This just in: Michael Johnson (a.k.a. “Tiger Mandingo”), who was unfairly sentenced to 30 years in prison by a homophobic jury for not disclosing his HIV status to his sexual partners, has been released from prison 25 years early.
Just to recap: Johnson was accused of “recklessly infecting” multiple male partners with HIV while he was a student at Lindenwood University in Missouri in 2013.
In 2015, he was sentenced to 30 years by a jury pool stacked with white heterosexuals, the majority of whom admitted that they believed homosexuality was a sin.
The conviction raised questions about America’s HIV criminalization laws, which activists have long said ignore decades of medical science, fail to actually reduce infection rates, and disproportionately punish black men, as HIV rates are higher among people of color.
Both the American Medical Association and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have publicly condemned laws criminalizing HIV.
Nevertheless, Johnson began serving his 30-year sentence in July 2015, spending his entire first year in solitary confinement.
Related: Jailed HIV-Positive Wrestler Pens Heartbreaking Letter From Solitary Confinement
Now, after an appeals court ruled his original trial “fundamentally unfair,” tainted with racism, homophobia, and a prosecuting attorney hellbent on getting a harsher sentence than many murders receive, Johnson has been released from prison.
“I feel great,” he told reporters as he exited the Boonville Correctional Center this morning. “Leaving prison is such a great feeling.”
Timothy Lohmar, the original prosecuting attorney who sought a life sentence for Johnson and who, at one point, threatened him with 96 years imprisonment, has since changed his tune.
He now calls the whole case “embarrassing” and says that he was “forced to operate under the current laws,” which he believes are “antiquated, outdated, and based upon something that science would prove is not accurate.”
Lohmar is now lobbying to get Missouri’s laws around HIV changed.
Currently on the table is HB167, which would reduce the punishment for failing to disclose one’s HIV status from a felony to a misdemeanor. It would also take into account whether a condom was used and if a person was taking medication.
Johnson, who must still serve three years of parole, says that if there’s any good to come from his trial, it’s that the state will update its draconian laws to ensure cases like his never happen again.
“Maybe my trial did happen in some way to motivate some change,” he says.
Reflecting on the outpouring of support he’s received over the last six years, Johnson says, “It’s good I had the support of everyone who wrote me letters. There are times when you get down, and it helps that people knew why I was fighting the system.”
Related: College wrestler who once faced 30 years in prison in HIV case gets parole… but there’s a catch
Chrisk
“fundamentally unfair,” tainted with racism, homophobia, and a prosecuting attorney hellbent on getting a harsher sentence than many murders receive”
Yep and that’s many Queerty commenters as well.
Adam
Amen to that, gurl.
charles_bell
^^^^this right here ^^^
Rock-N-RollHS
I know: isn’t that great!
rarediel
I dont care what race he is, he belongs in jail
Kev57
Chrisk, I’m looking at all the comments that followed your original prediction, and true to what you predicted, people are piling on. The hysteria that this topic brings is, in my opinion, remarkable. Kids are locked in cages, there’s potential war with Iran, the planet is melting, Etc., but this topic gets more comments than all of those put together. smh
DarkZephyr
In the end, we are all responsible for our own decisions when it comes to sex, because there are always going to be liars out there, whether they blatantly lie to your face and say they are HIV negative when they are really HIV positive or whether they lie by omission and simply don’t tell you in advance their status. So its up to us as individuals to make sure we “play safe”. But that being said, not being honest about being HIV positive or having any kind of STD is definitely a dick move in my book. I don’t care how anybody tries to spin in. While I don’t believe he should have been put behind bars, I am not going to celebrate him as a conquering hero. He’s no hero. Once upon a time not so long ago, HIV and AIDS ravaged our community, snuffing out countless lives and leaving a wake of destruction and sorrow. It was a deadly holocaust. Now many of us seem to behave as if HIV is a cute puppy in need of adoption instead of a dangerous, life changing and potentially deadly disease that we still need to eradicate.
Mack
Well said.
Kenny C
I agree with everything you said. However, his story is indicative of why these laws are self defeating. If I recall correctly, this was a question of fact in which the jury had to weigh testimony from two people. This man claimed he disclosed his status. The other person claimed he was never told. The proceeding was found to be “fundamentally unfair” to the former.
Personally, its hard to believe that he knew his status and was not in treatment and still engaging risky behavior with informed partners. But, on the other hand, I question the resources and education on the subject available in rural Missouri. In the end, this is all indicative of the reason why it is bad policy for criminal law to be involved. If he explicitly lied or lied by omission, shame on him forever. But, this is a matter of personal responsibility. The best person to take precaution is the individual. Unprotected sex with a stranger is risky behavior, on the part of both consenting adults, so I don’t see any victims in this scenario. Laws like this deter people from get tested and its ignorance of your status that drives this epidemic.
