[Updated] Michael “Tiger Mandingo” Johnson Met Victims Via Social Media, Gave Them HIV, And Now He’ll Be Doing 30 – 60 Years In Prison

23-year-old Michael “Tiger Mandingo” Johnson had six social media accounts he used to meet partners. Yesterday, a Missouri jury found him guilty of, among other things, recklessly infecting at least one of them with HIV. From the 32 recently discovered video tapes of his encounters, there could be many more.

Johnson was a state champion wrestler in high school and went on to join the team at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, MO. acccording to ABCnews. Meanwhile KMOV reported Johnson learned of his HIV-positive status on January 7, 2013 and that the unnamed victim in the case had sex with Johnson in his dorm room, where he says he became infected.

The victim went to the police and following a five-month investigation, Johnson was arrested on October 10, 2013, as told by the Indy Star, on charges of one count of recklessly infecting another with HIV, a Class A felony, and four counts of recklessly exposing someone to the risk of infection, a Class B felony for a total of five. Yesterday, he was convicted on all but one count and in his sentencing hearing today, LGBTQnation reports jurors recommend a 30-year prison term.

Update: Fusion.net expanded on Johnson’s sentencing with details provided by Leslie Knight, the St. Charles County Prosecutor’s Office Spokesperson. In addition to the 30 year term for count one, Johnson also faces 30.5 additional years for the convictions on the other counts for a final total of 60.5 years. His legal team is requesting he that he can serve his sentences concurrently which would reduce the total to 30.5 years. A mid-July decision is expected according to Knight.

In a truly salacious twist on a sadly salacious story, BuzzFeed reveals that police state there could be at least 30 victims after discovering “two dozen sex tapes allegedly filmed in secret,” recorded in his dorm room and found on his laptop. St. Charles police Detective Don Stepp testified at least a dozen men have come forward since the story broke but for various reasons, usually being closeted, embarrassed or both, they did not file a formal complaint. One man in particular did not want to upset his wife – though is she ever in for a doozy of a conversation.

As to where he met what proved to be his victims, the Riverfront Times first broke that he used his six social media accounts: not one, but two facebook profiles, plus one ‘Tiger Mandingo Facebook Fan Page’ with almost 1,000 likes, a Twitter, Instagram and a now shut-down Vine.

This case follows on two decades of similar cases that turn irresponsible, careless individuals into HIV criminals, and it’s always a little dicey trying to decide whether a person is simply having reckless sex and thereby endangering partners willing to join him, or whether he’s consciously intending to infect others. As Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York told KMOV, this is just another case of “HIV criminalization,” and “treating Johnson’s past sex partners… as victims puts the government seal of approval on their avoidance of responsibility for personal decisions about their sex lives.” She adds, “Having unprotected sex is poor judgment, not a criminal act.”

Such cases of course get even dicier when the victim is underage, as was the case with former porn star Mike Dozer, who’s been in prison since December 2013 and tried in both federal and state courts on charges of statutory rape, possession of child porn, and reckless endangerment of a minor — the latter charge because he is HIV-positive and possibly infected his 14-year-old sex partner. Dozer, a.k.a. Christopher Steele, was convicted on three felony counts and is currently facing 30 years to life, though his sentencing has been delayed after he fired his lawyer, as Str8UpGayPorn reported.

Anyway, here’s some of the “eye candy” Johnson used as bait on Facebook
mandingo-fb

 
 
While some of his tweets revealed what a charmer he is

 
 
But Johnson seemed to favor Instragram most of all
mandingo-igb

30 thoughts on “[Updated] Michael “Tiger Mandingo” Johnson Met Victims Via Social Media, Gave Them HIV, And Now He’ll Be Doing 30 – 60 Years In Prison”

  1. Bob Budenbender

    It’s stupid to convict a man because of this. Anyone who fucks around raw has to assume they can and/or will catch something at some time. I myself am poz and know it and I tell anyone who I do anything with I am. I don’t play games and it may well be the case he did tell each of them. I remember when I was sero-converter to hiv poz and who did it and further I never had a problem or issue with him at all. People should get on with their lives and this man should be free. Enough bull shit!

  2. Even if he was straight and white, he’d still be right where he belongs. This is an awful thing to do, and it should come with a harsh punishment. No one’s “criminalizing HIV”; it’s the act of intentionally spreading the virus that is being criminalized. Fear of consequence is the only thing keeping some people civilized. For all you guys arguing that some type of racial bias occurred here, this all could’ve been avoided if Mr. Mandingo had opted against purposely trying to infect others. Animals belong in cages.

