HIV-positive sergeant charged

[2RHPZ]

Fort Jackson MP is accused of having unprotected *** with female soldiers

By CHUCK CRUMBO

Staff Writer

A Fort Jackson military policeman who is HIV-positive has been accused of having unprotected *** with five female soldiers.

Sgt. Justin K. Kinlock, 26, of Columbia has been charged with five counts of aggravated assault and five counts of disobeying an officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Army said Friday.

The sergeant is being held in the Navy Confinement Facility at Charleston Naval Base pending results of the Army’s criminal investigation.

Authorities began investigating Kinlock after a female soldier at Fort Jackson tested positive for HIV during a pregnancy screening July 2, spokeswoman Karen Soule said.

The female soldier said she had had unprotected *** with Kinlock, Soule added.

Investigators learned Kinlock had been diagnosed with the virus in 1998 while stationed at Fort Lewis, Wash. Kinlock transferred to Fort Jackson in 2000.

As part of the Army’s program for handling HIV-infected soldiers, Kinlock was counseled and then ordered by officers not to have unprotected ***, Soule said.

Fort Jackson investigators learned Kinlock had had unprotected *** with four other female soldiers assigned to the training center, Soule said.

Test results for the four women are pending. The Army also is trying to find other women who might have had *** with Kinlock, Soule added.

Maj. Robert Newsom, Fort Jackson’s medical officer, said the Army allows HIV-positive soldiers to serve only in support units. They are not allowed in combat or to serve overseas.

Soldiers are screened for the HIV virus every two years, he added.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/9232088.htm

[Deuterium]

Dark place in hell for this SOB.

[CRAZY MERC]

What a looser.

[farmgirl]

oh man.... what a jerk. It was stupid of the women to have unprotected *** with anyone in this day and age, but he did it knowing that he is HIV positive. Couldn't he be charged with reckless endangerment... or attempted murder? ohhhh Hank.....

[digrar]

It's a pity he is HIV+ so he probably won't get his just deserts in prison.
This bloke deserves to be employed as a figure 11 target on a range somewhere.

[Jack Mehoff]

The blame should also be on the five women, they should not have unprotected *** in the first place.

[farmgirl]

The blame should also be on the five women, they should not have unprotected *** in the first place.


I agree that the women were stupid for having unprotected ***, but he engaged in unprotected *** with numerous women, and he knew he was infected with a deadly disease. Their behavior was stupid. His behavior was criminal.

[Midav]

The blame should also be on the five women, they should not have unprotected *** in the first place.


I agree that the women were stupid for having unprotected ***, but he engaged in unprotected *** with numerous women, and he knew he was infected with a deadly disease. Their behavior was stupid. His behavior was criminal.

Yup.

[Secret Squirrel]

The blame should also be on the five women, they should not have unprotected *** in the first place.

Nice sexist answer there jerk off. We're not talking about something that's going to go away. This sick **** knowingly ruined lives by not even having the ****ing decency to use protection or tell who he was sleeping with that he's ****ing carrying a virus that will change their lives forever. He should be charged with attempted murder.

[Jack Mehoff]

Hey **** you buddy. A good defense is a good offense. So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass. Maybe people should take responsiblity for their behavior then **** like this wouldn't happen.

Is that guy guilty? Yes. But the five women aren't angels either.

[farmgirl]

Hey f*** you buddy. A good defense is a good offense. So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass. Maybe people should take responsiblity for their behavior then **** like this wouldn't happen.

Is that guy guilty? Yes. But the five women aren't angels either.


Jack... I agree that the women were stupid and irresponsible.... but a crime was still committed against them. We have no idea what kinds of things he said to them to get them to have unprotected ***. I wouldn't have done it, but people make mistakes. If one walks down a dark street and is robbed... they were still robbed... it was stupid, but a crime was still committed. The stupidity of the victims is not an acceptable defense for the predator.

[Secret Squirrel]

Hey f*** you buddy. A good defense is a good offense. So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass. Maybe people should take responsiblity for their behavior then **** like this wouldn't happen.

