Will Charlie Sheen go to jail for knowingly exposing lovers to HIV?

Charlie Sheen during an appearance on NBC's ' Today Show'
We’ve been hearing that Charlie Sheen is under criminal investigation by the LAPD for threatening to kill his ex fiance, Brett (Scottine) Rossi. Rossi took out a restraining order against Sheen earlier, claiming that she feared for her life. Rossi is currently suing Sheen for domestic abuse and for exposing her to HIV without her knowledge. She claims to have tapes of him threatening her, which is completely believable considering that his ex wife, Denise Richards, has stated in court filings that Charlie has threatened to kill her and one of their daughters.

The National Enquirer has a take on this whole case which I didn’t consider. It’s a felony in California to engage in “Unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV.” There’s more to it, the HIV positive person must not disclose their status to their partner and has to act “With the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV,” which may be hard to prove. Still, this is punishable by a prison term of three, five or eight years.

The Enquirer states that they have tapes in which Charlie threatened to kill Rossi and in which he admitted he lied about his HIV status. They claims that these were handed over to the LAPD during a search warrant for this case. What’s more is that they quote an expert who states that Charlie may actually get jail time:

The Los Angeles Police Department served The Enquirer’s senior editors in New York with a lengthy search warrant on April 5, seeking an explosive audiotape in which the infected star confessed he lied to at least one former lover about his HIV status. He also made threats against former fiancee Scottine Ross’ [sic] life.

The search warrant stated the tape “tends to show that a felony has been committed” by Sheen…

In addition to criminal charges for the spreading of [HIV], [Charlie] is also being investigated for horrid threats of ghastly violence.

On the secret audiotape, Sheen, 50, can be heard telling a source that former fiancee Scottine needs to be “buried.”

“I can’t be f’ing extorted,” Sheen said on the tape. “It’s called treason. You know what treason is? It’s punishable by death. I’d rather spend 20 grand to have her head kicked in. Then people wil realize, ‘Oh, it’s dangerous,’” he said…

The LAPD is eager to get the tape, writing in the warrant, “obtaining those recordings will provide evidence that a felony violation of criminal threats has occurred,” as well as potential “additional evidence of felony crimes.”

Bo Dietl, a world-renowned private investigator and former detective, told The Enquirer Sheen could face jail time if he’s found to have made criminal threats or if it can be proven he knowingly exposed sex partners to HIV.

“I think they’re going to take it seriously,” he said. “If it’s a felony, criminal threats to kill kill somebody, then it could be a felony. They get the tape, that would be good enough evidence to lock him up, yes…

“If you could prove that he knowingly had HIV and he was having unprotected sex at the time he knew it, that certainly is a crime.”

[From The National Enquirer, print edition]

Remember that The Enquirer would have broken the news that Charlie was HIV positive, except he decided to make the announcement to the press first when he heard about it. They have a relationship with Rossi and their sister publication, Radar Online, has published photos documenting Charlie’s physical abuse of her. Rossi also disclosed to the National Enquirer last year that Charlie abused her while she was pregnant. She claimed that he forced her to get an abortion and that he choked and strangled her on several occasions. The photos of her bruised neck and chest support this.

I really hope this former detective is right and that Charlie is facing serious jail time, but he’s skated so far. He has the best lawyers and he will probably get off with a slap on the wrist. Imagine if a non-wealthy and/or non-white person did this though. They’d be locked up for years.

Really blessed to have such an amazing man in my life. I love you @charliesheen :) #WeLaughAtTheRumors #scottine

A photo posted by Brett Rossi (@imbrettrossi) on

Charlie Sheen at The 2016 Elton John AIDS Foundation Academy Awards Viewing Party

photos credit: WENN and FameFlynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

144 Responses to “Will Charlie Sheen go to jail for knowingly exposing lovers to HIV?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maddy says:

    #WeLaughAtTheRumors… Hahaha yes, abuse and HIV is just hilarious.

    • I Choose Me says:

      I’m guessing those Instagram posts/tweets were done either before he started his abuse, or before he escalated in his behaviour

  2. NewWester says:

    Considering the lifestyle Charlie is living( drugs, drinking etc) plus the stories of him not taking his HIV medication. I seriously doubt if Charlie will live long enough to see any prison time if he is charged/convicted with any crime. He seems determined to destroy his life and bring others down with him

  3. Izzy says:

    He SHOULD go to prison. And that law is weak. Intent to infect should not be part of the burden of proof. If you know you’re positive and do not disclose it, and have unprotected sex, that should be proof enough.

    I’m generally not a fan of forcing newspapers (even the Enquirer) to turn over sources or material, but in the cases of someone threatening o commit murder, yes. And in the case of someone recklessly and knowingly spreading HIV and helping create a public health crisis, definitely.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. If you kill someone while driving drunk, you didn’t have to set out with intent. You knew you were a danger just by driving drunk. It’s the same thing.

      • AmyB says:

        Very good point GNAT!

      • Pinky says:

        In re to drunk driving: If there’s intent to go out and run someone off the road or you operate with extreme negligence, it’s murder or homicide. If not, it’s manslaughter. So here, if there’s intent, it’s a felony. If not, it’s a misdemeanor.

        –TheRealPinky

      • Izzy says:

        Pinky, if you KNOW you have a deadly disease, and knowingly engage in an act that is known to spread it, then how is intent NOT there? You intended to do something that you know will possibly kill someone else. Full stop.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Pinky, in the majority of states, you do not have to have intent to be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you are driving drunk. Your conduct has to cause the person’s death. That’s all.

    • Snazzy says:

      Yup agreed. First thing I thought of when I saw the title was ” I hope so!” In this day and age there is no excuse

      • imqrious2 says:

        +10000000! This piece of human garbage knew full well that he had HIV AND then proceeded to have unprotected sex. Who, in this day and age, DOESN”T KNOW that this is how HIV/Aids/STDs are spread?

        Sigh… I feel SO badly for his daughters, being old enough to be teased about him, and being able to read/google all of the “news” about their sperm donor (I refuse to call him a “father”; that entails loving and nurturing your offspring)

    • aims says:

      A few weeks ago my husband and I were watching vintage Donohue on you tube. The topic was Rock Hudson ex lover who successfully sued his estate because Rock never told him he had AIDS and any time he asked Rock what was wrong with him, Rock would lie and have his people lie to the young man. We were watching it and we both agreed that if someone knowingly lies and puts your life in jeopardy that should be some consequence for that.

      My point is that it should be criminal if nobody is telling the infected person’s sexual partner that they’re HIV + or have full blown AIDS. If it’s been disclosed and they want the relationship to continue, then that’s fine. But to put someone’s life in danger, knowingly and not let the other person know about the potential danger is IMO illegal.

      • Snowflake says:

        Omg, that’s horrible, lying to him! How can someone do that?

