# Soldier banned from sex.....



## PMedMoe (19 Feb 2010)

*Article Link*

A soldier accused of knowingly infecting six women with herpes was released on bail Thursday under strict conditions — including that he not have sex without disclosing his sexually-transmitted disease.

Master Cpl. Mathew Wilson, 33, is charged with six counts of aggravated sexual assault and six counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Military police allege he had sex with the women, now aged 25 to 35, between 2004 and 2009 in Ottawa, Perth and Kingston.

They allege Wilson “wounded” the women in the course of committing a sexual assault and negligently caused them bodily harm by having sex with them without telling them he has herpes.

More on link

Jerk!     Glad he got caught.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Feb 2010)

I keep on saying it... time to cull the herd.


----------



## FDO (19 Feb 2010)

A few years ago in Halifax a guy (civvy) was going around having sex with as many women as he could. He had AIDS and infected several. One was a friend of mine. He was tried and found guilty (can't remember the exact charge) He was sent to jail. His lawyer said he should not have to go to jail because it wasn't fair that he spend the last of his days locked up. When my friend gave her impact speech she brough up the fact that yes this guys days were numbered and he would not out live his sentence but she had a 2 year old daughter that she wouldn't see graduate high school or get to help pick out a prom dress. The guy wet to jail.

This turd although has not given a life threatening disease should still do time and I hope his cell mate is very friendly!!


----------



## GAP (19 Feb 2010)

> This turd although has not given a life threatening disease should still do time and I hope his cell mate is very friendly!!



Two, or more, for the price of one.....sweet!!


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Feb 2010)

One in eight people in Australia have herpes http://www.thefacts.com.au/

There are adds on the TV identifying this disease, and here its well known by the public.

No, I am free of this  ;D but it is quite common here, and overall it is not viewed as draconian, shameful or a disgrace, its just a fact of life in a promiscious society, and people live with it.

How do you get genital herpes? This info found on the link's FAQ's
 .....it can also occur through close skin to skin contact with the genital region, so you don’t necessarily have to have sex to get it. Now that is scary!!!


This is the first time I have ever heard of someone being charged for having this disease. From what I have read, the only way to pass this on is to be having an outbreak at the time, which again from what I've read, means there are bumps/blisters/irritation and leaking blisters on the infected area.  You would surely know if you were having an 'event', and to engage in sex during this time is wrong.

So ladies (or men), beware of who you sleep with. Perhaps a quick discreet visual would have made some of the infected females change their mind ?  Afterall we are in many ways masters of our own destiny.

if its 1/8 here, Canada would be similar?

OWDU
EDITed only for spelling


----------



## mariomike (19 Feb 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> if its 1/8 here, Canada would be similar?



"There's no reporting system for herpes in Canada, but figures from the US suggest that genital herpes affects about 25% of women and 20% of men. In other words, approximately 1 out of every 4 women and 1 in 5 men have been infected. *About 8 out of 10 infected people aren't even aware of their condition*.":
http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/channel_condition_info_details.asp?disease_id=246&channel_id=1020&relation_id=71263

Canada Dec. 2009/
"Supreme Court rejects herpes 'accident' claim
Paralysis 'tragic' but not within meaning of policy":
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2361825


----------



## infantryian (19 Feb 2010)

not that im defending the defendant, but at what point does it become the victim's responsibility for having consented to unprotected sex and living with the consequences?


----------



## pensiveone (19 Feb 2010)

Wow...how quick most of you are to condemn this guy.  Guess the rule of innocent before proven guilty is RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW IN HERE!  Anyway, I find it very interesting how all these women got together and figured it was definitely him.  I am also looking forward to seeing the prosecutor prove it was indeed him that infected all these women and ruling out all the other guys these women were with in the course of their lives.  I believe it can be years before you can show symptoms sometimes.


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Feb 2010)

Now for the connection that's really going to bake your noodle:

You can be charged for physically attacking someone, and you can be charged for verbally attacking someone.

You can get compensation for physical injuries, and you can claim compensation for mental injuries.