Is that guy guilty? Yes. But the five women aren't angels either.

I bet you're one of those sick ****s who blames a girl for getting raped because of how she was dressed.

[Jack Mehoff]

*** ed is part of our training in basic training and throughout the years in the military. So I really don't see how anybody in the military is dumb enough to have unprotected *** without knowing the consequences.

I wouldn't careless if the five victims are males and the spreader is a female...until that retard Secret Squirt brought in male vs. female scenario.

[Spleen]

And who the hell knows the context of the situation. Perhaps he had been seeing these women long enough that they trusted him. Are you telling me you don't have unprotected *** EVER? If so, you're missing out buddy, lol. Seriously, though, I don't think it's fair to judge the women without knowing the details of the situation.

Among other things, he should certainly be forced to pay any medical expenses they incur from this, as well as being thrown in jail and discharged, preferably dishonourably.

[Jack Mehoff]

Hey f*** you buddy. A good defense is a good offense. So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass. Maybe people should take responsiblity for their behavior then **** like this wouldn't happen.

Is that guy guilty? Yes. But the five women aren't angels either.

I bet you're one of those sick f*** who blames a girl for getting raped because of how she was dressed.

Mil doctor: "Recruits, unprotected *** is bad. You hear? It's very bad!"
Recruit secret squirt: "Sir, yes sir"
Recruit secret squirt to another recruit: "Let's go have have unprotected *** behind the dumpster"

Secret Squirt, you need a ****ing brain transplant.

[Vance]

Both parties are to blame with this one.

[FallenAngel]

Just for the record....this is one of the reasons why I won't have *** until I'm married. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Hey f*** you buddy. A good defense is a good offense. So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass. Maybe people should take responsiblity for their behavior then **** like this wouldn't happen.

Is that guy guilty? Yes. But the five women aren't angels either.

I bet you're one of those sick f*** who blames a girl for getting raped because of how she was dressed.

Mil doctor: "Recruits, unprotected *** is bad. You hear? It's very bad!"
Recruit secret squirt: "Sir, yes sir"
Recruit secret squirt to another recruit: "Let's go have have unprotected *** behind the dumpster"

Secret Squirt, you need a f*** brain transplant.

You need to re-evaluate your "beliefs". I, like other members, found it sickening that someone who knew he had HIV, willingly and without revealing this fact, had *** with other people. You, on the other hand, just chose to comment on the women involved. The ****er in the article shouldnt be having ***, period. Unless you're under the delusion that condoms offer 100% protection. Honestly, do you think anyone would have slept with him if they knew he had the HIV virus?

[Jack Mehoff]

Secret Squirt, until you get our of your parents' basement and learn how to be a responsible adult then come back here and talk. Do you think those female soldiers are naive teenage girls who are clueless about STDs preventions?

If you want to have ***, especially unprotected *** then prepare to face whatever the consequences that come with it, both men and women alike.

[Jack Mehoff]

Just for the record....this is one of the reasons why I won't have *** until I'm married. ;)

Nah, you can have premarital *** as long as you know the other person well enough and/or wear proper protection. Either that or your **** will fall off and become ****less like Secret Squirt. I've met a few people like that during my 6 years in the mil. Now most of them either work three jobs to pay child support or in their death bed.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirt, until you get our of your parents' basement and learn how to be a responsible adult then come back here and talk. Do you think those female soldiers are naive teenage girls who are clueless about STDs preventions?

If you want to have ***, especially unprotected *** then prepare to face whatever the consequences that come with it, both men and women alike.

Point is Jerkoff, that the guy knew that he was HIV positive but he 1) did not tell his partners that he had the virus and 2) didnt even take the step himself of putting on a condom. It's bad enough that this sick **** may have given 5 women a death sentence, but even if he wasnt going to tell anyone he was HIV positive, he knew exactly what he was doing and the chances he was taking by not putting the condom on himself. And here's a lesson for you; a condom is not 100%. How can you defend this sick **** when he didnt even tell the women that he was HIV positive? You have a lot of issues if you can defend his actions Jerkoff.