      • Naya says:

        The Rock Hudson case also triggered a medical ethics debate. His doctor apparently knew that he was happily exposing his partner but couldn’t do a thing about it because his hands were tied.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Rock Hudson died in 1985, HIV and its link to AIDS were discovered and started to be understood less than 4 years prior to his death, and there was a huge stigma against the syndrome at that time, he was bff with the Reagans who turned their back on him, heck! Reagan hadn’t publicly acknowledged that AIDS even existed yet! We also didn’t completely understand the virus’ routes of transmission. In that context, I can understand why anyone would not disclose their state.

    • Kitten says:

      This so so much. I’ll put Sheen with Palin on the short list of people I despise. He is such a terrible sub-human.

      • MC2 says:

        Kitten- my head hurts now. Who do I hate more?! Charlie or Palin…..Charlie or Palin…..my list is also short but these two wear the queen & king crown of the ball.

    • paleokifaru says:

      I absolutely agree and I’m tired of celebrities getting away with criminal actions because of public goodwill and money. When we keep giving them slaps on the wrist for drugs and for alcohol abuse while driving we’re condoning allowing them to ratchet up their destructive behavior.

      • swak says:

        If he gets by with it and has no consequences it will be because of money not public goodwill.

      • paleokifaru says:

        This time, yes. But he’s had problems for decades and it was largely ignored because people liked him so he kept getting work. I just feel like we continually see this play out with people like Lindsay Lohan, RDJ (who seems to have finally kicked it but could it have been sooner?) and Britney Spears. It’s ignored until it’s such a train wreck and destroys more people around them.

    • Arpeggi says:

      But Izzy, has he actually contaminated someone? Because the last time I heard about it, the answer was no, therefore, there is no ground for trial.

      And the law needs to be loosly written, every case will be different. For someone with an undetectable viral load, one could argue that the need to disclose your status isn’t important since the risk of contamination is extremely low (the probability is there, but I’m unsure there are reported cases of transmission with an undetectable load). If someone has a detectable viral load, then it’s another story entirely…

      Sheen should go to jail for being a raging meth head; he has threathened several women (and men too, most likely) and seems to have conspired to get someone killed. It seems like serious enough reasons. The HIV thing, though is really weak here.

      And seriously people, use protection. Always. I can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone would have unprotected sex with someone they barely know, or worst, with someone like Sheen who has a documented history of all sorts of abuses. HIV is not the only disease one can get.

      • Izzy says:

        I’m not convinced that someone who has behaved like he has SHOULDN’T be charged, but yes, you do need a victim of the crime – someone who is infected. No one has come forward yet, but if he hasn’t infected anyone, I’ll eat my shorts. As for viral load, it’s irrelevant. If someone is exposed and has some kind of idiopathic immune problem (not caused by HIV, but just low IG levels, born that way, etc.), their risk is in fact higher and even a slight viral load is dangerous.

        As for reasons to put Sheen behind bars, I have to agree with you – there have been so many instances where they should have locked his sorry butt up. But that ship has sailed.

        And yeah, wrap it up, people. I can’t believe we have to keep hammering that message home, but I guess for younger generations who didn’t see the mid-80′s and 90′s, they’re all “oh it’s like diabetes.” But it’s really not.

      • MC2 says:

        I don’t think we do need a victim of the crime for there to be a crime and we already have one here. As was stated below (and I remember her saying this), Sheen used lambskin condoms with Rossi & told her he did not have STDs and was checked frequently (she knew his doctor too). So he did put her at risk, whether she has it or not just magnifies the charges but I don’t think it dismisses them. And she is a victim even if she’s negative. He lied to her & other women repeatedly. I shudder to think about when she & others found out he was positive for HIV off the TV…….He only came out because the tabloids were going to out him. If he could he would still be sleeping with people and telling them he was negative.

        If someone drives drunk but doesn’t kill anyone they are committing a crime just a lesser one then if they had struck & killed someone. But they knew that they were putting others at risk by their own behavior. Sheen did to. Again & again & again.

        I 100% agree in always using protection but feel like Arpeggi’s comment was a little victim blaming. Just cuz these women slept with Sheen (barf) does not mean that they should not be seen just as much a victim as another woman. Rossi did use protection with Sheen , saw his doctor, etc. The ‘Angles’ were told he was tested all the time. He straight up lied to them & put them at risk. That’s criminal.

      • Arpeggi says:

        But Izzy, the viral load is relevant, the immune status of the other person isn’t, it can affect how the disease will progress in that individual and they’ll respond to treatment, but it has nothing to do with the likeliness of getting infected with HIV. Someone with an undetectable viral load has just as many circulating viruses as an HIV- individual: 0. You cannot contaminate someone if there are no viruses circulating. If you want to use the drunk driving comparison (which I don’t like), then it’s pretty much like driving after having had one beer; would it increase your risk of having an accident? Not really. The same elements are involved, but the context differs and so are the risks involved. To prosecute, you need to show that there was malice, a clear intent to infect others and to deceive them… Which I’m not sure you could prove here, even if it’s Charlie Sheen we’re talking about. I loath the guy, and I hate the idea that he could be seen as the face of AIDS by certain, but I’d rather have him prosecuted for the numerous crimes he did commit, not because there seems to be a leeway.

        Sheen’s partners are obviously victims, he has been physically and psychologically abusive towards them, but stating that he put them at risk by not revealing his status would be impossible to prove since they remain, to my knowledge, HIV-. It’s a slippery slope if you start accusing people for things that could have happened but didn’t (unless you can prove that there was an intent to make this thing happening, then it’s different). The abuses, threats, conspiracies should be more than enough to send anyone in jail.

        I’m sorry if you felt that my comment was a bit victim-blaming MC2, that was not my intention. I know that sex workers are often not in the position to negotiate their conditions and that his “gf” were stuck in abusive relatioships where, again, it might have been difficult to say no (I don’t get who at this point would get in a relationship with Sheen, but that’s another story entirely). It was more a general comment. Whether it’s a one-night thing or a person you’ve been seeing for a while, you should always use protection because they might be carrying something. What the other person says is not important; you can only be sure of their status when both of you get tested, ideally at the same time. HIV isn’t what is worrying me the most anymore (even though my dad died of AIDS in the early 90s and AIDS is an awful disease), the tought of multi-resistant strains of gonorrhoea and chlamydia is horrifying! STIs are on the rise, especially amongst young women, and it shouldn’t be like this.

  4. Hejhej says:

    Should he go to jail? YES.
    Will he go to jail? I sadly doubt it. He has some kind of punishment teflon coating :(

    • Sally J. Freedman says:

      But he really doesn’t. His actions have finally caught up with him. I mean he’s HIV positive.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      No. I don’t see him going to jail. He shot Kelly Preston in the arm for F–k sakes and nothing happened other than she moved in with John Travolta and if there’s one thing Charlie is afraid of, its the church of scientology. He beat the crap out of Denise, choked her, made death threats…nothing. He has continued to hire prostitutes and contractual girlfriends and exposed them knowingly to HIV and we haven’t heard one single word about any of them…and there are alot of them. He’ll skate – just like everything else.