You can get charged for having sex without informing them you have the STD and thus causing them physical harm...




So how long is it until you can get charged for having sex and causing mental harm, such as not calling back?


----------



## pensiveone (19 Feb 2010)

LOL not long I'm guessing.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple of lawsuits in the US that have that exact basis.  They sue people for dirty looks.


----------



## 40below (20 Feb 2010)

What I find troubling about this case is this: previously this charge was only laid against HIV positive individuals, to my knowledge, who engaged in unprotected sex. AIDS is fatal, although it can be managed by drugs. Herpes is not fatal. Inconvenient and somewhat unsightly, sure, but not fatal and everyone who has it got it from someone else. Not oyly does this kind of open the legal door to charging anyone who passed on herpes to anyone in the last seven years (assuming normal statute of limitations) but provides precedent for charging people with passing on other non-fatal communicable diseases to their sex partner? I mean, what's next? Assault for passing a cold to your lover? Poison ivy from a rash on your legs? Hepatitis? Salmonella? Crabs? Chickenpox? Pinkeye? Seems to me they're all grounds for assault charges now.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Feb 2010)

I do agree with you that Herpes is in a different category than AIDS, but to use physical violence again maybe they would compare AIDS-sex to murder and Herpes-sex to assault?

But yeah then it's sketchy because "sexual assault" carries with it a stigma of sounding like rape on an unwilling person, instead of having sex with a consenting person but causing them harm.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Feb 2010)

The charges weren't for "passing on herpes".  The charges were for sexual assault and criminal negligence in that he had sex with these women *without disclosing he had an STI*.

How does anyone know that these women "got together" against this guy?  Herpes is a reportable disease to Public Health, so when the reports went in, perhaps they saw the common factor in all the cases.  After all, the women were from three different places (Kingston, Perth, Ottawa).

Herpes can be transmitted even when one is _not_ having a break out.  It can be passed on before the person even has a break out.  Not to mention, even using a condom is not 100% effective against it.

Yes, herpes is not fatal like HIV/AIDS but it can cause severe problems, not to mention, it can be passed from mother to baby during childbirth.  In extreme cases it can also cause encephalitis and meningitis.

Merck Manual - Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The charges weren't for "passing on herpes".  The charges were for sexual assault and criminal negligence in that he had sex with these women *without disclosing he had an STI*.
> 
> How does anyone know that these women "got together" against this guy?  Herpes is a reportable disease to Public Health, so when the reports went in, perhaps they saw the common factor in all the cases.  After all, the women were from three different places (Kingston, Perth, Ottawa).
> 
> ...



I was waiting for your post on the Public Health notification aspect of this - if only for the gent who believes that because this man has been "charged" that means "the women must have gotten together with their stories". His post also infers that these 6 women "were promiscious". I don't know where the hell he's pulling that assumption from other than his own ass. If the article is accurate --- it certainly seems as if the "man charged" may just have been the "actual promiscious factor" in the events vice the women he chose to sleep with. Interesting how this guy is charged with "KNOWINGLY" (thus ruling out the "well, he can go a couple of years without even knowing he had it" theory) passing this on to 6 women - yet there are those to jump on the bandwagon talking about the "women's promisciouity??" And, "I'd like to see them prove it wasn't one of the other men they slept with that gave it to them". Nice big fat assumption on that posters part. How is that?? As far as the article leads ... he slept with *6* different women, while each of them has only been shown to have slept with *one* man." 

I'd also like to point out to those posting about "responsibility for the women's own actions slants" ... that Herpes falls into the "Incurable STD" category quite unlike chlamydia, gonorehhea, syphillis etc ... which are cureable STDs with antibiotics.

Herpes also increases ones risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

And yes, although Herpes is "treatable, but not cureable" and can go undetected ... the fact that this guy was charged in the first place for "knowingly passing it on without advising" certainly infers that he was QUITE AWARE as he had BEEN DIAGNOSED as having herpes. I'd wager a beer on the 6 charges having been the result of willing actions on his part AFTER his diagnoses.