[Jack Mehoff]

I'm defending him? Are you on crack? I'm saying that guy AND the five women are both responsible for their action. Don't worry, I won't shed any tears for any of them. I'd save it for the real victims.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm defending him? Are you on crack? I'm saying that guy AND the five women are both responsible for their action. Don't worry, I won't shed any tears for any of them. I'd save it for the real victims.

You only commented on the women, so keep trying to defend your sexism. And i dont think anyone cares if you "shed any tears for any of them". Frankly, it'd be an insult to them if you did. Jerkoff, ask yourself these questions...would any of the women have slept with him if they knew he was HIV positive? He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected? The bottom line Jerkoff is this sick ****, for whatever reasons, willingly had *** with 5 women while knowing he could transmit a life altering and life ending disease. And he would have kept doing it if he hadnt been caught.

[American Patriot]

It seems that the women were overwhelmingly horny and didn't have the willpower to resist the wang. Sad. I say the man should've been made to a wear an "I have the HIV" sign on his back.

[Scrim]

I really cant believe people here are blaming the women.

[Jack Mehoff]

I'm defending him? Are you on crack? I'm saying that guy AND the five women are both responsible for their action. Don't worry, I won't shed any tears for any of them. I'd save it for the real victims.

You only commented on the women, so keep trying to defend your sexism. And i dont think anyone cares if you "shed any tears for any of them". Frankly, it'd be an insult to them if you did. Jerkoff, ask yourself these questions...would any of the women have slept with him if they knew he was HIV positive? He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected? The bottom line Jerkoff is this sick f***, for whatever reasons, willingly had *** with 5 women while knowing he could transmit a life altering and life ending disease. And he would have kept doing it if he hadnt been caught.

Secret Squirt, do you think people with STDs and HIV have a big ass word says "CONTAGIOUS" printed on their foreheads? What world do you live in? Hell, if everybody is that honest, we wouldn't need condoms.

Son, I think you need to wake up from whatever fantasy world you are living in. The fact is there are twisted people out there and it's your job to protect yourself from harm and nobody else. The women KNEW unprotected *** is unsafe because the military drilled that information in their heads since they were fresh recruits in basic training until the time they leave the military.

Seriously, you sounded like a god damn virgin still living in his parents' basement. You actually trust your partner to protect YOU? rofl rofl

[farmgirl]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the women were stupid to have unprotected *** with him. I think the point that most of us are making is that his behavior was criminal. He knowingly had unprotected *** when infected with a deadly disease. That is criminal behavior. I don't think anyone said that the women aren't partially to blame for their own infection.
The fact remains.... he's a major ass, and he needs to be punished for his reckless disregard for the health of others.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm defending him? Are you on crack? I'm saying that guy AND the five women are both responsible for their action. Don't worry, I won't shed any tears for any of them. I'd save it for the real victims.

You only commented on the women, so keep trying to defend your sexism. And i dont think anyone cares if you "shed any tears for any of them". Frankly, it'd be an insult to them if you did. Jerkoff, ask yourself these questions...would any of the women have slept with him if they knew he was HIV positive? He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected? The bottom line Jerkoff is this sick f***, for whatever reasons, willingly had *** with 5 women while knowing he could transmit a life altering and life ending disease. And he would have kept doing it if he hadnt been caught.

Secret Squirt, do you think people with STDs and HIV have a big ass word says "CONTAGIOUS" printed on their foreheads? What world do you live in? Hell, if everybody is that honest, we wouldn't need condoms.

Son, I think you need to wake up from whatever fantasy world you are living in. The fact is there are twisted people out there and it's your job to protect yourself from harm and nobody else. The women KNEW unprotected *** is unsafe because the military drilled that information in their heads since they were fresh recruits in basic training until the time they leave the military.

Seriously, you sounded like a god damn virgin still living in his parents' basement. You actually trust your partner to protect YOU? rofl rofl

See thats the difference isnt it Jerkoff. It's not illegal to have unprotected *** but it is illegal to knowingly have *** with someone if you know you have the HIV virus and you dont tell your partner. If you cant grasp that fact, then you need a lot more maturity and well i guess that explains where your attempted insults come from. ;) But please, keep trying to defend this the sick **** in the article. ;) Interesting that you couldnt answer any of my questions.