      • swak says:

        That’ probably why he has no money – he has been paying everyone off.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        yes. More pay-offs than we will every know. And sadly, alot of these men and women that he hires do know he has HIV and are willing to risk their health for money, but how is that legal? So, if a woman is basically consents to contracting HIV and gets pregnant and passed the infection on to their child, nobody is to blame for the child’s predicament? That is wrong on so many levels. It can’t be enforced, but it still should be illegal to have unprotected sex when HIV positive. We’re allowing people to be self-destructive or play russian roulet and it does affect others whether they mean it to or not.

  5. Elisabeth says:

    his ego is so giant that he doesn’t realize the hilarity in using the word ‘treason’ in regular speech

  6. Naya says:

    Aaaaargh. He is just going to become a rallying point for activists who want intentional transmission decriminalized (something about increasing stigma etc). Besides, his lawyers will destroy these women, that is why he chose women in the sex industry isnt it?

    Staff (some even former) at Enquirer have long said that they have WATCHED Charlie in same sex tapes and since neither of these guys have come forward I think we can assume that either they have been extremely well paid to shut up or Charlie has already hired hitmen.

    • Esther says:

      “activists who want intentional transmission decriminalized ”

      what the hell?

      • Naya says:

        Yep. They argue that HIV isnt the death sentence it once was and since we dont prosecute over intentionally transmitting herpes then we shouldn’t here. Also something about stigmatising the infected. I see them all over Gawker and Reddit all the time.

      • Colette says:

        We don’t criminalize people with Hepatitis B,even though it can be contracted sexually and can be deadly.One of my former classmates contracted Hep B through her boyfriend.She died from the damage Hep B did to her liver yet nobody suggested he should go to prison .If we criminalize people with HIV than criminalize people with other STDs.

      • doofus says:

        oh, there’s one down below.

      • Kitten says:

        That’s outrageous and disgusting.

      • Naya says:

        @Doofus I guess theres no escape from that crowd, not even here on CB.

      • pinetree13 says:

        Well if someone KNOWS they have a disease and DOESN’T disclose it, why shouldn’t they be punished? That is so wrong! I mean think about it, opening someone else’s mail is mail fraud even if whatever they opened isn’t important. Knowingly exposing someone to a disease without telling them is super immoral. There should definitely be laws in place that they must disclose if they know. Stigma or no stigma.

    • burnsie says:

      +1 Naya. Giving those activists something to run with is my big fear with all of this. I was hesitant to comment on CB until I saw your comment :)

  7. AmyB says:

    Charlie Sheen getting jail time would be the justice he truly deserves. After all the reported incidents of his abuse towards women (Denise Richards, Brooke Mueller, that porn star in the hotel room he trashed, Brett Rossi etc.), that is what this POS deserves! I pride myself on having empathy for others, but this man has been a destructive train wreck for so many years, and he refuses to get adequate help. It’s one thing to be an out of control addict; it’s something completely different to hit, abuse, and threaten to kill people and to indulge in child pornography. He is a grotesque human being. Jail is the perfect place for him — hope the LAPD can finally make a case for it!!

    • MC2 says:

      AmyB- +1000 to what you said: ” It’s one thing to be an out of control addict; it’s something completely different to hit, abuse, and threaten to kill people and to indulge in child pornography”

  8. Jem says:

    I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would hook up with him, let alone marry him, let alone have babies with him. If it were me, I’d leave the room when he entered it. I don’t care how rich/famous he is: he’s a gross human being. Just vile.

    • Erinn says:

      I’m assuming he can at least turn on the charm when he wants to. He’s vile. But serial abusers tend to be able to lavish with gifts and praise when it’s in their interest- otherwise it’d be hard to abuse partner after partner.

    • Naya says:

      I think a lot of the women he hooks up with are extremely damaged individuals. Men like Charlie may be all they know. Hell, in that world Charlie is a catch. I mean he isnt going to pimp them out when he is broke, in fact he is more likely to GIVE them money than make them have sex with strangers for money. Its a sad world.

      • AmyB says:

        I think you are exactly right @Naya — why do you think he dates/hooks up with porn stars? I am not saying ALL porn stars are damaged, but my educated guess is that most of them have some serious emotional issues to do what they do. He chooses women that he can manipulate, abuse and when things go sour, he can try to discredit them due to their “past”…..typical pathological abuser!

    • JenniferJustice says:

      Dollar signs!

  9. shannon says:

    Yes, he should be in jail. I’ve read rumors over the years that he molested Corey Haim on the set of Lucas, which ultimately ended up destroying Haim’s life. Now that all of this is coming to light, I am beginning to believe there could be truth to the rumors. Anyone who would willingly put people’s lives in danger like this, is a very sick person.

    • AmyB says:

      I saw something recently about that — Sheen abusing Corey Haim on the set of Lucas. If you have ever seen Denise Richards’ petition for divorce, she outlines her concerns: one of them was his obsessive use of child pornography, picturing young boys. Makes the whole Corey Haim thing pretty logical. Poor kid.

      • SilkyMalice says:

        Oh no. How can one human being be so incredibly evil? Really, there is no other way to describe him.

      • Kitten says:

        @SilkyMalice-Yes the shoe absolutely fits with this guy. Pure evil indeed.

      • AmyB says:

        Pure evil is the perfect description for him. He has probably harmed so many others that the public is not even aware of — makes me sick for his poor children. Can you imagine having THAT as a father???

      • imqrious2 says:

        If you remember, everyone gave Denise all kinds of sh*t, calling her every name in the book, for divorcing him when she was 7 mos. pregnant with her second child. Even back then, it was being said that it was partly due to his obsession with online child porn; it just didn’t come out in public that it was porn with little boys.

      • AmyB says:

        I agree @imgrious2 — it makes Denise Richards’ actions of taking care of his twin boys with Brooke (while she was in rehab again) all the more meaningful. Denise was raked over the coals for divorcing him, but now knowing some of what went on (and there is probably A LOT far worse that the public will never know), I have so much more sympathy for her. She tried so hard to have a relationship with that a**hole for the sake of her children, and yet he just continues on with his selfish, destructive sociopathic life. He deserves prison PERIOD.

    • Cindy says:

      Wait. There are rumors that was CS? I have read that Corey Feldman said Haim was molested on the set of Lucas, but I assumed it was a pedophile producer/director. Don’t get me wrong, CS is vile, I guess I never thought he was a child molester. I feel ill. :( .

      • AmyB says:

        Yes, it is very much implied it was Sheen, especially when you juxtapose Denise Richard’s divorce documents and her claims of his fascination with child pornography, specifically young boys. Very tragic indeed.

      • Cindy says:

        @amyB. Is this in Feldman’s book? And what do Denise’s divorce papers say exactly? I know I could google this myself, but I don’t want to vomit my coffee.

      • Kitten says:

        One of his best friends was convicted for child pr0n. In QQ’s link down thread, they talk about how Charlie wanted him to be on the payroll for 2 and a Half Men. He’s really the bottom-of-the-barrel. I don’t think he’s even human, just a monster.