Then, there's always the slant that these 6 women may indeed have ASKED the guy if he was clean to which he may have said "yep" (ie he lied to them and thus "did not disclose") ... which may also have been a factor in his being 'charged'.

Whatever occured, I'm sure the system didn't just "pull the charges" out of their asses --- there's obviously a basis for them being laid against him. 

Time will tell whether their basis for the charges "holds up to scrutiny" and whether or not he is convicted or not.


----------



## Cansky (20 Feb 2010)

I was not aware that herpes was reportable.  According to Public health ontario only neonatal herpes was reportable.  see link for reportable diseases:
http://www.toronto.ca/health/cdc/communicable_disease_surveillance/monitoring/pdf/list%20of%20reportable%20diseases.pdf

and its not on the national list at all. http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/ndis/list_e.html

It changes how we do business.  I know I have yet to send anyone for contact tracing for herpes.

But in no ways does this minimize the fact that he should have disclosed his condition to his partners.  Having said that his partners were very risky in not ensuring that condoms were used especially if they were in a short term relationship with him.  They took big risks in not contacting something else like AIDS.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Feb 2010)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> I was not aware that herpes was reportable.  According to Public health ontario only neonatal herpes was reportable.  see link for reportable diseases:
> http://www.toronto.ca/health/cdc/communicable_disease_surveillance/monitoring/pdf/list%20of%20reportable%20diseases.pdf
> 
> and its not on the national list at all. http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/ndis/list_e.html
> ...


My mistake, you're right, it's not reportable, but IMHO, it should be.

How do you know those women didn't use condoms?  I certainly hope they did, but a condom is still not 100% effective against herpes transmission.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2010)

If Canada's herpes rate is similar to Australia's at 1/8 (and the USA), based on 10,000,000 adults just as a bench mark, that means 1,250,000 would have herpes, if this was 'reportable' it would swamp the system, and others with more important diseases would suffer. More government mismanagement and invasion of privacy our so called private lives, costing the taxpayers more millions in an already cash straved healthcare system.

With statistics, this means that even some members on this site of both sex are infected, and sufferers of herpes. They are not monsters, just people. Its no big deal. Education and prevention via safe sex are the only ways to combat this, by lowering your chances. Herpes is out there, its everywhere, like the common cold.

I am single and I date, and although I am very VERY and very extremely fussy with who I bring home, I am not about to ask them 'excuse me - do you have herpes or any other diseases' before things go further.  

The article does not go into detail about the reasons behind him infecting others. Did he willing intend to infect women as an act of revenge? Or did he try to manage his disease the best way he thought. The MCPL in question who is now INTERNATIONALLY on thte INet, publically named and shamed, caught this disease from another person, and what does that make her? For that matter, she caught it from another person, and what does that make him? And so on and so on, the cycle continues.

I know at least two females that have herpes HV2 (genital type), and that information is private between them and their doctors and their now husbands, as they got the disease when they were young and single and have managed it for over 25 yrs including raising families). Its no big deal, and no reason to make herpes a national reporting/management issue, which like all things would cost unnecessary funding which needs to be concentrated elsewhere.

Most of us (yes me and maybe you- I get the odd cold sore, a rarity but it happens) have the HV1 (herpes cold sores) type already, and you kiss someone you can give it to them. Does that mean one could be charged with assault for that? Foolishness! I don't warn someone 'hey I get cold sores, you might catch one' don't kiss me, but if I was infected with a coldsore, I would say don't kiss me, I have this..........'  Make sense?

OWDU


----------



## FDO (20 Feb 2010)

I today it is everyones responsibility to stay "clean". Just like its not only the woman's responsibility for birthcontrol. (yep married for a while)

 I can remember when I first joined the CF and someone caught an STD. It was as if the "clap" was terminal. Then out came Herpes and the attitude was "oh thank God it's only the dose". Then AIDS/HIV came out and it was "oh thank God it's only Herpes" I actually heard it put this way on ships I was serving on. Does this mean that when something worse that AIDS comes around we'll change our attitudes again?