  3. Jordi Lim Lama

    George Jimenez · Top Commenter
    Are you not familiar with the facts of the case? He AFFIRMATIVELY LIED when asked directly about whether he was infected with HIV. You apparently do not understand the gravity of the situation.

    If someone: (1) knows he is infected with HIV; (2) is asked whether he has HIV; (3) affirmatively states that he does not have HIV; and (4) engages in sexual intercourse . . . this IS and SHOULD be a crime. It is battery.

    This case was even aggravated by the fact that he engaged in sexual intercourse without a condom and, in fact, infected multiple men with HIV. Even if he: (1) always used a condom; and (2) never infected any of the men, he still is a criminal for knowingly exposing men to a risk they did not consent to.

    Yes, reduce HIV rates, improve health care, etc. The notion, however, that an individual can affirmatively and knowingly deceive sexual partners and expose them to a risk they do not consent to is battery, plain and simple. You seem to be confusing different issues.
    Reply ·
    · 2 · May 15 at 7:22am

    John Macom · Top Commenter · Population Surveillance at CDC
    George -so you would also argue that if one doesnt know they are HIV positive, but did have multiple sexual partners (therefore had risks) so inform next partner of those risks? There seems to be a focus on an HIV positive person needing to disclose their status so that the other partner can weigh the risks. Why not require the sexual partner to disclose all risks? If you had 10 sex partners this year without condoms and didnt tell the sex partner that cant you argue the same “he knowingly exposing men to a risk they did not consent to.”?
    Reply ·
    · 7 · May 15 at 7:33am
    Jermah Clements · Top Commenter · Boston, Massachusetts
    John Macom how is that scenario even remotely like what happened here? Where is the intent? Where is the willingly and knowingly hurting another person?
    Reply ·

    · Edited · Yesterday at 9:56am

    Tia Baltimore
    Do the crime, you do the time. I hate when people try and whip out the black card hoping for a lighter punishment. This isn’t a black or white thing. It’s a life thing. He endangered human lives because of his own selfish desires. I don’t understand how anyone can be against him being held accountable of that. People aren’t ‘criminalizing’ HIV. They are criminalizing the intentional or reckless transmission of it to another person… Your rights should never infringe on the rights of another.
    Reply ·
    · 21 hours ago

  4. jordi lima lama

    Gotta love howbits suddenly a color thing. What would be a fair sentence ?
    You have a porn director who seems to blame his srxual partners, others who play the race card etc i mean gimme a break.
    If you..yes YOU are reading this and are dumb enough to infect and film your crimes what should be your sentence ? Or should we say oh its ok you only have multiple profiles have infected this amt out of people..oh hell fuck the charges lets goto disney land. I mean seriously.

    1. Where race is a relevant issue, it should not be ignored. Similar case in California, the defendant received a six-month sentence.

      “Persons who were black were more likely to be convicted of criminal HIV exposure related to a sexual interaction than persons who were white,” according to a study published in the in the public health journal AIDS and Behavior that analyzed 11 years of Nashville, Tennessee court records.

      A similar analysis conducted in the state of Michigan also found “there was an overrepresentation of African-American men” charged for HIV-specific offenses.

      “If everyone wants to jump on the black lives matter slogan, then they must take seriously the life of a 23-year-old black gay man in Missouri who deserves a chance at a life, not a cage,” said Farrow.

      (http://fusion.net/story/135315/tiger-mandingo-is-guilty-because-missouri-law-ignores-three-decades-of-science/)

  5. So basically it’s a he said he said scenario….so if i said you didn’t tell me and you said you did…i’m on the loosing end..smh.
    Well this coon loved chasing after the white meat…hope it was worth it :-)
    I bet his the outcome would have been different had he been white….great justice system minorities especially blacks live in! :-)

  6. Jordi Lim Lama

    And here is the Missouri rule of law on HIV…

    In Missouri, it is a crime to deliberately or recklessly expose another to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). It is also a crime for a prisoner or person committed to the care of the Department of Mental Health to cause another person to come into contact with bodily fluids that are infected with HIV or hepatitis.

    While in some states it is a crime to infect another person with any sexually transmitted disease, Missouri’s specific transmission statutes apply only to exposing another person to HIV or hepatitis.