[Jack Mehoff]

Secret Squirt, maybe you should show me the quote where I defend that guy.

I'm waiting.

[Deuterium]

I don't see Jack trying to defend the guy. What I saw was that he made the comment, hey don't forget that *** involved two parties in this case. My only comment (and I agree that Jack has a good point) is that we don't fully know the details. At some point in relationships people start trusting each other and begin to have unprotected ***. Maybe the guy completely lied and told the women he was HIV negative. This is pure speculation on my part. Jack was just making a point.

[Jack Mehoff]

He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected?


People who trust their partners to protect both of them are usually prefer to as walking cancer. It's your damn job to protect yourself and not your partner alone.

[Secret Squirrel]

He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected?


People who trust their partners to protect both of them are usually prefer to as walking cancer. It's your damn job to protect yourself and not your partner alone.

Hey Jerkoff, maybe you missed this part of the article...


As part of the Army’s program for handling HIV-infected soldiers, Kinlock was counseled and then ordered by officers not to have unprotected ***, Soule said.

sickening that your first post on this thead was to push try and push the focus on the ladies. And i see you still cant answer my questions, that should tell you a lot about your ****ed up views. Or is it a case that you want to defend this sick ****ing "military policeman"?

[Jack Mehoff]

Secret Squirt, maybe you should show me the quote where I defend that guy.

I'm waiting.

[Jack Mehoff]

He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected?


People who trust their partners to protect both of them are usually prefer to as walking cancer. It's your damn job to protect yourself and not your partner alone.

Hey Jerkoff, maybe you missed this part of the article...


As part of the Army’s program for handling HIV-infected soldiers, Kinlock was counseled and then ordered by officers not to have unprotected ***, Soule said.

sickening that your first post on this thead was to push try and push the focus on the ladies. And i see you still cant answer my questions, that should tell you a lot about your f*** up views. Or is it a case that you want to defend this sick f*** "military policeman"?

Wow, you are so damn brilliant. So his commanding his officers told him not to have unprotected *** means he will obey the order? I haven't get in touch with regular Army for a while now but I don't recall them issue bedroom police or install private cameras in people's rooms.

You know something Secret Squirt....just don't breed and infest our gene pool if you are too stupid to trust your partner to protect you. It takes TWO people (both male and female) work together to have safe ***. You need a brain transplant if you think only one person is good enough.

[A Soldier]

He needed to wrap that thing up and they needed to tell him too if he didnt. Well lets take him out to the range for practice.
woot

[Ichhabe]

Jack Jack Jack.... Ce\heeezuz... You really are a man's man, aren't you? :D
Once and for all you're showing your'e imaturity.

[Jack Mehoff]

Jack Jack Jack.... Ce\heeezuz... You really are a man's man, aren't you? :D
Once and for all you're showing your'e imaturity.
But hey, at least I told my partner to take her pills and she told me to wrap my little Jack Mehoff up with plastic. Safe *** is the responsibility from both parties but I don't think Secret Squirt get that concept yet.

I think Secret Squirt is a result of an unwanted sperm from a one night stand. No wonder he doesn't give a **** about safe ***.

[Merik]

Dont see why many of you are jumping all over Jack's back. Yes, this guy ignored a direct order and willfully exposed his disease to his partners. He is sure as hell guilty of that and if it comes down to it in a court marshall that he is to be charged with attempted murder by his peers then so be it. But Jack is right, in the military both parties are given *** education and training so that this stuff is prevented. I made the mistake of having unprotected *** once and almost had a child because of it. That was a stupid mistake on my part but it was just as stupid on my partners part by not being on the pill.

It takes two to tango here folks, the women involved in this exposed themselves to him and participated in a fashion of reckless endangerment.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

Jack Jack Jack.... Ce\heeezuz... You really are a man's man, aren't you? :D
Once and for all you're showing your'e imaturity.
But hey, at least I told my partner to take her pills and she told me to wrap my little Jack Mehoff up with plastic. Safe *** is the responsibility from both parties but I don't think Secret Squirt get that concept yet.

