Exclusive: Here’s The Complete List Of Mike Dozer’s Felony Charges

Posted February 7, 2014 by with 38 comments

mdfelonyAs previously reported, Christopher Steele (a.k.a. gay porn star Mike Dozer) was recently arrested on charges of statutory rape and sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy, and Str8UpGayPorn has now learned that the Montgomery County district attorney has filed even more charges against the 33-year-old HIV-positive bareback gay porn star, most of which are 2nd degree felonies.

Here is the full summary of charges filed against Steele/Dozer. In total, he faces nine felony and four misdemeanor counts. The first degree felony charge of sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The second degree felony charges (sexual assault and aggravated assault) carry 10-year sentences. The third degree felonies carry 7-year sentences. If Steele is convicted on all counts, he could be sentenced to 75 years in prison.

mike dozer felony

 

  • Nunya

    Typical overreach by prosecutors. They load up defendants w/charges so as to have room to bargain for a plea deal by offering to drop or reduce several charges in exchange for a plea on one or a few. Normal stuff. No big deal.

    • JoshChicago

      sure, let’s ignore the overreach into a poppered-up 14 year old boy’s pants.

      • Nunya

        Or let’s *****PANIC***** about an accusation where no proof has been
        offered in court. And, of course, let’s convict the defendant in the
        court of public opinion b/c we disagree w/choices he’s made in his porn
        acting career. Choices that disagree w/a political stance
        that’s rooted in faux-outrage and our HIV bigotry but masquerades as public/community concern. That’s better. Let’s go.

        • JoshChicago

          oh dear.

        • Entropyguy

          I’m equally glad that courts have a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard as I am that public opinion has no such stricture.

          • Nunya

            Me too.

          • A.C.

            Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the Prosecutor need only prove that the two had sexual contact of some sort. He does not need to prove intent, knowledge, or any other particular state of mind. The act of having sex or sexual relations with a minor is sufficient for conviction. Based on the statements from both the police and his attorney, it is merely a matter of proving what sort of exchange the two engage in when Mr. Steele arrived at his house. I am not too familiar with the other charges per the Delaware Penal Code, but they too read like strict liability crimes, meaning that gaining a conviction does not seem very difficult.

            The fact that the young man may be an inveterate liar is of no consequence. That fact may go to his credibility if he testifies. I am sure that if he had any sexual contact with Mr. Steele that the police have performed a rape kit on the young man to preserve any sort of bodily fluids for later testing and confirmation. The other felonies seem to be quite easy to prove as well as Mr. Steele does not deny engaging the young man in lewd sexual conduct, but that when he became aware he fled the scene. I was under the impression that he was also charged with Reckless Endangerment but I do not see that charge listed. If he is charged with that crime it too is a virtual slam dunk for the prosecution. Reckless endangerment involves no injury and no intent to cause injury. All prosecutors have to prove is that there was a possibility for serious injury or death, and that he knew that his actions could have caused injury or death (transmission of HIV) — even if he did not know a specific person was in a position to be injured.

            Delaware prosecutors have quite successfully prosecuted people who have had sexually transmitted diseases, like HIV, and not disclosed it with their sex partners with reckless endangerment. Reckless endangerment charges are only limited by a prosecutor’s imagination. If the prosecutor can discern how his behavior could have hurt someone, the Prosecutor will have a distinct advantage if not a probable conviction.

          • chiMaxx

            Question, A.C.: If Dozer’s HIV status was explicitly revealed in his Jack’D profile–the one the kid contacted him on before they met–would that be a disclosure that would serve as an affirmative defense against the reckless endangerment charge?

          • A.C.

            Please understand that I offer this as my best understanding of how the statute would be used to prosecute Mr. Steele. I do not prosecute or practice in Delaware; I do in another state. Reckless Endangerment is a class A misdemeanor and a Class E Felony in Delaware. If he is charged with either, the fact that he disclosed his HIV status is presumably irrelevant. The question is whether he acted in such a way (in this case recklessly) as to have put the young man in a position to be seriously injured. For instance, If he disclosed that he was HIV positive to the minor but failed to wear a condom when they had sex or they participated in any number of activities without using the proper safeguards, then theoretically the person has committed misdemeanor reckless endangerment because they acted in a reckless manner that they knew could lead to the serious injury of another.