    For more information on the criminal transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, see Transmitting an STD: Criminal Laws & Penalties.
    Transmitting Diseases Other Than HIV/AIDS

    Although Missouri’s transmission statutes concern only HIV/AIDS, people who transmit other sexually transmitted diseases, such as gonorrhea or herpes, may be charged under other criminal statutes, such as assault. The crime of assault (causing, attempting, or threatening injury) may be committed by inflicting injury, variously defined in the law as a “bodily injury” or “serious bodily injury.” Prosecutors in Missouri may conclude that defendants who know they have a sexually transmittable disease, who intentionally engage in conduct that results in infection, have inflicted (or attempted to inflict) such injuries.

    For more information on assault in Missouri, see Misdemeanor Assault in Missouri, Assault in the Second Degree in Missouri, and Assault in the First Degree in Missouri.
    Exposing Another to HIV

    In Missouri, it is a crime for a person who knows that he or she is infected with HIV to:

    donate or attempt to donate blood, sperm, or tissue (except for medical research), or
    deliberately or recklessly expose another to HIV without the other person’s knowledge and consent through oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse; biting; purposely causing infected bodily fluids to come into contact with another; or sharing needles.

    The crime is punished more severely if the victim contracts HIV.

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.677.1.)

    Under Missouri’s laws, people who do not know that they are infected are not guilty of a crime. But, people who know that they are HIV positive and later engage in sexual relations (or other risky behavior) with someone else without telling the person they have the disease (or without the person consenting to be exposed to HIV) can be convicted of a crime.
    Deliberate or reckless exposure

    In order to be convicted of criminal exposure, the defendant must act deliberately or recklessly. People act deliberately when they act with a particular purpose or intention. For example, someone who engages in unprotected sexual contact with the intention of exposing a partner to HIV has acted deliberately.

    Most of the time, however, criminal prosecutions are based on the theory that a defendant recklessly exposed another to HIV. People act recklessly when they are aware of and disregard the risk to others caused by the their conduct. For example, it would be reckless if defendants know or should know that they have HIV and fail to tell their sex partners.
    Proving recklessness

    A prosecutor can also establish recklessness by presenting evidence of either of the following:

    after having received a diagnosis of HIV, the defendant tested positive for syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia, or
    another person had sexual contact with the defendant after the defendant was diagnosed with HIV.

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.677.1.)

    Other behavior could conceivably show recklessness. For example, evidence that a defendant had been tested for HIV, and then failed to follow up on the test results, despite the fact that someone from the clinic had called several times and sent letters to defendant indicating that the clinic had very important news to give defendant, might establish recklessness.
    Prostitution

    Under Missouri’s laws, the crime of prostitution (sexual relations in exchange for money or something of value) is punished more severely if the prostitute knows that he or she is infected with HIV. This increased penalty applies only to prostitutes, not “johns.”

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 567.010, 567.020.1.)
    Defenses

    It is a defense to the charge of exposing another to HIV in Missouri if the victim knows that the defendant is infected with HIV and consents to the behavior that risks infection.

    The use of condoms will not provide a defense to someone charged with exposing another to HIV or exposing another to HIV through an act of prostitution. Although condom use shows a certain amount of care, it will not refute evidence of recklessness.

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 191.677.1, 567.020.1.)
    Endangering a Corrections or Department of Mental Health Employee

    In Missouri, it is also a crime for people who know that they are infected with HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C to cause or attempt to cause any of the following people to come into contact with infected bodily fluids (blood, semen, or saliva) or bodily waste:

    a corrections employee
    a Department of Mental Health employee
    a visitor to a correctional or mental health facility, or
    another offender, prisoner, or person committed to a facility.

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 565.085.1, 565.086.1.)

    For example, if a prisoner is infected with hepatitis B and knows it, and spits on a prison guard, that could be considered endangering.
    Punishment

    Exposing another to HIV is a class B felony, punishable by five to fifteen years’ imprisonment. If the victim contracts HIV, the crime is punishable as a class A felony by ten years’ to life imprisonment.

    Exposing another to HIV through prostitution is also a class B felony.