I think Secret Squirt is a result of an unwanted sperm from a one night stand. No wonder he doesn't give a **** about safe ***.

Couldn't agree more Jack, it's both parties complete responsibility. It takes to people to have ***, as it takes to people to be mature enough to make the decision to have *** protected, or unprotected.

[Secret Squirrel]

He certainly knew he had the virus and he seems to have willingly had *** without wearing a condom. Why didnt he protect himself? Why didnt he protect his partners even if he didnt want to tell them that he was HIV positive? Would it still be the women's fault if he didnt tell them he had a life ending virus but he wore a condom and they were still infected?


People who trust their partners to protect both of them are usually prefer to as walking cancer. It's your damn job to protect yourself and not your partner alone.

Hey Jerkoff, maybe you missed this part of the article...


As part of the Army’s program for handling HIV-infected soldiers, Kinlock was counseled and then ordered by officers not to have unprotected ***, Soule said.

sickening that your first post on this thead was to push try and push the focus on the ladies. And i see you still cant answer my questions, that should tell you a lot about your f*** up views. Or is it a case that you want to defend this sick f*** "military policeman"?

Wow, you are so damn brilliant. So his commanding his officers told him not to have unprotected *** means he will obey the order? I haven't get in touch with regular Army for a while now but I don't recall them issue bedroom police or install private cameras in people's rooms.

You know something Secret Squirt....just don't breed and infest our gene pool if you are too stupid to trust your partner to protect you. It takes TWO people (both male and female) work together to have safe ***. You need a brain transplant if you think only one person is good enough.

Keep trying to defend the sick ****, at least it shows which side you're on. If your posts had any valid information they wouldnt contain more and more attempted insults each time. ;) Amusing though, being the great person you are who is serving his country (NG i believe?) but yet doesnt even blink when orders are ignored (that kinda says a lot). Do you know what "cause and effect" is? Do you know what it means to break the law? Do you know what it means when someone commits a crime and that person is labled a crimminal? ;) You've got a lot of growing up to do. Maybe instead of compiling over 5000 posts in less than a year, you should spend a little time in the real world maturing. And since you seem to know situation surrounding all 5 women, why dont you let the rest of us know. Were they long term relationships? One night stands? I guess it slipped this guy's mind that for the last 6 years he was going to die probably a slow and painful death and he certainly wouldnt want anyone else to suffer the same fate? (incert sarcasm).

[Jack Mehoff]

And I'm still waiting and waiting and waiting.

Secret Squirt, maybe you should show me the quote where I defend that guy.

I'm waiting.

[Merik]

And I'm still waiting and waiting and waiting.

Secret Squirt, maybe you should show me the quote where I defend that guy.

I'm waiting.

Jack, that avatar is f-ing killing me lol. :lol:

[NcDeuce]

Their behavior was stupid. His behavior was criminal.

^ Word


Amusing though, being the great person you are who is serving his country (NG i believe?)

Just curious buddy, what's your background?

[Vance]

Amusing though, being the great person you are who is serving his country (NG i believe?)

Just curious buddy, what's your background?
Don't try, he never answers. :roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

Their behavior was stupid. His behavior was criminal.

^ Word


Amusing though, being the great person you are who is serving his country (NG i believe?)

Just curious buddy, what's your background?

Never served, never will (nothing against the military, i just know its not for me). My point was jerkoff didnt seem to even blink an eye when the sick **** in the article completely ignored an order. I could be wrong, but I thought one of the key foundations of the military was "following orders" (of course to certain degree). I can almost understand, not condone, that this guy wanted to keep his situation quiet (probably avoid a lot of hysteria that surrounds HIV). However, he chose to break the law and ignore orders with at least 5 women and maybe more. And he would probably have kept doing it if he hadnt been caught. The bottomline, at least for me is, he should have at least told his partners that he was HIV positive and then let them decide if they want to risk sleeping with him (a condom does not offer 100% protection so even if it was protected *** they still could have been infected).