Juanjo
I do not see anyone treating this man as a hero. That said, the law and the trial were tainted with racism and homophobia, not to mention the extreme fear of HIV. I have seen no one say what he did was okay, including him.
DarkZephyr
@Juanjo I never said anybody said what he did was OK. I said it was a dick move. I firmly stand by that.
rarediel
Yes we need to take responsibility for our own safety but it doesn’t somehow remove the responsibility of the one with HIV. I don’t think he deserved 30 years, but people on this comment section think he didn’t do anything wrong which is insane.
snickersbarbrown
DarkZephyr:
Your comment “… we are all responsible for our own decisions … ” because there are liars out there .. whether they blatantly lie to your face and say they are HIV negative … or whether they lie by omission and simply don’t tell you in advance their status.” DarkZephyr, thank-you for your calm, kind, and matter-of-fact assessment and words of guidance, as “Psycho-positive” people of all ethnic backgrounds, races, genders, and orientations need to hear and know reality in our enlightened 21st Century.
fur_hunter
Excellent comment. Thank you.
Kev57
Except it’s not just HIV activists who are arguing for decriminalization laws, but everyone in this article. Did you read it? Even the prosecuting attorney calls his actions embarrassing and is now working to reverse the laws. It’s amazing that some of the last people to get on this bus are gay men. I wonder why.
Mikey E
@Kev67 We are not “one of the last to get on this bus.” The public doesn’t support decriminalization of this depraved conduct. And the bill in Missouri does not decriminalize it either.
“HIV activists” do not want it to be a misdemeanor. They want no restrictions whatsoever. They even took the side of a psychopath in Canada who intentionally spread HIV to as many gay people as he could and who, after each sex tryst, would go online to post gleefully about how he was “spreading his strain.” That guy tried to infect 2 gay teenagers. He would never have stopped but his roommate turned him in to the police. Even in the most vile cases, “HIV activists” dutifully proclaim that this should not be a criminal matter. They took that psychopath’s side and tried to make his conduct a civil rights issue. They are the worst people in the world.
Brian
Calling the overturning of an absurd prison sentence “black privilege” is a stretch, even by Queerty trolling standards.
Kenny C
Personal responsibility. Does it mean anything to you? If two consenting adults engage in risky behavior, there maybe consequences. This is not a circumstance of rape or battery. He hooked up with guy and the guy blamed someone else for his poor decision making after the fact. We should be using policy to push people towards taking precaution for themselves. Protecting themselves. Laws like this deter people from getting tested. That’s the real public health threat-ignorance of ones status.
Quite simply. If you want to remain negative, refrain from risky behavior that leads getting the virus. Especially these days with Prep. HIV activist’s goal is not about loosening “restrictions”. (Whatever the hell that means) Their goal is de-stigmatize HIV positive. The purpose of which is to ameliorate people’s fear of getting tested. The more stigmatized HIV people, the less likely people are to get tested. Once you know your status, you can get treatment, achieve undetectable status at which point you are no danger to pass the virus to another partner. Yes people should be more transparent with their partners, but if you treat HIV positive people like monsters and criminals, what incentive do they have to do that….So again, the laws and your opinion are self-defeating and ultimately awful public health policy.
If you want to bareback. No judgment from me at all. But if your not going to get on prep, accept the risk and possible consequences of your decision.
Cam
Except the article didn’t say the guy was innocent. It pointed out that his sentence was harsher than that given to murders and was based on a he said he said.
But nice try.
Cam
You could have just added this commentary to the post you made under your other screename that attacked the author.
Kangol2
Your racism is getting worse by the day. Get help, and pronto!
IWantAFullBeard
Two things:
1) Why was he in solitary confinement the entire first year? I think the answer will be enlightening.
2) At the time of criminalizing undisclosed HIV transmission, they barely understood how HIV is spread. As a general rule, statutes that are based on poorly understood facts is dumb…like most republicans.
frankcar1965
He was in solitary because he was black! If he had been white he would have bailed out and been at home waiting for trial.
IWantAFullBeard
Great comment. Really adds to the discussion.
rarediel
Not a discussion, its just my comment.
rarediel
He belongs in jail, it has nothing to do with the victim in this case, it has to do with his illegal behavior. He knowingly deceived people he was having sex with. Even if he was using a condom, if he didn’t disclose he should still be in jail.
rarediel
You don’t need to say racist things to identify what this man did is legally and morally wrong. It just makes you look like a idiot.
IWantAFullBeard
Oh my bad. Your comment is stupid. Better?
rarediel
good one, more telling about you than me.
viciouslies
Having a disease shouldn’t be a crime. He NEVER belonged in jail.
viciouslies
If you don’t have HIV and have sex with someone without discussing your status, it is not a crime in Missouri.
If you do have HIV and have sex with someone without discussing your status, it is a crime in Missouri.