    Endangering a corrections or mental health employee, a visitor to a correctional facility, or another offender or prisoner is a class C felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

    (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 191.677.1, 565.085, 565.086.1, 567.020.1.)
    Getting Legal Advice and Representation

    Being convicted of criminal exposure to HIV can result in time in prison and a felony record. If you are charged with knowingly exposing another person to HIV, you should contact a Missouri criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. An attorney will be able to tell you how your case is likely to be treated in court, depending on the facts and the judge and prosecutor assigned to your case. An attorney can help you navigate the justice system and obtain the best outcome in your case.
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Google Plus

  7. Jordi Lim Lama

    Jordi Lim “maybe the prosecutors were all white guys. Scary”

    Jesus Christ talk about tossing about the race card there Einstein. Nice little dig, well read these…
    HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases

    Criminal transmission of an STD crimes commonly encompass different types of diseases. Though state laws differ, they typically include both HIV as well as other communicable or contagious sexually transmitted diseases. Some state laws list the individual diseases covered by name, while others use more general language that includes any type of communicable or sexually transmitted disease. Also, some states limit these crimes to the transmission of HIV, while others include HIV as one of the diseases covered by the law; yet others provide for additional penalties if the transmitted disease is HIV.
    Intentional or Reckless

    You can be convicted of the criminal transmission of an STD only if you cause someone else to be infected intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. For example, if you have been diagnosed with an STD and later engage in sexual relations with someone else without telling that person you have the disease, you can be convicted of this crime if that person becomes infected. (A 2013 Georgia case dealt with this kind of scenario.) However, if you are unknowingly infected with an STD, you cannot be found guilty of this crime. In order to convict you, a prosecutor must be able to show that you knew you had the disease and you intentionally exposed someone else to danger. Alternately, a prosecutor can show that, while knowing you had the disease, you were indifferent to the risk of exposing someone else and engaged in contact that recklessly endangered the other person.
    Consent

    Many states have laws that allow for people with an STD to knowingly engage in sexual contact without fear of prosecution if they tell the other person about the presence of the disease. As long as the other person consents to the relationship, the person with the STD is not guilty of criminal transmission, even if the other person is eventually infected.

    However, laws in other states do not allow for the informed consent exception, and it’s possible to be convicted of criminal transmission of an STD in these states even when the other person knows of the presence of the disease and consents to the sexual contact. In practice, however, because prosecutors have discretion when choosing which cases to prosecute, they may choose not to bring charges in cases where adults knowingly consented to sexual relations.
    Penalties

    If you are convicted of knowingly transmitting an STD, you face a number of potentially very serious criminal penalties. State laws categorize this crime as either a felony or misdemeanor offense, and the potential penalties differ significantly depending on the state where it occurs. Regardless of the state, all criminal sentences involve the same potential types of penalties.

    Jail or prison. A misdemeanor conviction for transmission of an STD can result in a sentence of up to one year in jail, while a felony conviction has a maximum penalty of a year or more in prison. Potential prison sentences for this crime differ significantly, and while some states impose a potential maximum sentence of up to one year in jail for the transmission of any STD, other states allow for as much as a life sentence in prison where a person knowingly transmits HIV.
    Fines. You can also be fined if you are convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor transmission of an STD crime. Misdemeanor fines are typically up to $1,000. Like jail sentences, however, state differences are extreme, with possible felony fines going as high as $50,000.
    Restitution. Restitution payments can also be made a part of transmission of an STD sentence. Restitution payments go towards any victims to compensate them for the losses they have incurred, and can differ widely among cases. Restitution must be paid in addition to any fines imposed by the court.
    Probation. In addition to, or instead of, a jail or prison sentence, courts can also sentence someone convicted of unlawful transmission of an STD to a probation term. Probation usually lasts one to three years, though longer terms are possible. Those on probation must comply with the court’s probation conditions. These conditions can differ between cases, but commonly include regularly reporting to a probation officer, paying all required fines and restitution, submitting to random home searches, not breaking any more laws, and not leaving the jurisdiction without first obtaining permission from the probation officer or the court.

  8. I guess the MANDINGO dick was hard to resist..LoL
    You trust a stranger with your health…they say neg: and you believe it…the dick rules every time..SMH
    I wonder how they fell now..responsibility people..take responsibility!!!!

  9. We wanna play but not pay.
    I wonder how many men told these guys they were neg: and they believe them letting them run up in them RAW.
    I’m not even gonna go in on the DL ones.
    I’d hate for my tax dollars to fund these kind of cases.(unless it’s rape or under age sex-non consensual – both parties are to blame!)
    It’s 2015 HIV should be know to every Adult and below.
    In this case they all share responsibility!

  10. How the hell does he almost get a life sentence when a couple weeks ago the same thing happened and the guy in that case got 6 months?!