      • Cindy says:

        Thank you kitten. Just read the article, have no words.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I think it’s a well-known secret in Hollywood that is was Sheen who molested Haim…and it happened more than once. Feldman wrote a book and referenced Haim being molested on the set of Lucas but would not say who exactly it was. I’ve often wondered what level of fear Feldman operates under with Sheen knowing he knows what he did to his best friend. It really would not harm the world if Sheen were taken out by some psycho. Seriously, that would make me happy.

      • AmyB says:

        @Cindy I don’t remember exactly where I saw it, but it was copies of Denise’s divorce filing….detailing many things, his verbal/physical abuse, his threats of violence, AND his obsession with porn, specifically child porn. Denise was disgusted (who wouldn’t be?) and left him. Corey Feldman all but named him in an interview about the sexual abuse of children in Hollywood.

      • MC2 says:

        I just went from very angry to very sad. Yep- I have read about Sheen molesting Haim & that people knew. How the hell can Charlie have access to his kids like he does with the child porn stuff being documented?!

        I have hoped that Corey would come out & name him but understood why he didn’t (Corey talked about how his ‘career’ would be destroyed & how powerful the abuser was). Now maybe Corey can come out?

        I will pledge here that if Corey names the abuser I will donate to getting his new album made (I won’t listen but I will gladly pay).

        JenniferJustice- I like your name & your thoughts.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        MC2- thanks for the compliment. I have to say I didn’t take on the JenniferJustice moniker because I think I know best how to save the world. I am a paralegal for the courts and at one of our Halloween parties, I was a superhero named Jennifer Justice. It stuck.

    • Sam says:

      You know, I’m starting to wonder if CS will wind up being the US equivalent to Jimmy Savile. When he finally passes, will we get people coming out of the woodwork to reveal tons of awful things?

  10. kri says:

    He is truly depraved. He should have been put away a long time ago.

  11. Emma - The JP Lover says:

    And still … no ‘animal’ label assigned to Charlie Sheen at all.

  12. Dangles says:

    No glove. No love.

    • Sam says:

      Not that simple. Brett Rossi stated that Sheen used lambskin condoms with her – which are perfectly good for preventing pregnancy, but are not effective against HIV. So if he was telling her that was enough protection while he knew he was positive, that’s deceptive and very dangerous, and he should be held accountable for it.

  13. vanessa says:

    He should go to jail but he won’t because rich and famous people always get away with everything

    • SilkyMalice says:

      RDJ did time. I’m betting Sheen will too. I wonder what they will make of him in prison. They will probably not be able to put in him the general population, because they would not put up with his bs for one hot minute.

      • swak says:

        Unfortunately, don’t think that the court system will look at Charlie’s activities the same way they did RDJ. RDJ was jailed for drug and weapons charges and it was the third or fourth time that it had happened. Not saying Charlie shouldn’t be charged, but think it is going to be a lot harder to do.

      • MC2 says:

        Yep- because drugs & weapons will land you in jail.

        Charlie’s mo is abusing women & beating them. That doesn’t get you jail time like being caught with a little coke. #sadbuttrue

  14. Insomniac says:

    Won’t ever happen. Should, but won’t.

  15. DollyDahl says:

    No doubt Sheen is a deplorable human being and should go to jail for any of the physical abuse, but in my opinion the criminalization of HIV is wrong. It feeds into the stigma surrounding AIDS. Here we are in 2016 and it was only just a few years ago where the US lifted the ban on foreigners with AIDS traveling here. Medical and public health advancement of the disease have made it such where its not the death sentence it once was in the 80s and 90s when it first came on the scene in the US. Our laws need to reflect it versus feeding into public hysteria around the disease.

    • Jaded says:

      Lifting a ban on travel for people with AIDS is a whole lot different than letting someone off who has AIDS but has unprotected sex with someone and doesn’t tell them. That is a heinous crime, not merely stigmatizing sufferers, and should be punished. It doesn’t matter that medical treatment today can slow down or halt the progress of the disease, it is still a life sentence and a huge cost financially and emotionally to an innocent person should they contract the virus. Think of it this way: you live next door to a chemical plant thinking that they have all sorts of safety measures in place to protect you – then one day there’s a massive spill that poisons the air, ground water, etc. and they don’t tell you. Wouldn’t you be upset upon finding out that your health, even your life was threatened?

      • DollyDahl says:

        So if a child has cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that will shorten the child’s lifespan and is very costly on many levels, can he/she sue the parents if the child find out that the parents knew there were carriers of the CF gene prior to birth? If we are in the business of criminalizing diseases, then we should do it for all of them. The fact the HIV is the only one is where the stigmatization of the disease comes in to play. And yes, it is an unfortunate disease, but I don’t see it anymore unfortunate than many others out there.

      • Zip says:

        Honestly, if I was the child I would be pissed off. There are many other genetic diseases where parents knowingly take the risk to give birth to a child which is likely to suffering from them. In my opinion those parents are selfish.

    • Zip says:

      I don’t see a “criminalization of HIV”. If someone infects you with a deadly disease on purpose – no matter which one – or knowingly puts you into that danger by not disclosing the health status (in case of HIV before having unprotected sex) then this should go to court and be punished. This is attempted manslaughter at least!
      It’s 2016 and we all should be educated enough to not criminalize people for having a certain disease. However, this also means people who carry a certain disease should no be above the law just because there are still some other people left that still might have outdated ideas. It does not matter if someone tries to infect me with something or stabs me with a knife. The outcome might be the same: death. Therefore it’s a crime.

      • Kitten says:

        What about the guy in Missouri who knowingly infected over 300 women a few years ago? He was criminally prosecuted for that, and rightfully so. It’s a public health issue at that point, straight-up.

        @DollyDahl- So you’re saying that if someone sticks an HIV-infected needle into another person they shouldn’t be charged for that? That hardly seems right to me.

      • Snowflake says:

        This^^

      • Jaded says:

        I totally agree – same as the anti-vaxxers – by not vaccinating their kids for totally unsubstantiated reasons they are knowingly promoting the spread of all kinds of serious diseases. I caught the pertussis virus (adult whooping cough) from a woman at work who refused to vaccinate her kids. They caught it and she spread it. Because I’m over 50 my original vaccination had worn off. It was awful, I was seriously sick for a month and had to pretty much isolate myself for 10 days – and my 90 year old mother was living with me. Thank God she didn’t catch it from me, it would have killed her.

      • Jwoolman says:

        Jaded- Vaccination is not a guarantee that a person won’t acquire a disease and spread it. People (and animals) who are up to date with vaccinations can and do get sick with the disease against which they were vaccinated. The immune response is never a certainty at any age, and it may be lost over time even if the individual has a shorter term response (as you think happened to you).

        People tend to assume a degree of protection from vaccination that unfortunately doesn’t exist. The theory is that exposure to a hopefully safer level of the pathogen (or part of the pathogen) will let the immune system respond more quickly to the pathogen in future. This doesn’t always happen in practice. Some vaccinated individuals (with some vaccines, a large number) may be overwhelmed by the pathogen from a too slow or too little response, and may not respond any faster than if unvaccinated.