The actual action being taken – having sex without discussing your status – is exactly the same in both cases. What’s different? One person has HIV. So the actual crime is having HIV. This is why it’s called “HIV criminalization.”
Rex Huskey
take away his antivirals…. just desserts
Cam
It’s interesting that the same accounts keep saying that the article is saying he did nothing wrong.
The article was pointing out that he got a much longer sentence than murderers, and it was based upon a he said he said case.
Your desperation to lie about the tone of the article is telling.
Mikey E
Because some of the people who comment here, and self-described “queers” (as opposed to gay men), believe that sex is a morality-free zone. They are forced to concede on the issue of consent, but beyond that, they don’t want anyone “judging” them or, worse, restricting their appetites in any way.
Mikey E
@viciouslies Activists call it “HIV criminalization” as opposed to “intentional HIV exposure criminalization” because they want to create the impression that the state is going after people simply for having HIV. It’s a deliberate lie. The actus rea is exposure without disclosure, and by deliberately omitting that, HIV activists seek to deceive the public and warp the debate. As for your sophistry, it is in error since if an uninfected person, who operated under a mistaken belief that he had HIV, attempted to expose others he would still be liable for attempted exposure.
Mikey E
@Kenny C I am all for personal responsibility. But it is not a shield for the HIV carrier. I don’t think that people should count their cash in dark alleys or accept opened food from strangers on the street. But if someone does count their cash in a dark alley, that does not give license to someone else to mug them. If they do accept open food from a stranger, that doesn’t give license to the stranger to hand them poison. The personal responsibility of the former is independent of the accountability of the latter.
Or to put it another way, you don’t get to murder dumb people with HIV.
Cam
@Mikey E
Translation: A false narrative was invented and you are making up facts to defend your use of it.
But nice try.
Chrisk
Mikey E
Ahhh..CastleSF our famous Asian troll is back at it warning us of the dangers of immorality. Lol 🙂
Admit it. You love these articles. Anytime you get to judge others like our very own Gladys Kravitz.
tjack47
If I have unsafe sex, and I contract any STI, I am personally responsible.
prarie pup
Agreed; if you practice unsafe sex and catch something, you have nobody to blame but yourself. To do otherwise is as ridiculous as all the smokers who get lung cancer, then sue the tobacco companies.
gaym50ish
Exactly. It should be every person’s responsibility to protect himself against infection.
darklight413
Reading the racist, hateful trolling in the comments, I thought I might be at a trump rally instead of a comment section of a queer newsletter post. So sad and pretty disgusting that you CHOOSE to go through life terrified of anything outside yourself. Hopefully you’ll one day know the meaning of compassion.
pharaon.em.joe
I would not be surprised if they are indeed trump supporters trolling.
Rex Huskey
you queens on here who think that anyone who has another opinion than you are trump supporters are as bad as the orange man himself.
pharaon.em.joe
Gurl. No one wants to pound you. Go elsewhere.
pharaon.em.joe
Thankfully you are not the prosecutor.
pharaon.em.joe
@Mikey E. After all this site is called Queerty. It is for all queer people and not only gay men.
jsmu
Wow, hideous b*tchc*nt trollette wannabe Mikey E is back under a different alias. Gurl, your bitterness is palpable even over the internet; the fact that you hate all GLBTs because no one is taste-free enough to f*ck you could not be more apparent. Take your ugly THEOFASCIST attempts at ‘judgement’ to Whitebarf, WHERE YOU BELONG, B*TCH!
ilovedjme
I’m confused did he infect anyone with HIV?
frankcar1965
No he did not, it was never proven and can’t be. In fact, just how do you prove that someone gave you HIV? Do you just believe anyone? Do you just believe anything someone tells you? Do we really believe that the person has NEVER had sex with anyone else? How do we tell? You can’t. But it is easy when the other person is a virtually illiterate black man.
frankcar1965
They also forgot to tell how they pushed a confession in front of him and told him to sign it when he can’t read more than a few words. It was all racist because of the “big black buck” trope. Neither did they tell you that the main one that accused him went back AFTER Michael told him that he had HIV and got some more of that BBC! This is the same shiithead that said he often had sex without a condom because he could tell by looking who had HIV. He is complicit himself.
prarie pup
Frankcar1965, you wrote, “They pushed a confession in front of him and told him to sign it when he can’t read more than a few words.”
Wasn’t he a college student? How did he get into college if he “can’t read more than a few words”?
Geeker
Sorry but if you intentionally infect someone with a potentially life-threatening disease your evil ass belongs in prison.
BGinBigD
I’m still trying to get over the name, “Tiger Mandingo”. Puhleeze!! Sounds like a bad stripper or porn star. So which one was he?
viciouslies
They had sex with someone who they didn’t bother to ask whether he was HIV positive or negative, so seemingly didn’t care. Until they did.
Vortece
@viciouslies They did ask, and he lied.