Archive for Thursday, September 7, 2006

Judge won’t dismiss HIV charges

State law isn’t vague, ruling finds, and trial will proceed

September 7, 2006


A Douglas County judge will not dismiss charges against a Lawrence man accused of exposing women to HIV, and the man now faces a new HIV charge in Wyandotte County.

Judge Stephen Six ruled in a decision dated Friday that the state's HIV-exposure law is not unconstitutionally vague or overly broad - a ruling that means trial will go forward in Douglas County for 30-year-old Robert W. Richardson II. The decision was not available for public view until Wednesday.

"Clearly, the state of Kansas has a rational basis to regulate and criminalize sexual conduct involving persons who have tested positive for HIV and may subject others to the risk of contracting the potentially life-threatening disease," Six wrote.

Richardson had argued that the law was vague because it didn't define key terms, such as what it means to "expose" someone to HIV or what is a "life-threatening disease."

But Six wrote that it's up to a jury to decide whether the law applies to his case.

The challenge to the law's legality caused a jury trial originally set to have started last month to be postponed at the last minute. Richardson's next court date is Sept. 13.

He is charged with exposing four women to HIV in Douglas County in the past year through sexual contact. In addition, he faces similar charges in Johnson County, Mo., and in Lyon County.

An arrest warrant in the new case out of Wyandotte County was served on Richardson during the weekend at the Douglas County Jail, where Richardson is incarcerated as he awaits trial. The woman pressing charges in the Wyandotte County case is one who also has pressed charges in Douglas County.


c_doc77 11 years, 9 months ago

HIV is not a "life threatening disease" and it does not cause AIDS. Most of the people who have HIV never develop AIDS, unless they are treated with chemotherapy drugs like AZT, which break down the immune system. People who remain untreated usually only develop AIDS if they are homosexuals and/or are IV drug users. This is a medical fact, and not disinformation. In the United States, 90% of the people who actually contract AIDS are male. Only 10% are female. In fact, many of the people who have been diagnosed with AIDS do not have HIV, the so-called HIV virus. Click the link below to view a scientific and objective look at the evidence:

Katie Van Blaricum 11 years, 9 months ago

So are you saying it's okay to purposely expose people to HIV?

Kelly Powell 11 years, 9 months ago

doc just wants to spread the love...wait, I misspelled that....doc just wants to spread the hiv.

Sigmund 11 years, 9 months ago

Looks like I was wrong on the Constitutionality of the "HIV exposure" Law. At least Judge Six disagreed with me. Anyone have link to his decision?

Jamesaust 11 years, 9 months ago

"...the state's HIV-exposure law is not unconstitutionally vague or overly broad...."

As I noted at the time. As if Kansas was the first state to enact such a law or Richardson's attorney is the first to think up such a challenge. Richardson may have a case, but (based upon the quality of reporting) the objections seem to be quite vague. He'll need to fine-tune these if he wants to appeal (assuming an eventual conviction).

"Richardson had argued that the law was vague because it didn't define key terms, such as what it means to "expose" someone to HIV or what is a "life-threatening disease."

The law doesn't have to produce a dictionary defining every word. The 'plain and ordinary' meaning of the terms is sufficient. The only words needing defintion are terms meant to be given a specialized or more narrow definition than one would find in a dictionary.

Redzilla 11 years, 9 months ago

Wild guess: the doc in c_doc, does not stand for medical doctor.

dozer 11 years, 9 months ago

It must be true what doc says, after all, its on the internet.

c_doc77 11 years, 9 months ago

Watch the video, and then make your comments. This will tell you why you won't find this info in medical journals. Also, do a little research on Dr. Gallo and how he supposedly discovered the AIDS virus. You'll see how he totally bypassed the ethical standards of checks and balances that researchers go through before these things are considered to be set in stone. When Gallo first published this "discovery" he did not have collaboration from the medical community.

This story first broke on 20/20 a few years back before it was completely "discredited" for political and monetary reasons. If you think this is all disinformation because it links to Alex Jones' website, just know that the video is from completely unrelated sources.

If you want to resort to name-calling, that's fine. But how about challenging me on these facts: 90% of AIDS victims in the U.S. are male, and only 10% are female; and the majority of people with HIV never develop AIDS.

And don't put words in my mouth. Its never okay to expose a person to a disease, but a law that prohibits someone from intentially exposing someone to a non-life-threatening disease that is purported to be life-threatening is obviously flawed. The people this guy infected won't die, and likely won't even get sick unless they're dope fiends or get on hardcore AID meds.

c_doc77 11 years, 9 months ago

holygrailale: A fairly good argument can be made that what is known as AIDS in Africa is unrelated to what is known as AIDS in the United States. If Africa, the immunity destroying disease known as AIDS affects both males and females equally.

If you'll remember a few years ago, there was a lot of scaremongering about the different "strains" of AIDS and that American exposure to African AIDS would lead to mutations of the disease, etc. Ten years later, there's no evidence of this. The only similarities between the African AIDS and American or Western AIDS is immune deficiency. The two cannot be conclusively associated.

And why hasn't anyone addressed the question of why a person can have "full-blown" AIDS and not have HIV, as is often the case in Africa?

Jamesaust 11 years, 9 months ago

I'm sorry but some of the silly 'conspiracist' theories presented here about Aids could be taken straight from South Africa, where 'alternative' theories about the illness have managed to trump medical intervention (resulting in the deaths of so many persons).

I believe a fairly strong shout-out is due to holygrailale, who can always be relied upon for scientific viewpoints.

I'm not quite certain the mentality that seems here and elsewhere to try to work around the fairly straight-forward - and very uncontroversial - medical description of Aids. Many diseases have mysteries to them that we do not quite yet understand.

I can only assume that the sociological baggage carried by Aids causes the desire to find 'other' answers. Even in our own country we have seen officials willing to prostitute themselves to other gods: witness the Senate Majority Leader - a medical doctor - dissembling about whether Aids could be spread via tear (Can it be spread by tears or sweat, Doctor? "Well....we don't ..." )

c_doc77 11 years, 9 months ago

All your points are well taken, holygrail. And I do not have the expertise or scientific knowledge to refute them all, nor do I desire to.

However, you misquoted me about Dr. Gallo. I didn't say he was the first to isolate HIV. I said he was the first to say that AIDS is the direct result of HIV.

And still no one has bothered to explain how some people have AIDS and not HIV.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.