To get back on topic IF this guy knowingly infected these women then he's guilty whether they asked or not. What he's done is messed them up for life. How do you tell someone your really attracted to, get along well with and are considering marriage that you have Herpes. Could be a relationship killer.


----------



## pensiveone (20 Feb 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I was waiting for your post on the Public Health notification aspect of this - if only for the gent who believes that because this man has been "charged" that means "the women must have gotten together with their stories". His post also infers that these 6 women "were promiscious". I don't know where the hell he's pulling that assumption from other than his own ***. If the article is accurate --- it certainly seems as if the "man charged" may just have been the "actual promiscious factor" in the events vice the women he chose to sleep with. Interesting how this guy is charged with "KNOWINGLY" (thus ruling out the "well, he can go a couple of years without even knowing he had it" theory) passing this on to 6 women - yet there are those to jump on the bandwagon talking about the "women's promisciouity??" And, "I'd like to see them prove it wasn't one of the other men they slept with that gave it to them". Nice big fat assumption on that posters part. How is that?? As far as the article leads ... he slept with *6* different women, while each of them has only been shown to have slept with *one* man."
> 
> I'd also like to point out to those posting about "responsibility for the women's own actions slants" ... that Herpes falls into the "Incurable STD" category quite unlike chlamydia, gonorehhea, syphillis etc ... which are cureable STDs with antibiotics.
> 
> ...





First of all, only the listener can "infer" while the speaker implies (It really annoys me when people screw that up).  Secondly, I did not imply anything of the sort that these women were promiscuous - just that they probably were not all virgins.  And even if they had one other partner in the last 5 years, who is to say that it wasn't someone other than the accused?  Anyway, I am sure they have a basis for the charges but this is a very very slippery slope.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Feb 2010)

Do you not then feel it is wrong to knowingly engage in a bodily fluid exchange with another, while withholding the fact you have a viral cocktail swimming about in your boxers?


----------



## armyvern (21 Feb 2010)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> I was not aware that herpes was reportable.  According to Public health ontario only neonatal herpes was reportable.  see link for reportable diseases:
> http://www.toronto.ca/health/cdc/communicable_disease_surveillance/monitoring/pdf/list%20of%20reportable%20diseases.pdf
> 
> and its not on the national list at all. http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/ndis/list_e.html
> ...



Perhaps one of the women was pregnant, or became such, thus starting the ball rolling.


----------



## armyvern (21 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> First of all, only the listener can "infer" while the speaker implies (It really annoys me when people screw that up).  Secondly, *I did not imply anything of the sort that these women were promiscuous * - just that they probably were not all virgins.  And even if they had one other partner in the last 5 years, who is to say that it wasn't someone other than the accused?  Anyway, I am sure they have a basis for the charges but this is a very very slippery slope.



Imply/infer/whatever ... who really gives a fuck on the nuances except for you?



			
				pensiveone said:
			
		

> Wow...how quick most of you are to condemn this guy.  Guess the rule of innocent before proven guilty is RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW IN HERE!  *Anyway, I find it very interesting how all these women got together  * and figured it was definitely him.  I am also looking forward to seeing the prosecutor prove it was indeed him that infected all these women and *ruling out all the other guys  these women were with * in the course of their lives.  I believe it can be years before you can show symptoms sometimes.



Is the yellow inferrance enough for you now - used incorrectly (as per your last post) again only because I know it bugs the shit out of you. 

Désolé

 :

I say again "knowingly". 

Yep, huge conspiracy theory happening on the part of these girls ...  :


----------



## pensiveone (21 Feb 2010)

It just seems a little too convenient.  I am not sure how these 6 women were rounded up is all.  Apparently having herpes is not reportable so I'm wondering how this all came about.  Did they all go visit their respective police stations and report him?  I'm wondering how it was tracked to him and how certain they are that he is responsible for all their infection within the last 5 years.  Can they track the strain of herpes and link it to him?  I'm honestly curious and asking.  Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy?  Anyway, let me be clear....if he did not disclose or he lied about his condition then that is definitely wrong! I'm just one of the few who are not so quick to condemn a man who has not been "officially" condemned yet.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy?


