For someone who constantly brags about their law enforcement background and accomplishments, Mr. Baker is woefully ignorant of actual laws. During the Andre Davis Trial which was blogged live by wlwt.com journalist Travis Gettys and I wrote about here, Mr. Baker constantly misrepresented the law. For example, Mr. Baker repeatedly said the lab techs that tested Mr. Davis’ blood were the accusers in the trial and should testify so Mr. Davis could confront his accusers. That is completely false. Yet that did not stop Mr. Baker from expounding on this misinformation and saying that this violated Mr. Davis’ constitutional rights. Again, that is blatantly false. The accusers were the women who Mr. Davis potentially infected and they all testified and were subjected to cross examination.
Now Mr. Baker has written a new post at his OMSJ site in which he writes:
The failure to disclose a potentially deadly infection prevents victim from giving consent. Under most circumstances, non-consensual sex is considered rape. (emphasis Baker)
First let me give Mr. Baker props for admitting that HIV is “a potentially deadly infection”. This is a big step for him and should be commended. But that does not mean we can give Mr. Baker a pass on his comparison of Non-Disclosure of HIV Status to rape. HIV Criminalization laws stigmatize and de-humanize those who are HIV positive as it is. Do we really need to compare them to rapists as well? Rape connotes anger and violence and therefore denotes HIV+ people as angry and violent. However, the egregious nature of Mr. Baker’s statement does not end there. Mr. Baker also implies that no one in his or her right mind would ever consent to an intimate physical relationship with an HIV+ person if they themselves were not also HIV+. This is not only false, but highly offensive. My last two long term relationships were with HIV= individuals. Of course I must disclose that I am completely irresistible.
Of course Mr. Baker has an agenda. He has made it quite public that he supports the belief that HIV is not pathogenic. But that does not excuse his blatant obfuscation of laws. Complete mangling of the law is inexcusable especially when a person presents themselves as credible based solely on their investigative experience as Mr. Baker does:
To the issue of credibility, I honorably served as a US Marine and LAPD officer and licensed investigator since 1980. Despite thousands of criminal, civil and military investigations, I have never been accused of misconduct by any credible source.
Despite the fact that having been a US Marine is completely irrelevant, that statement is not exactly true. And if Mr. Baker is so certain of his honor, why supply the caveat “by any credible source”? We all know that Mr. Baker was charged with Police Brutality and lost the initial case. The conviction was only overturned on appeal based on a technicality that the District Attorney compared Mr. Baker’s violent attack to the Rodney King beating, potentially biasing the jury. By that standard it must be noted that the person who originally accused Mr. Baker of misconduct, the jay walker whom Mr. Baker handcuffed, beat, knocked to the ground, kicked in the ribs and dragged ten feet by his pony tail, was never impugned as not being credible. But hey, let’s ignore this one little bit of memory lapse. Mr. Baker always does.
If we do accept this statement and consider Mr. Baker as credible and honorable, then Mr. Baker himself must understand why we cannot tolerate his obvious, intentional bastardization of the law. We must also require Mr. Baker to do more than simply give lip service to all the outlandish statements he makes. Consider this:
While I know little about microbiology, I know when government officials are lying or obfuscating the truth.
Although I am happy to finally see a semblance of truth from Mr. Baker (regarding his microbiology knowledge) I still cannot simply accept his word that he knows “when government officials are lying”. Unless, of course, it is because he is such an adroit liar himself then he is certainly an expert. Mr. Baker needs to realize that simply saying something is true does not make it so. He may indeed be able to fool some of his most ardent fellow HIV dissidents regarding his involvement in HIV Criminalization Cases. But his refusal to supply any evidence only proves him to be a complete fraud to discerning skeptics and will not win him any new fans in the long run.
I acknowledge that Mr. Baker has an agenda and is attempting to use the court system to validate his erroneous beliefs to the world, but disregarding the truth is not the way to do it.