            I believe that I understand what you are hinting at or suggesting though. If he disclosed his status then the Prosecutor could not claim that he intended to seriously injure the other person, the minor. In criminal law theory, intent represents only one particular state of criminal mind with which the defendant could have acted. He could also act with malice, depraved indifference, knowledge, and of course recklessness (among others) depending on how the statute is constructed by the legislature of that state. In Delaware this offense requires the showing of recklessness not intent. That means that the state does not need to prove that he had the intent to infect the minor, merely that he engaged in thoughtless behavior toward the other person that resulted in the possibility of serious injury.

            Felony Reckless Endangerment would be much harder, if impossible to prove. It requires a showing that the defendant engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death to the other person. The worst case scenario in this matter is that he infected the young man with HIV. HIV is considered a chronic disease that is well managed and treated such that it is not longer the death sentence it once was. Therefore, there was no real risk of death to the minor. I for one do believe that we should introduce some sort of comparative fault/contributory negligence defense into criminal law, where the victims criminal acts, if so related to the defendants alleged offense, would mitigate the defendant’s culpability. I do not believe that defense should be offered in this case, just elsewhere.

            With either statute, misdemeanor or felony, the issue is not whether he disclosed his status (which would go to intent), the issue is what he did with the young man upon engaging him. If his actions during that engagement demonstrate recklessness then I think the Prosecutor has a real shot at a conviction for Misdemeanor Reckless Endangerment. I hope that I answered your question, if not, please feel free to ask again.

          • chiMaxx

            Yes. I asked the question because of this sentence in your original answer:

            “Delaware prosecutors have quite successfully prosecuted people who have had sexually transmitted diseases, like HIV, and not disclosed it with their sex partners with reckless endangerment.”

            And your extended answer here clarified what I was unclear about. thak you.

          • A.C.

            In light of Zach’s correction, this case is being prosecuted in Pennsylvania not Delaware, allow me to edit my answer to your question. Again, please understand that I offer this as my best understanding of how the statute would be used to prosecute Mr. Steele. I do not prosecute or practice in Pennsylvania; I do in another state. Reckless Endangerment
            in Pennsylvania is a second degree misdemeanor and if convicted Mr. Steele could serve up to two year in prison on that charge. Like my statements concerning Delaware, successful conviction for this crime is really dependent on the imagination of the Prosecutor. If Mr. Steele is charged with this crime, the fact that he disclosed his HIV status is presumably irrelevant. The question is whether he acted in such a way (in this case recklessly) as to have put the young man in a position to be seriously injured. For instance, If he disclosed that he was HIV positive to the minor but failed to wear a condom when they had sex or they participated in any number of activities without using the proper safeguards, then theoretically the person has committed misdemeanor reckless endangerment because they acted in a reckless manner that they knew could lead to the serious injury of another. I believe that I understand what you are hinting at or suggesting though. If he disclosed his status then the Prosecutor could not claim that he intended to seriously injure the other person, the minor. In criminal law theory, intent represents only one particular state of criminal mind with which the defendant could have acted. He could also act with malice, depraved indifference, knowledge, and of course recklessness (among others) depending on how the statute is constructed by the legislature of that state. In Pennsylvania this offense requires the showing of recklessness not intent. That means that the state does not need to prove that he had the intent to infect the minor, merely that he engaged in thoughtless behavior toward the other person that resulted in the possibility of serious injury.

            The issue is not whether he disclosed his status (which would go to intent), the issue is
            what he did with the young man upon engaging him. If his actions during that engagement demonstrate recklessness then I think the Prosecutor has a real shot at a conviction for Misdemeanor Reckless Endangerment. I hope that I answered your question, if not, please feel free to ask again.

          • BiiigStud

            Hi AC just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading your commentary on this case. It is quite insightful, well-written and enlightening.

            This whole case is very sad for both Mike Dozer and for the alleged victim. I feel a great deal of pity for both.

            If anything good comes of this it will be that we who are observing this will take a lesson and seek to be more self aware in our lives and strive to not let bad judgment dictate our actions.

          • A.C.

            Thank you, your words are truly humbling; I am glad to be of service. This is indeed a sad case, but I agree with you, I hope that this story serves as a teachable moment. Thank you again for the kind words, they are so appreciated; please know that.