Nope, just you. 

Sorry, but I suspect anyone else seeking a conspiracy has other tinfoil-hat issues to concentrate on. 



Edit: typo (nothing was changed to support another conspiracy)


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> It just seems a little too convenient.  I am not sure how these 6 women were rounded up is all.  Apparently having herpes is not reportable so I'm wondering how this all came about.  Did they all go visit their respective police stations and report him?  I'm wondering how it was tracked to him and how certain they are that he is responsible for all their infection within the last 5 years.  Can they track the strain of herpes and link it to him?  I'm honestly curious and asking.  Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy?  Anyway, let me be clear....if he did not disclose or he lied about his condition then that is definitely wrong! I'm just one of the few who are not so quick to condemn a man who has not been "officially" condemned yet.


Okay, for kicks and giggles, lets say that these women were "promiscuous".  Maybe they tested all their other partners and found that none of them had herpes except for this one guy.  Does that answer your question??

As far as the system being "flooded" with reports for herpes, that's just kind of dumb (sorry Wes).  We report chlamydia at a very alarming rate and that is treatable with antibiotics.   Why not do contact tracing for herpes as well?


----------



## 40below (21 Feb 2010)

Without any other info, I would suggest that at least one or more of these women was anything but promiscuous. She didn't have herpes, she had sex with this one guy, and now she has herpes. And so does this other woman, and there's this one thing they have in common. I'm not a qualified public health epidemiologist, at least not in this province, but I _think_ I can narrow down the vectors here.


----------



## pensiveone (21 Feb 2010)

Well I'm sure we can speculate as to how it all came about but without more facts its useless.  And I honestly don't think there is a "conspiracy" among the women, I was just surprised they could link all 6 to his infection.  Unless they checked any and all partners they might of had (other than him) in the past years, I still think its a big leap.  And I am not accusing the victims of being promiscuous - not in the least, I just assumed most of them had more than one partner in a 5 year span.  Now, on a personal note - I knew this soldier.  Not well, but was friendly towards him and saw him at work frequently.  I would never think he was capable of this but you never know.  I started commenting because its amazing how quickly everyone can turn against you simply based on an accusation.  Now granted, this is one hell of an accusation and I'm sure it has some weight but lets not start persecuting him quite yet.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As far as the system being "flooded" with reports for herpes, that's just kind of dumb (sorry Wes).  We report chlamydia at a very alarming rate and that is treatable with antibiotics.   Why not do contact tracing for herpes as well?



I don't think is dumb. Like I said 1.25 mil cases based on 10 mil adults, in reality it would be higher, more like twice as much. Thats a hell of a lot of man hours to punch into a data base even if it was based on one minute per case for data entry, and if you can't agree on that there would be a cost on this, I don't know what else to say.

 I would rather see my tax dollar put to education/prevention, than a simple knee jerk reaction on statistic gathering.

OWDU


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> Well I'm sure we can speculate as to how it all came about but without more facts its useless.  And I honestly don't think there is a "conspiracy" among the women, I was just surprised they could link all 6 to his infection.  Unless they checked any and all partners they might of had (other than him) in the past years, I still think its a big leap.  And I am not accusing the victims of being promiscuous - not in the least, I just assumed most of them had more than one partner in a 5 year span.  Now, on a personal note - I knew this soldier.  Not well, but was friendly towards him and saw him at work frequently.  I would never think he was capable of this but you never know.  I started commenting because its amazing how quickly everyone can turn against you simply based on an accusation.  Now granted, this is one hell of an accusation and I'm sure it has some weight but lets not start persecuting him quite yet.



You're RTFO

I read your posts and the first thing I thought of was that you WERE in fact suggesting he women were promiscuous, I'm pretty sure other readers got the same thing.  Now you're back tracking.
Your firsts posts here are of you defending some douchebag running around giving women herpes. Good job.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Feb 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I don't think is dumb. Like I said 1.25 mil cases based on 10 mil adults, in reality it would be higher, more like twice as much. Thats a hell of a lot of man hours to punch into a data base even if it was based on one minute per case for data entry, and if you can't agree on that there would be a cost on this, I don't know what else to say.
> 
> I would rather see my tax dollar put to education/prevention, than a simple knee jerk reaction on statistic gathering.