[HumanShield]

remember boys...flys spread disease..so keep yours closed

[California Joe]

Jack, fight with people all you want, but bottom line is the guy is an intentional killer or at least intentional infector. They were willing to participate in a ****** relationship not in a death sentence. There is a huge difference. They were not properly INFORMED as to the consequences. They gave their consent to engage in ****** activity with an obvious playa but not to die because of it. The difference is he knew he was lethal and withheld the information. Don't make me get hank to explain it to you.

[Hot Lips]

A direct order is a direct order.
Right is right.
Wrong is wrong.
And no one on this board will convince me they've never had unprotected *** (unless they're still a virgin - I believe we have a few).

Farmgirl summed it up. The girls were stupid/irresponsible... his actions were criminal.

This guy is a murderer, period.

[Jack Mehoff]

Joe, maybe you should show me the part I wrote where I defend that guy. Please? Please?

The five "victims" are not victims of anything except for their own stupidity. But the article made it sound as if they are innocent victims...bull****. They should get article 15's for damage government property.


By the way, having protected *** IS an unwritten direct order, just like DUI or any harmful behaviors that you can do to your body. You can get an article 15 for damage government "property" that way.


Don't make me get hank to explain it to you.

Is this a joke? You do realize UCMJ is different than civies laws, right?

[Hot Lips]

So if you are stupid enough to walk in a dark street downtown Los Angeles at 10pm and get rob, who should you blame beside your dumb own ass.

The robber should be blamed. Could the person walking down the street have taken another path? Sure. Could they have gone out at another time of day? Depends. Does that mean they are not a victim? No.

I so don't understand this perspective. That criminals should govern our whole life.

[Jack Mehoff]

You can walk downtown LA at 10pm IF you have protection, maybe a gun or a 6'5" 200lbs power lifter. Just like when you have *** with someone you don't know that well, you still need protection. It's not about criminals control your life, it's more like looking out for yourself.

You don't want to believe my theory? Why don't you fly to LA test it.

[Hot Lips]

I just think your total lack of compassion is sad.

And that you would put an irresponsible/stupid action on equal par as a criminal action stunning.

If neither party knows either is or isn't a carrier and they have unprotected ***... it's stupid, but it isn't criminal.

But if one party knows that having unprotected *** will result in the death of the other --- that is no different than walking up to the and putting a bullet in their head. Infact, it's worse because putting a bullet in their head would be a more humane death.

[Jack Mehoff]

Sorry, my compassion reserves for real victims.

[Hot Lips]

Just out of curiosity... who are the real vicitims? Only people that die naturally or by an act of God?

[Secret Squirrel]

I just think your total lack of compassion is sad.

And that you would put an irresponsible/stupid action on equal par as a criminal action stunning.

If neither party knows either is or isn't a carrier and they have unprotected ***... it's stupid, but it isn't criminal.

But if one party knows that having unprotected *** will result in the death of the other --- that is no different than walking up to the and putting a bullet in their head. Infact, it's worse because putting a bullet in their head would be a more humane death.

There's no reasoning with him. Jack has his own demented immature views of the world. Maybe someday karma will bite Jack in the ass and teach him a life lesson.

[Jack Mehoff]

Hey Secret Squirt, unlike some loser i don't have to pay child support and STDs free. Why? Because i'm responsible enough to look out for myself. Thank you.

[Hot Lips]

I understand what he is saying.... to a point. I will not put the mistake of the girls in trusting him on equal par with his intentially harming and ultimately killing them. There are different levels of blame/responsibility and these are by no measure equal.

Dismissing their status as "victims" effectivitly releases him of any wrong doing.

[Merik]

Hey Secret Squirt, unlike some loser i don't have to pay child support and STDs free. Why? Because i'm responsible enough to look out for myself. Thank you.


Jack, I'd think I'd go ahead and let it rest. Obviously this guy is so imcompetent that he cant even see his **** even if it slapped him in the face.