        This is why hygiene practices are crucial to minimize spread of disease no matter how many people are vaccinated in a community. Too many people go to work and school when they are suffering from a contagious disease, because we just aren’t set up as a society to take steps to avoid that. People are afraid of the lost income if they are sick, parents have to juggle the problem of a sick child going to school vs more lost income if they keep the child home. So contagious diseases end up affecting many more children and adults in contact with them. Doctors no longer make house calls so sick people are dragged off to the doctor’s office, spreading the disease as they go. It’s just not a sensible approach.

      • Arpeggi says:

        But Kitten, if someone stabs another individual with a contaminated syringe, there is a clear intent to do harm, and this can be, and should be, prosecuted. The same goes for someone who knows he/she has a detectable viral load and does nothing to protect their partners or falsify/lies about their status when asked about it. In those cases, there is a clear intent to inflict harm.

        But if someone has an undetectable viral load (no virus circulating; the virus has integrated its DNA genome in some cells, but is not replicating and producing virions), takes its medication as it should and has frequent medical visits, should that person be sued by a one-night stand because he/she didn’t disclose their status even if if there was no contamination (for psychological distress for instance)? What about someone that has used protection but the condom broke, should that person be sued? There was a case about 15 years ago of a pediatric surgeon who was HIV+, I’m not sure how it came to the press (that already is sketchy), but some people became hysterical, saying that she should have disclosed her status to every patient/their parents she operated even though no patient ever came close to getting contaminated! (Actually, while health care providers have been infected by patients, there are no cases reported of the opposite situation) So what should she have done, disclose private, personnal information to her patients? Where do we stop then?

        The law needs to be in accordance to the current medical knowledge and protect the public, meaning both HIV- and HIV+ individuals, you cannot have a law that creates unecessary prejudices towards a group of individuals for the sole purpose of reassuring others, even when their fears are unfounded.

    • Sam says:

      It’s only not a death sentence if you have the resources to afford treatment. HIV drugs are still quite expensive. The routine monitoring and care are expensive. If you have no insurance, HIV will drain your resources and you may eventually need to go without treatment and then, guess what? It still totally is a death sentence (and let’s not forget that you fail to mention that HIV is a virus, which means it is subject to mutation that could render your treatment ineffective). HIV still has an incredibly ability to kill, and those who know they have it and recklessly place partners at risk behave with a level of malice that, yes, I find criminal.

      And let’s dispense with this “criminalizing of HIV.” No, the laws do not. It is not illegal to simply have HIV. The laws criminalize BEHAVIOR. Just as it is not illegal to be drunk. It is illegal to drink to intoxication and drive, or to cause a scene while drunk. Those are specific behaviors, not statuses. The laws criminalize behavior – the reckless and/or intentional exposure of another person to HIV. Let’s be clear here and cut out the inaccurate language.

      • DollyDahl says:

        Except the laws specifically single out HIV/AIDS in these instances, so it is criminalization of HIV. If it were simply criminalizing the behavior, the statues would be written very differently and would more generic – such as knowingly putting another person’s health at risk, etc.
        http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

        @kitten – Hep C is also commonly transmitted via IDU, should that be included in our laws?

      • Kitten says:

        @DollyDahl-Yes if someone knowingly sticks a Hep C-infected needle into someone/multiple people with the intention of infecting them, they should be criminally charged.
        Are you saying you think they SHOULDN’T be?

      • DollyDahl says:

        Should we start prosecuting workers who come to work with the flu and infect others around them? The flu kills thousands of people every year. And while not a chronic life-long disease such as AIDS, it still can be deadly and costly. How about measles especially among the parents that don’t vaccinate their kids?

        My point is that HIV/AIDS is unique in that its the only disease that our laws single out. If we are truly addressing the risks of the behavior (vs the actual disease) then we should apply it in all instances?

      • DollyDahl says:

        @kitten – my argument is that it becomes a very slippery slope when we start charging people with crimes for spreading diseases. Currently, only HIV is in that category – hence why I feel is unfairly stigmatized whereas other diseases are not. Don’t get me wrong – I think it’s an awful situation and people who knowingly fail to disclose their health status thereby putting others at risk are horrible, but the fact that this only applies to HIV is an issue in my opinion. I work in public health in a US urban setting where the HIV rate is on par with many African countries, so I see the effects that behavior has on individuals – knowingly or otherwise – so I don’t take it lightly, but I think we need to carefully exam where we apply our laws and not.

      • Jaded says:

        @DollyDahl: contracting a deadly, contagious disease through the deliberate negligence of another person is a criminal act. Period. You cannot compare it to the flu or measles because AIDS isn’t the type of disease you catch by simply touching something that a person with the flu virus has touched. It is only transmitted via sex or sharing a dirty needle. So not using a condom or sharing said dirty needle knowing that you have AIDS is considered an assault with a biological weapon.

      • DollyDahl says:

        So we are criminalizing the mechanism of transmission? HPV? Hep C? Should those be illegal too?

      • Sam says:

        There are a few differences that are worth mentioning:

        There is no STD with the strong, causal relationship of HIV. Part of why HIV transmission can be criminalized so strongly is because of its direct causal relationship to AIDS. HIV is the only way to get AIDS. That’s it. You can’t get AIDS without first contracting the HIV virus.

        Let’s take HPV, for example. HPV is quite pervasive in the general population, and it causes no issues or concerns for the vast majority of people, whose bodies naturally deal with it. In a small number of cases, HPV can cause cancer. However, the problem is that many other things can cause those same illnesses. You can never state with certainty that the HPV caused the cancer in any particular individual. You can pretty sure it did, but you can’t be certain – and criminal prosecutions require a standard beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the causal link you would need to establish the fact pattern for a crime is unclear and won’t hold up in court. However, if you have a person dying of AIDS, you can state with absolute certainty that HIV is the cause. In addition, the same is true with Hep C. While Hep C can certainly cause liver damage, so can other illnesses and behaviors. For example, many people who contract Hep C are IV drug users who use substances that, by themselves, can cause liver damage as well. So therefore, it’s hard to argue, legally, that a direct causal connection can be established in court. In HIV cases, that is not a problem, since it’s easy to do. That’s why HIV criminalization has withstood the challenges its faced – because HIV, unlike most STDS, does not threaten your life in an uncertain, roundabout way. It does so quite directly. That’s why HIV exposure can be criminalized – because of the clear causal connection to the harm it causes in the infected victim. That grave type of situation is what is deemed to warrant the criminal charges.

      • Izzy says:

        Please read Sam’s comments about the differences. HPV MIGHT cause cervical cancer. Hep C MAY cause liver disease. Whereas HIV WILL be deadly, and WILL require a lifelong triple-cocktail regimen of medications that are not without serious side effects. Just because we now have medications to treat it and hold it at bay, does not mean HIV is not deadly. It still is. I don’t know how old you were in the 1980′s to mid 90′s, or even if you were around. But I remember those days well. And I have no desire to see a repeat. It was horrifying to watch the epidemic unfold, and heartbreaking to watch people I loved die of this disease.