Each case would only be reported once (as per other STIs) and there's already someone punching in the info on the reportable ones.  At least here in Canada there is.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Each case would only be reported once (as per other STIs) and there's already someone punching in the info on the reportable ones.



Are you saying the current work load would not increase, even at 1.25 mil extra cases to load? Someone has to pay and its going to be the tax payer. Think of the time and effort from the GPs office to the reporting centre, and then this info must be tabulated, and managed. Its just more red tape and unnecessary spending.

As for tracking, do you think people are going to give names? That is an invasion of privacy (different story for other things such as HIV - I am simply talking herpes here). When for example their own personal living situations could be at risk (married/attached, etc - yes infidelity exists on both sides). I would not give one name if I had become infected (although I would personally notify the one I was with - and I would not be happy), as I would consider what transpires in the GPs office my personal business between my GP and I.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Feb 2010)

Wes, as part of my job, I do contact tracing interviews with positive STI cases.  In all cases, we keep names confidential.  When we notify a contact, they are only told they were a contact of a positive case of {insert STI here} and to go and get tested.  If it helps prevent the spread of the STI, I think it's worth it.  Just MHO.


----------



## pensiveone (22 Feb 2010)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> You're RTFO
> 
> I read your posts and the first thing I thought of was that you WERE in fact suggesting he women were promiscuous, I'm pretty sure other readers got the same thing.  Now you're back tracking.
> Your firsts posts here are of you defending some douchebag running around giving women herpes. Good job.



Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.



What a load of bullshit; go back and read your first post again.

The news article to which your are referring mentions sweet fuck all (how's that for spelling it out for you??) about any one of these six women having ever had more than one partner ...

But, it does show that *the accused has had at least 6 sexual partners * ... and 6 in common to boot. It also mentions the bit that he was charged "with KNOWINGLY"  infecting these 6 women.

It's about HIM; not them; yet, you were all over it with a "I can't wait to see them prove it wasn't any of the other men ALL these women slept with ..." yadda, yadda, yadda.

No one here has pronounced him guilty, but I've gone so far as to say that there was obviously "some basis for the charges". YOU, on the other hand, have from your very first post ... insinuated that the women are the guilty ones and individually responsible by:

Conspiring together to come up with his name and their story; and
by sleeping around.

Quite the f'n assumptions you've made there yourself Mr Bright one. How's that for "alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation."

I don't give two fucks if this guy is your friend; if he is found guilty ... I hope he rots - and all the other scum like him too who think it's all fine and dandy to KNOWINGLY infect others with an incureable STD.

By the way, I also don't give two shits if the women slept with 20 guys --- they are not the ones charged with anything; he is. Even IF they have slept with multiple partners, that doesn't excuse someone else KNOWINGLY having unsafe sex and passing on a disease without informing them "I have an STD, you may become infected if we do this".

Apparently, he didn't give them a choice in the matter - thus the charges.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.



I'm probably one of the learning impaired dudes you're talking about.

Did he know he contracted an STD Yes or no.
Did he have (unprotected?) sex with other women knowing he has an STD Yes or No.
Did he tell those women he was having sex with that he had an STD Yes or No.
Was he singled out and charged by the authorities with knowingly infecting these women with an STD,  yes or no.


Defending "one of our own"? He wears a uniform so we should put logic and common sense a side and 'back a brother up?'.
Sorry I have two daughters.  You were insinuating the women could have caught it anywhere which is a very weak argument here.


----------



## pensiveone (22 Feb 2010)

Logic and common sense is exactly what I'm looking for and it looks like I won't find any here.  In all honesty there is an excellent chance that he did exactly what the article depicts (however even they say "allegedly").  But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon because you'll probably convict the poor SOB just for being accused.  And I never suggested protecting him or hiding the truth but I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.  Because I gotta tell  ya, alot of you act like sheep - following the majority and developing almost a mob mentality.  Why don't we just lynch him and get it over with because the media or the authorities have never made a mistake before.  WAKE UP!!


