22 years old Michael Johnson, seen above, is a very healthy looking but HIV positive student. And he's currently in the news for all the wrong reasons.
According to reports, in October, last year, Police began investigating him after one of his former lovers complained he had contracted gonorrhoea and HIV, which leads to AIDS after sex with Johnson in his university dorm room.
A month later, four more felony charges were filed.
But the shocking news right now is that police have revealed that during their probe into the allegations
against Johnson, they found 32 incriminating videos on his laptop, showing Michael with a string of more than 30 unidentified men he picked up via social media, having unprotected sex in the same university dorm room.
Police believe that Johnson's sex partners did not know that he had the HIV virus or that Johnson was filming their sexual actions.
So they have issued appeals for anyone else who was a sexual partner of Johnson to contact them to prevent an epidemic.
Comments have been pouring in ever since Johnson's story hit the internet, it even sparked a serious argument.
Someone strongly believes Johnson's victims don't deserve to be called innocent victims at all and here is his argument -
that if Johnson's victims could willingly and knowingly have unprotected sex with a random stranger they met online, they deserve to be charged with reckless endangerment, cos they have just as much of an obligation to protect their sexual health as the HIV positive person they DELIBERATELY had raw sex with.Do you agree with that?