determine the cause of AIDS? Everybody knows HIV causes AIDS, right?

Do you realize that YOU have have never been presented with a coherent and unambiguous proof that HIV causes AIDS, yet YOU do believe that HIV causes AIDS, is this not correct? You ask "should he and others be charged with murder?" Are you going to assume his causal relationship with death by virtue of he having allegedly infected others with deadly and insidious disease without any direct or indirect proof that HIV exists and that HIV causes AIDS?

If 90 virologists testify that in their opinion HIV causes AIDS and 10 virologists testify that HIV dioes not exist and/or does not cause AIDS ,is this competent expert testimony sufficient to trash a human beings life?

Are you absolutely sure, to a moral certainty, that HIV causes AIDS, beyond any reasonable doubt? If so then you can prove the matter can you not?

You ask what we think about this and what should we do about it? First, I think you had best learn to think like an attorney and not pile heaps of assumed garbage upon the persons you have already convicted before their trial. What would be his defense if you were defending him? Would you ask that the state prove all elements of the crime the idefendant is charged with including the existence of HIV, the causal link between HIV and AIDS in general and the specific causal link between HIV, AIDS, the defendant and any alleged victims, [that he alleges is infected]? Or would you " stipiulate" to the common knowedge assumption that HIV causes AIDS and throw your client on the mercy of an outaged jury??

There is an old joke" What would be a relkly good start? Amswer: 1000 attornies on the bottom of the ocean.

Now you know why I can tell this joke with zeal and enthusiasm. What you showed me in your thread is that you are the problem. A confessed and unmitigated burden on society without any redeeming human chracteristics or qualities, including the one that does not condemn those charged with criminal activty before ther trial. Buit you talk so sure of yourself and all the assumptions you have piled upon the man that has not committed even the simplest act of any kind o assaulyt/]. Do you disagree with me? I enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of he defedant. Now prosecutor man, prove your case, every single element of the charges you have stacked against him. You strike me as a typical "herd instinct judicial robot". Are you aware of theThird Reichs program to purify the society by eliminating those and other medically defined mental defects, insane, terminally ill etc. summarily?

If you think this post is unfair to you and your honest intentions, your honest modernly heartfelt sensibilities, your honest intelligence, honest medical knowedge, your innocent and most well meaning act of bringing the matter to our attention witout the slightest hint, pretense or attempt at objectivity, well if it is unfair, and admittedly it is unfair, then so be it Mr. Undecided and may god have mercy on your soul as I finally now ask, "who has a proper length of rope for Mr Undecided's scrawny useless neck?"

 

GEISTKIESEL

Get back to the AIDS thread, bitch! These guys are talking about the law. Stop bothering them with your crap.

 

geistkiesel

I am happy you responded with such zeal and enthusiasm, but you are talking about something that is implied. To the “uneducated” masses of which I am part of seems to believe that HIV does cause AIDS. I am not a scientist, nor am I a lawyer. This was my position with the Ssenyonga case. The case was not so much about AIDS, like I said in my essay the point of this cause was more about The case of Ssenyonga is really one of consent, and ignorance. To me it dosen’t matter what disease Mr.Ssenyonga had that is largely irrelevant. What concerns me and society at large is the failure of Ssenyonga to disclose his disease to his sexual partners. Especially after being told that he should not have sexual intercourse any longer. AIDS is merely the disease, not the issue.

Buit you talk so sure of yourself and all the assumptions you have piled upon the man that has not committed even the simplest act of any kind o assaulyt/]. Do you disagree with me?

Well I don’t think I am what you described me to be, but I agree that Ssenyonga did not commit assault. I never insinuated otherwise. I realize that the women had consented to the sex, and as a result were just as responsible as Mr.Ssenyonga. But that doesn’t mean that Mr.Sseyonga did not commit a serious crime. I think that he committed at least manslaughter he gave these women a deadly disease (I realize AIDS doesn’t kill you, but it does weaken your immune system).

Now prosecutor man, prove your case, every single element of the charges you have stacked against him.

I don’t have to, it is stated above.

Are you aware of theThird Reichs program to purify the society by eliminating those and other medically defined mental defects, insane, terminally ill etc. summarily?

Yes operation T4, but I don’t see what relevance that has to do with anything here. You don’t contract retardation.

If you think this post is unfair to you and your honest intentions,

I think the ad hom attacks were truly uncalled for, you only depreciate your case when you state things like: "who has a proper length of rope for Mr Undecided's scrawny useless neck?" If you really want me to take you serious as a poster, act like one. Also if you are here to merely cause shit like BigBlueHead seems to indicate, refrain from posting.

 

If I released a biological weapon like anthrax I would be charged with murder and about twenty other crimes how is what he did any different? He knew that he had the disease and that he should refrain from having sex with non-infected partners without informing them. When he denied them the same information that he had he took away their right to make an informed decision. That is why he deserves to be charged because the lack of that information endangered other people’s lives.

 

Exactly, Weasel.