And your right, the women should get article 15's, didnt even think about that earlier. :cantbeli:

[California Joe]

Listen you misogynistic little asshats. I don't give a rats ass about the UCMJ or anything else. Arguing that the females in this case are equally culpable is retarded to put it mildly, disturbing at best, and evil to put it accurately. This piece of **** INTENTIONALLY infected them. Intent is a constant theme in morality and law, look it up. They intended to have ***, they intended intimate conduct, they did not KNOWINGLY intend to get a fatal virus. He KNOWINGLY infected them. Get it yet? If he's your ideal of what it means to be a man then the sooner you walk in front of crosshairs the better. Jesus H. Christ I expect better of you people.

[Jack Mehoff]

Old man, why the **** do you have to bring up this male vs. female bull**** up? Or is it because you are losing an argument?

Ask me if i give a rat ass if the spreader is a female and the "victims" are males and see if i care. I still laugh at the male "victims" for being stupid.

[Hot Lips]

If there is no victim in your eyes. There is no crime. Therefore you are defending what this man did. It's that simple.

[Jack Mehoff]

page #1 dumbass (not you Hot Lips)



*** ed is part of our training in basic training and throughout the years in the military. So I really don't see how anybody in the military is dumb enough to have unprotected *** without knowing the consequences.

I wouldn't careless if the five victims are males and the spreader is a female...until that retard Secret Squirt brought in male vs. female scenario.

[EvanL]

Jack i would think that some one who claims to be an ex-mormon would have some sense of compassion.
Sure the girls had unprotected *** fully knowing that the guy might not be clean. But the guy fully knowing that he was HIV positive purposely had unprotected *** with them, knowingly infecting them with HIV. They were stupid to have unproteced ***, but its not their fault that they got AIDs. Perhaps you should go visit an AIDs ward and ask some of those ppl how they came to get it. And how they trusted their partner enough to think it was safe.
There are evil ppl in this world.
And those ppl live without compassion for other human beings!
Just my 10cents, and im sticking to it.

[Jack Mehoff]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.

[memphiz]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.
Its rubber or Latex ;) not plastic

[EvanL]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.
your compassion is lacking. if you knew the true meaning of the word you would have taken your foot out of your mouth by now.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Listen you misogynistic little asshats. I don't give a rats ass about the UCMJ or anything else. Arguing that the females in this case are equally culpable is retarded to put it mildly, disturbing at best, and evil to put it accurately. This piece of **** INTENTIONALLY infected them. Intent is a constant theme in morality and law, look it up. They intended to have ***, they intended intimate conduct, they did not KNOWINGLY intend to get a fatal virus. He KNOWINGLY infected them. Get it yet? If he's your ideal of what it means to be a man then the sooner you walk in front of crosshairs the better. Jesus H. Christ I expect better of you people.

I thought everything you typed - but I refrained from typing it previously.
People seem to have of a habit in our society to mark female victims as whores in a variety of *** based crimes.

People like to f*ck, men / women.
If safe practices are avoided then people are equally guilty of said viral outcome BUT this turd knew he was infected the women didn't. Hence they were not armed with the knowledge that could have led to a different outcome.

I've just eaten to many noodles, I'm bloated.

[EvanL]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.
Its rubber or Latex ;) not plastic
Its actually all Latex now. And occasionally sheep skin. I believe they havent made rubber condoms for YEAAAARS.
too much noise ;)

[Hot Lips]

It's a pride thing now isn't it? Can't even meet people half way? You seriously think that violating a military safe *** agreement is the same as knowingly causing the death of another person? Male or female.

[memphiz]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.
Its rubber or Latex ;) not plastic
Its actually all Latex now. And occasionally sheep skin. I believe they havent made rubber condoms for YEAAAARS.
too much noise ;)
I thought it was because some people were allergic to rubber

[EvanL]

Sorry, my compassion reserve for the orphan children result from one night stands because somebody is not on their pill or wrap his **** with a plastic.
Its rubber or Latex ;) not plastic
Its actually all Latex now. And occasionally sheep skin. I believe they havent made rubber condoms for YEAAAARS.
too much noise ;)
I thought it was because some people were allergic to rubber
Ppl are allergic to latex as well.