        And please understand that not only do viruses mutate, HIV in particular mutates with EVERY SINGLE TRANSMISSION. There are resistant strains showing up in the population, and so far, nothing in the R&D pipeline has been shown to be effective against them. So if we don’t discourage people from spreading it, we WILL see 1985 all over again.

        If someone KNOWS they have a deadly virus and engages in the very behavior that transmits it, then yes, they are a criminal and should be treated accordingly. Period. And by the way, there are cases where people have been successfully prosecuted for spreading other STDs, under charges of battery, etc.

      • Sam says:

        Izzy: Thank you for expounding on my comments. I personally would support the idea of criminal STD transmission in more cases. I think the theory works. But for most other STDs, the causal connection is just not as strong, and that creates reasonable doubt, so the case would fall apart. In HIV cases, that causal connection is strong and clear most of the time. HIV is the only known virus to cause AIDS, and AIDS, left untreated (or even treated in some cases) is fatal. Recklessly or intentionally exposing another human to the possibility of HIV and AIDS is horrific and I see no good reason to not prosecute such cases. I get that there is stigma and yes, that sucks. But stigma is no excuse for endangering another human life. And I know people with HIV. The idea of infecting another person terrifies them. Even if you can live with it, the living gets harder. I just can’t muster any sympathy for people who spread such an illness in such a manner.

      • Alyce says:

        @ Sam: Very well put! Thanks for laying out your reasoning so well! 100% agree!

      • MC2 says:

        Sam & Izzy- great points & convo!

      • DollyDahl says:

        @sam – I definitely get your argument and I think it highlights how complicated this issue is in real time. I don’t mean to be blase, but so what if we know that there’s a causal relationship with AIDS. Again I’m not arguing that this is not a serious and fatal disease – it is. But there are other situations with other serious and fatal diseases exist that are also casual. I brought up an earlier example of 2 parents who know they are both carriers of Cystic Fibrosis. Any offspring have a 25% chance of getting CF. CF is ultimately fatal. Should we start prosecuting parents who have put their children in this situation?

        Ultimately, what I’m trying to do is understand why specifically HIV/AIDS is different than any other situation. Laws should be just – but that doesn’t always means fair.

      • DollyDahl says:

        By the way – I’m really enjoying the discussion. Hoping it stays civil and informed!

      • Sam says:

        Because the law recognizes that there is a vast difference between generics and acquired diseases. Your genes are entirely out of your control. There is no way to alter them (yet, of course) or choose your own. You are stuck with what nature gives you. HIV is acquired. With very few exceptions, HIV is acquired through behavior or something that happens to you. So in the CF example, there is an element that is out of the control of the parents. It’s a policy issue. In addition, the law recognizes a distinction between passive and affirmative actions. The parents of a child with CF don’t really DO anything that infects the child with CF. It’s a bad luck of the draw when they have a child with CF. Compare that to the person who have HIV, KNOWS for a fact that they have HIV, knows they can infect a partner if they engage in unprotected sex, and do it anyway. There are strong affirmative steps that one must take here. The law is not set up to criminalize all people who infect their partners with HIV, either. The law only covers those who know they are positive and take no steps to protect their partners.

        To the CF example, the problem with your analogy is that, in the CF case, I can think of no parents who would not prefer a CF-free child over one with the illness. That’s why almost all couples in that situation, knowing the genetic odds, opt either for IVF with pre-implantation diagnosis and/or prenatal testing. You are proposing an analogy for something that I do not reasonably believe ever occurs, which makes your analogy pretty spurious. So I’m not exactly sure how to even unpack it.

    • MC2 says:

      DollyDahl- I appreciate your comments & patience. On face value your argument seems silly to me & my reaction was “wha?!?!” But as I read what you were saying I get it and it makes me think.

      It’s a slippery & dangerous slop when we changes laws based on public hysteria about one thing. I side-eye law makers who are looking for a small hole that people will jump on to make bigger later & then take away rights, etc. But- there were some huge cases that this law reacted to.

      I think knowingly & possibly infecting people should absolutely carry a jail sentence but the flu argument was thought provoking. Common knowledge tells us that the flu & HIV are VERY different but legally it is a perplexing problem. Hmmm….. although I do think method of transmission is very important (me standing next to an old woman when I have the flu vs having intimate sex with a partner). I know the chances of me infecting the partner are large.

      I hope people read what you are saying & think about it past their first reactions. HIV/AIDS is stigmatized and why wouldn’t Hep be included? I knew a guy who KNEW he had Hep and he would lie about it. It was due to shame but if he lied or omitted the fact before sex then he should be in the same boat as Charlie imo.

      P.S.- public hysteria or not: if someone would just make a “anti-Charlie Sheen law” I’d be on board! He is the representation of privileged, white, rich, rapey frat boys that run around abusing people, beating women and actually get rewarded for their sick behavior. Methinks a better spokesperson for this debate might change the tone. It’s almost impossible for me to even slightly defend Charlie or any of his actions.

      • DollyDahl says:

        @MC2 – thanks for your comment. I’m not always so articulate, so I appreciate your taking the time to decipher my words and I think you’ve highlighted the challenge in situations like this one.

        And I definitely I co-sign on an anti-Charlie Sheen law.

      • Izzy says:

        @DollyDahl, I may disagree with your stance on decriminalizing, but I think we can ALL get behind an anti-Charlie Sheen law. Really, just… no words. He’s sub-human. I’d call him a cockroach, but that seems mean to cockroaches.

      • pinetree13 says:

        Well I would argue decriminalizing, knowingly exposing people to HIV makes MUCH LESS sense then merely extending that law to other diseases. If someone knowingly has sex with someone and doesn’t tell them before hand….they should be punished!!!!
        I used the example above, that even opening someone else’s mail, even if it’s something unimportant, is mail-fraud and you can go to jail. That is soooo much less worse when you are talking about contracting a disease!

        Imagine you dated a guy who KNEW he had HIV and he gave it to you because he never told you and you found out later. Would you be happy if he just got to go on scott-free mean while your life is profoundly impacted? I would be devastated. It’s an action that is deserving of punishment.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Pinetree, your example is symbolistic of what is wrong with many. There are many reasons why a person would not disclose its HIV status as they are starting to date someone; the fear of being shunned, not just rejected but shamed, feel hatred and disgust from the object of their affection, is amongst them, they might want to wait a bit and see how the relationship evolves. But when you start dating someone, until you have the talk, agree that it will be a monogamous thing and have the both of you tested, you should always use protection. This way, you won’t get HIV, or any other STI, regardless of the other person’s status. Unfortunately, this is not how many behave, and this is why we have seen an increase in STI transmission in the past decade.

        While I agree that ethically, one’s partner should disclose such information, you too have responsibilities towards yourself and you shouldn’t put yourself at risk. If a guy is reluctant to wear a condom, I pick up my stuff and leave, or kick him out because I know that he might have convince other to have unprotected sex and while I want to trust my partner, I can’t trust everyone he slept with and their partners and theirs; it’s a leap of faith no one should make in this day and age.