  11. Wow 30 years in prison! There was a similar case last week in San Diego and the guy only got six months. I think there should be better sentencing guidelines.

  12. HIV is not a crime, period. This does nothing but set back HIV/AIDS prevention even further while at the same time stigmatizing HIV to an even great level in the African-American community leading to even more infections. Throwing yet another black man in jail isn’t the solution and sends the wrong message, regardless of the choices he and his sex partners made. I’ve followed the details about this story and I am just appalled at the levels of ignorance on so many issues presented, and I believe had this been about a white man it would have been a much different story. This is a sad day for the fight against HIV/AIDS no matter how you look at it.

  13. I don’t know what should happen to him but what about all those sex tapes they found ? It is a dicey situation and it does not seem to be a right or wrong answer but lets not get all Matlock on here until everything is out in the open here ……

  14. Stop Criminalizing people with HIV!

    Did the sex partners ask for recent test results? – no.
    Did they say “ya know, until we get tested together, I’d prefer you wear a condom when you fuck me” – no.
    Any of the kids taking loads in their ass on PrEP? – no.
    Is the university doing any kind of outreach about status negotiation, PrEP, testing? – no.
    If they do insist on criminalizing people who are HIV positive, are they going after the person who infected him? – no.

    This man should not be going to jail for life.
    So sad & frustrating :(

    1. Just wow. Its not criminal to have HIV. But it is criminal to develop a scheme to infect as many people as possible. This guy supposedly video taped the infections. It was also mentioned that his online site for sex only appeared the day after he was diagnosed with HIV. The state has a record of when he was diagnosed and sure enough the next day these profiles went up. And you don’t think this guy is evil and should go to jail? Wake up!

    2. Thank you Mr Pam for the voice of reason. At what point do we take personal responsibility for our choices?

    3. If you have HIV and engage in unprotected sex with someone without acknowledging your status… you are plain evil. How low in esteem have gays fallen to not even agree this behavior is wrong. Straight people would never tolerate such ignorance. Are gay lives worth less than straights? Some are not happy until every gay person is infected with HIV.

      1. Imagine if we meet and I invite you back to my house for a glass of soda. I put poison the soda and give it to you. Are you going to hold to your argument that you never asked if there was poison in the soda so its ok. That its your responsibility to check for poison in the soda? You are completely closing your eyes to the evil in this man. Who goes out with wild unprotected sex with countless partners immediately after being diagnosed with HIV? What about Hep C? Or other contagious diseases? Its so sad there is even ONE person with your argument let alone others. Both partners do need to take precautions and responsibility. But this guy was not reckless. He had a scheme to infect others.

    4. @ Mr. Pam, Personal responsibility and honest, forthright disclosure are not inimical virtues. We should not presume that a person who fails to employ the former absolves another of their obligations to the latter. In other words, if I wore a condom, maintained a strict PrEP regiment, was regularly tested, and discussed my sexual history with a potential sexual partner I believe the law is right to demand that the other person fully disclose to me their HIV status. The law does not seek to criminalize HIV status, it merely punishes an individual for failing to disclose pertinent information to a potential sex partner. The reason is clear, the person should be able to make an informed decision about whether they want to risk infection by having sex with some who has HIV. The assumptions that you and others make is that there should be no such punishment because personal responsibility is all that the “victim” is owed, but this is one instance where the legislature has acted with what I believe to be the requisite amount of prudence.

      Condoms break, PrEP is, even with the most liberal of estimates, approximately 92% effective, sexual partners lie (for various reasons) and false negatives are not an infrequent occurrence – in short, safer sex methods are not full proof. To the extent that they are not full proof the person has a right to know what risks they are taking in having sex with this person even if they employ safer sex methods. There also seems to be an understanding among some, and I even detect an undercurrent of it in your post, that if a person does not exercise personal responsibility and they contract HIV that they essentially deserve the consequences of their actions. On balance that seems to be the just response, however, I do not believe that a person consents to all of the potential consequences of an act simply because they engage in it, nor do I believe that the other person is free of liability despite the other person’s imprudence. Even if I contract HIV, the law holds that the person who infected me, who knowingly does not disclose that information is just as wrong. I agree, the sentence for this behavior is more than a bit excessive, and the fact that the statistics show that black men are far more likely to receive harsher punishment than their white counterparts for committing the same crime is more than concerning as well, however, that is an issue of fairness regarding sentencing. I support laws like these that criminalize this type of fatal dishonesty.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top