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> ..........I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.



Perhaps it is you who should wake up.  And leave the "wearing of a uniform" out of it.  It is indeed "alledged" and he has not had his day in court, but "the uniform" has nothing to do with this.


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> Logic and common sense is exactly what I'm looking for and it looks like I won't find any here.  In all honesty there is an excellent chance that he did exactly what the article depicts (however even they say "allegedly").  But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon because you'll probably convict the poor SOB just for being accused.  And I never suggested protecting him or hiding the truth but I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.  Because I gotta tell  ya, alot of you act like sheep - following the majority and developing almost a mob mentality.  Why don't we just lynch him and get it over with because the media or the authorities have never made a mistake before.  WAKE UP!!



Wake yourself up.

Look up the definition of "IF" - everyone of us has used it here ... and spelled it right out for you too. "If he is convicted." "If he is found guilty."

Talking about mentalities - most of us have far moved on from the old days when a victim of rape was 'blamed' for what happened to her by having defense attorney's rip her apart in court or bring up sexual partners from eons before who had SFA to do with the events or the accused sitting in the courtroom. None of that has anything to do with this ... except that your attitude is similar:

Your friend is charged; you came on here and saw people saying "IF" he did this, I hope he rots.  YOU then jumped all over them with a post that blamed the women, showed your glee at eventually being able to "I can't wait to see them prove it wasn't all those other men they slept with ..." and their "conspiring together." Essentially, you screamed in here to protect your friend by attempting to pronounce the girls guilty, your buddy not so guilty, by using the old "blame the victim" routine.

Now that you've been called on that yourself, you start backpeddaling and speaking about uniforms. Good job on defending him at the expense of the victims.

This has nothing to do with what clothing he wears nor whatever clothing the women wear (get the analogy?). 

There's obviously basis for the charges or your friend wouldn't be charged. He'll get his day in court. And, he won't be in uniform while he's there either.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.


So?  Your comment reminds me of a news story several years ago about the UNB professor, Matin Yaqzan, who stated that non-virgin women who were date raped, should not press charges but ask for monetary compensation instead.

UBC Ubyssey Article



> In his article, Yaqzan claims women who were sexually active prior to a sexual assault would not suffer as much as those who were not sexually active prior to the assault.  He also states that when a woman was sexually active prior to an assault she “demand monetary compensation for her inconvenience or discomfort rather than express moral outrage.”


What bloody difference does it make if these women were virgins or had other partners, regardlass of how many?  They are not the alleged criminal in this case.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2010)

pensiveone said:
			
		

> But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon





			
				pensiveone said:
			
		

> I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.



Hmm.....


And I'm trying to stay out of this thread in case it needs some 'admin' work but Mr. Pensive I must ask one question, ........ So would your thoughts be different if some of the accusers 'wore a uniform?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2010)

We're not watching this circle the drain anymore. No one is making new points. We'll wait until he has his day in court.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Scott (18 Jan 2013)

Some updates:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/01/11/soldier-pleads-guilty-to-spreading-herpes



> Soldier pleads guilty to spreading herpes
> 
> By Megan Gillis,Ottawa Sun
> 
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Soldier+admits+knowingly+infecting+partners+with+herpes/7807000/story.html



> Soldier admits to knowingly infecting sex partners with herpes
> 
> OTTAWA — A Canadian soldier and Afghanistan war veteran who infected two women with herpes has pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I see that, he also stands accused with posession of kiddy porn. Dude really isn't doing himself many favours :

Normally we might unlock a thread like this. I do not see the point of that at present. If you have something pertinent to add then contact a mod. 

BTW, we're not likely to entertain conspiracy theories about how the soldier was ganged up upon by ''promiscuous'' women, and we are further unlikely to respond to calls for the guy's head on a platter. We've seen him defended and we've seen it said that he should be punished. Nuff said until there's more to report, IMO.

Scott
Staff


----------