  16. NeNe says:

    He should absolutely go to jail!!! He should be ashamed of himself for purposely infecting others!!!

    • Colette says:

      Who did he infect?

      • MC2 says:

        Yeah- no one that I’ve heard of has actually come out that he infected them. But he said he was extorted (poor Charlie) by many people so someone might have been infected but choose silence for $$$.

        But he still had sex with people knowing he was infected so regardless of whether people were infected doesn’t hold much weight. If you drink & drive it’s illegal even if you don’t hit someone. A lesser crime but still wrong.

        And Charlie can go to jail for anything and he deserves it. He shoots people, beats people, threatens them, molests & generally just walks around destroying people’s hearts & lives.

  17. LA says:

    I hope so. He is a violent lunatic and deserves nothing but the worst c

  18. Red32 says:

    I wonder if this LAPD investigation of Charlie Sheen had any influence on his father making an “OJ is Innocent” doc which is sure to paint the LAPD in a horrible light. No one in their right mind would think OJ is innocent, but it makes sense if the point is to discredit the LAPD and drag up negative feelings related to Fuhrman, etc.

  19. lucy2 says:

    He’s belonged in jail for any number of offenses. Let’s hope this one sticks for a change.

  20. QQ says:

    I was wondering why you uys didnt cover this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/charlie-sheen-hiv-a-tabloid-880714

    Which is why I kind of feel i’ve been waiting for it, that article is bar none one of THHEE most Bonkers/depraved/batsh*t cray insider stories about any celeb I’ve ever read, i really had to keep pausing to digest what I was reading a few weeks back

    • Celebitchy says:

      QQ that’s a good point and I read that and considered covering it but it was so complicated and crazy I didn’t know how to parse it at all. It actually slipped my mind when I covered this.

      • QQ says:

        Isn’t it just the most mind blowing amount of .. Info/crazy/Blatant getting away with just.. criminal behavior and garden variety bastard… Like I had to stop… talk to my gfs as we all read…then go back again…

    • Kitten says:

      I didn’t think I could be more disturbed by this monster, but that story really clinches it: this man is human garbage. Truly.

    • AmyB says:

      I read that Hollywood Reporter article as well, and when you look at all the other accusations against Sheen in conjunction with that, it really makes sense to believe his accusers (too many to mention). He is a true sociopath, IMO. No concern or conscience for anyone. I truly hope this latest case will cause the LAPD to pursue jail time for this monstrosity of a human being. How anyone can still be a fan of his at this point, is beyond me. I saw clips of him on the Dr. Oz show recently discussing his HIV status, and I just laughed.

      • Kitten says:

        Absolutely. Sociopath is a diagnosis that gets thrown around too easily but I think it absolutely applies here. Sheen is a textbook case IMO.

      • greenmonster says:

        I guess, he still has fans because so many people don’t read gossip. Here in Germany you hear news that Sheen is HIV positive – but not much else. His behavior towards women goes by almost unnoticed. Quite often people look down on gossip. I tell my friends very often, how esp. this site goes far beyond gossip (articles about Sheen almost always turn into discussions of abuse, people share their stories and soooo many of my friends have no idea what Hollywood whitewashing is about).
        I really like how we constantly discuss more than gossip on this site, it may start with gossip but it goes so much deeper.

    • Annetommy says:

      Just looked at that article QQ. Oh my God. What a vile specimen. As someone with no particular interest in Charlie Sheen, I knew he was bad news but that article is something else. A pity Hayden Panatierre’s husband won’t get the chance to give his “views” to Sheen in person…

      • QQ says:

        Wasn’t that bit intensely creepy, like … That Girl Could have been in actual danger! just based on the behavior he seems to spouse on the regular towards women that capture his attention

    • Insomniac says:

      Oh, wow. What a horror show.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Charlie is a poster child for Antisocial Personality Disorder. He’s beyond a narcissist. He does not care and chooses his victims from a group of people easily marginalized. He is a predator pure and simple.

      • Cindy says:

        Yes, I was thinking the same in terms of his choice for victims. And look how long he got away with this stuff. For decades! Apparently when you terrorize prostitutes and porn stars and drug addicts, you can pretty much do whatever you want.

    • Cindy says:

      Thank you for the link QQ. How is there this much psychosis in one human being? My god.

      • MC2 says:

        There is a recipe for this- money, privilege, power and A LOT of drugs. I think Charlie’s brain was eaten by meth a long time ago…..but he was a pos before that happened anyway.

      • Boxy Lady says:

        I have heard that lack of oxygen or injury to the brain can trigger psychosis or sociopathy. Charlie was born blue. His middle name is Irwin in honor of the doctor that resuscitated him at birth.
        And I don’t know if jail will change him this time. He served time before and came out clean and sober and ready to work. That’s when he married Denise. But this time, I think he’s too far gone for jail to help him in any way.

    • MC2 says:

      The sickest part to me in all of this is that WE KNEW!!! Charlie has been a sick, violent pos for decades running around doing what he does without any consequences. In fact he got rewarded for it!!! The “good looking, wild, fun, rich bro who loves a party!” F- him and everyone who let him get away with it. Cosby couldn’t have done what he successfully did without enablers & either could Charlie.

      He shot his girlfriend decades ago, chocked his wife to a blackout, slammed a woman’s head onto the floor repeatedly, threatened his child on tape, abused mothers in front of their children and he got nothing!

      Charlie represents privileged, white frat bros gone awry. And, again, he got rewarded! Not just consquences but actually rewarded with a TV show to give him a platform for his sexist crap. I remember after he shot someone & abused Denise I would still read about how “cool” he was and look at him making millions, partying & having sex with beautiful women. My blood boils.

      My last thought is a sad one. He is not a sociopath or a psychopath. I studied them & worked with a few (shudder) & I don’t think he fits. I wish he did so I could push him off to side as a unique & flawed person. He is a product of our society and an extreme example of what is going on all around us. He should have been stopped a long f-ing time ago but people just cheered while he drank Tiger Blood, hooked up with multiple porn stars & spent his time abusing people all over the place.

    • lucy2 says:

      Wow, that is just insane.

    • Snowflake says:

      That was a really interesting article. Some crazy stuff in there!!!! Thanks, qq.

  21. aenflex says:

    It’s the wealth that keeps him safe, I don’t personally feel it’s the race. Wealth/fame seem to transcend in these cases.

  22. Cerys says:

    I have a been a fan of Charlie Sheen since he started his career and it has pained me to see the mess he has made of his life. His family must have suffered a lot over the years. However enough is enough and if he really has deliberately infected people then he needs to face the consequences

    • MC2 says:

      I agree and feel for his family.

      I feel sympathy for the women he abused & their families too. I feel for every woman who he beat and abused, their families, children or future children, partners that they will have in the future that will have to deal with the scars that Charlie has run around putting on everyone with glee. And the men & boys he abused too. Enough was enough a long time ago……

  23. Jwoolman says:

    I doubt they can prove intent. For a certain period of time, he didn’t know he was HIV positive. After that, he felt he was safe because his viral load was tested as in the undetectable range (which puts him at the same level as all of us who test HIV negative). If the women do not test as HIV positive, I can’t see how they can prove anything or even if they had sex with him at all, protected or unprotected. Even if they do test positive, then they need to prove it came from him.

    Hate to be cynical, but the laws about HIV are much more likely to be rooted in the fact that in the USA, the first cases were seen among gays. It was only later that it was realized it was not just “gay sex” that was risky, although certain practices made it especially risky for the people first affected. I doubt that those laws would have been passed without that history in a country like this, where a significant portion of the population is antagonistic to non-heterosexuals.

    The idea that it’s because the causal connection can be proven at a level much higher than for the other common diseases that can kill individuals doesn’t convince me, because it really isn’t ever such an open and shut case. You have to prove that definitely it was acquired from the person and that there was malicious intent and precautions weren’t taken. It’s very rare that there can be such certainty for so many reasons.

    • MC2 says:

      Ahh- but I think his interview, etc could prove intent. I think his doctor & their close relationship could be the smoking gun. Charlie talked about his viral load & not infecting anyone but his doctor interrupted ON TAPE to say that Charlie saying “he couldn’t infect someone” was incorrect. That doctor had so much interaction with Charlie, knew Charlie was sleeping around & I doubt that doctor didn’t tell Charlie the risks.

      Charlie also actively & pre-mediated lies to his partners to cover up his HIV status. He lied about being tested & coming back negative, he lied about his doctors care & he lied about why he was taking meds. He also used lamb skin condoms which he knew didn’t protect against HIV.

      Even if Charlie didn’t WANT to give the women HIV the fact that he subjected them to the virus is enough, yes? Drunk drivers don’t WANT to kill people- they just want to get home. And they don’t always kill people but they are still liable for driving drunk.

      And the question- did he sleep with them? He talked to his doctor about it, talked about sleeping with women while being infected in a televised interview & I’m sure he has a huge tape collection. This guy is so high on himself & his privilege that I bet he left tons of evidence. Why try to cover up something that you would (will) never get punished for anyway?

    • VL says:

      It’s illegal in Sweden as well, which isn’t exactly the bible belt.
      The LGBT(I’m not sure on current ending )community in Sweden is rather integrated into society there though.

  24. gwen says:

    Not winning now dude.

  25. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    I cannot stand this POS.

  26. what's inside says:

    So tired of him and his feelings of entitlement, his mental illness and his drugging and abusive behaviors. Why do people like him exist?

  27. jenn12 says:

    I cannot believe anyone would WANT this man’s children, knowing what they know about him. I remember the poison Denise Richards used to get in the press, and I remember saying how desperate you have to be to leave with a toddler and while pregnant. Cannot believe how toxic this cesspool of a human being is…. his poor children.

  28. Goodnight says:

    In many places it’s enough just to not disclose, but because there’s the additional caveat that you have to have intent to infect he’s almost certainly going to walk on this.

    The thing is, a lot of people with HIV know that it’s a sexually transmitted disease but they think that certain acts are ‘safe’. It’s definitely true that kissing, oral sex, PIV sex and anal sex have differing levels of risk when it comes to infection (transmission through kissing is almost non-existent while anal sex carries the highest risk) and sadly many people who have HIV think that only gay sex (which Charlie allegedly engages in) can cause infection. I’m not saying he was actually ignorant, but it’s shockingly common and he could easily feign ignorance.

    Unless you’ve openly stated that you’re fully aware of the chances of infecting your partner or admit to being a ‘gift giver’ or whatever it’s unlikely you’ll be prosecuted in Cali.

    He’s going to point to the lambskin condoms he allegedly used and say he a) didn’t know they didn’t protect against anything but pregnancy and b) that he didn’t realise there was an infection risk because his AV load was so low or because he’d heard you could only pass it on through anal sex or some such malarkey. I doubt he initially INTENDED for them to get the virus but he clearly didn’t care if they did and I wouldn’t be shocked if he actually wanted to pass it on at certain points to get the women back for some perceived sleight.

  29. Jwoolman says:

    Some things to think about when writing laws:

    – is the law really necessary? Are there other laws already that cover the situation of concern? In this case – do we really need to single out the behavior of HIV positive individuals, or are there already laws of a more general nature that will allow prosecution for real cases of gross negligence or malicious intent involving passing on an infection or putting someone at risk to their health ?

    – is there more risk to society from the law, particularly with regard to its abuse for political or personal reasons? How easy is it to use such a law to harass someone, to frame them to neutralize dissidence or out of personal spite? We have drug related laws that strike me as dangerous this way. It is so easy to destroy someone with very little effort, such as by leaving illegal substances in their house or just tossing it into their yard and then anonymously tipping off the police. That can be enough today for them to lose everything, to have their assets confiscated. The Bill of Rights gets tossed away very easily out of fear.

    – does the law set a dangerous precedent? I know some of you think HIV infection is a special case, but how far do we go on this? There are so many serious and potentially fatal health risks that can be passed on from person to person.

    Testing as HIV positive is more complicated than many might think. I’m still not entirely sure myself if HIV is definitely the causative agent or if it is opportunistic. We tend to assume that it is causative and measure its presence, but there are problems with the history. As a scientist, back when in a short time it was announced that the cause of AIDS had been discovered, I had doubts. The data came from one research group and it came too fast, suggesting political pressure rather than careful science, and from then on it was just assumed to be true as people received grants for other related studies that did not deal with independently verifying the causality. Conflicting data seemed to be ignored. People who questioned it were marginalized. This was not good science. There were standard protocols for identifying causative agents that were not initially followed. But it was important to better decide if HIV was the direct cause of AIDS or simply a fellow traveler, and if there were actually other explanations for AIDS (different routes to the same breakdown of the immune system). Although monitoring that particular virus seems to be a useful empirical marker regardless, emotional and political investment in pinning the direct blame on a specific virus (HIV) is high and that can cloud our vision and inhibit us from looking further. We have far more data now and better ways to monitor HIV infection and treatment aimed at reducing HIV viral load, but I don’t think the case is actually closed for this particular whodunnit.

    Even back then in the early days, there were HIV positive people who refused the draconian drug cocktails that were the first attempts to deal with it, instead making other changes in their lives, and they survived. Were they misdiagnosed? (The test was complex and I advised someone who was possibly exposed due to nursing duties for a sick friend to wait a few months and then run the test past at least three separate laboratories if he was really worried.) Or is the presence of HIV simply a wake up call for potential trouble because it can accompany other problems leading to AIDS? Were the early attempts at treatment actually causing more harm than good? If you weren’t on the way to AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) when you started treatment back then, you almost certainly would be after treatment that battered the immune system. It was really a primitive, painful, and risky approach which alarmingly was accepted so absolutely that quality of life concerns went out the window, particularly with children whose parents were legally forced to subject them to that particular treatment. It’s still a very complex issue and we just don’t have all the answers. But the legal arguments assume that we do, and this worries me.