          • Nunya

            Things happen in these kinds of cases all the time that result in favorable dispositions for the defendant despite what seems like a mountain of enculpatory evidence. If the defendant exercises his right to a jury trial anything can happen. Possibly even jury nullification based on the fact that the kid lied about his age, pursued the defendant, and was a willing participant in any sex they may have had). If the kid decides he doesn’t want to go participate in the prosecution it’ll be tough to push it forward. And, really, unless this kid or his parents have some juice, the prosecutors aren’t going to care enough about a case like this to push it should there be any significant problem w/the prosecution. The story has received some “media” attention if we count these couple of gay rag blogs, but none of the bloggers have the juice to push this story and force prosecutors to proceed should there be trouble in the prosecution (they don’t even have any real power WITHIN the gay porn industry, in that the elements of the industry they “rant” about and against like bareback porn are doing quite well, inter alia). So w/o having seen any of the evidence and going solely from early police reports, I won’t agree that the prosecutors are looking at a probable conviction. And if this is the defendant’s first offense, he may be able to work out a decent plea deal if the prosecutors have a “probable conviction”. He might walk out of this after pleading to some reduced charge – possibly a misdemeanor. I’ve seen it.

          • A.C.

            Your analysis is based on a number of big IF’s and if I were his attorney I would never count on any of that happening or the chance that anything favorable could happen in that vein. The Prosecutor do not need the minor to prove his age, they only need to subpoena his birth certificate or his school records to provide the Court with that critical piece of evidence. It is undisputed that they engaged in lewd conduct, so upon establishing his age they have already proven the elements of most of the crimes for which he is alleged to have committed. I cannot see a jury finding that a grown man’s violations would equal that of a minors. In other words, you would be hard pressed to find a jury that is willing to say “well he acted like an adult so the real adult in this situation is absolved.” The argument that a teenager should have acted with more maturity is not a convincing one, and the statistics show that blaming the victim strategies in statutory rape cases often fail miserably.

            The R. Kelly case was lost due to a lack of identity. One could argue that the jury nullified because it was R. Kelly’s celebrity, but for me, the verdict was a sound one because the state could never offer corroborating evidence that the man in the video was R. Kelly. There is no lack of identity is this case, and as I said before, if there was some sort of sexual contact with the minor I am quite sure that they have performed a rape kit on the minor and preserved it for identification and confirmation. Sure, your theory that anything could happen is well taken, but you are dealing in possibilities when you should be questioning the probability of an acquittal.

            Mr. Steele’s attorney certainly will not look to me for advice, but if I were him I would plead to some of the misdemeanor offenses and maybe one or two of the low class felonies to avoid conviction on the more serious charges.In the event that he is found guilty or pleads out, he will have to register as a sex offender, a moniker and designation he will carry for the rest of his life. The companies that agree to work with him would certainly face quite a backlash from consumers and trust that anti-porn organizations will make much hay of the fact that “those lascivious flesh peddlers are so morally bankrupt that they would hire an ephebophile”. That is also food for thought.

          • Nunya

            It takes more than just getting the boy’s birth certificate to prove his age – the document is hearsay and foundation will need to be laid to establish that it qualifies for any of the available hearsay exceptions. It can be done, but it’s not a given. And it’s not so clear they engaged in any sex (I haven’t read anything). But even if they did, a jury could be swayed by “victim blaming”. First, the jury would have to buy the idea that the kid is a “victim”. And that will be tough to establish considering this kid seems to be the aggressor in this case – he signed up for Jack’d under false pretenses (lied about his age), he sent photos to the defendant (were they even photos of him??), he invited the defendant to meet him, he agreed to have sex w/the defendant (yes, the law says he can’t consent but will a jury buy that he didn’t want to have sex w/the defendant given all of the above factors?). We don’t even know that he is the one complaining here – it’s often the parents who complain in these cases. If the boy doesn’t consider himself a “victim” then maybe a jury won’t. A jury could very well end up sympathizing w/the defendant (he was lied to repeatedly and ended the encounter after finding out the boy’s real age). That could result in nullification.

            W/o having seen any of the evidence (including a rape kit, which is a huge IF you’re working with), I am not willing to agree that the defendant is looking at a conviction here. I understand the likelihoods based on other cases, but each case is different.

            And the anti-porn ppl and the homophobes and the HIV bigots will always find some reason to whine and cry and rant and rave in their ridiculous outrage about various issues related to gay porn actors. That’s nothing. Gay porn can survive this story. Bareback porn will survive this story. And if Mr. Dozer wants to work in porn even after he has to register as a sex offender, I’m quite sure he’ll be able to. There are plenty porn producers out there who don’t give a shit what hand-wringing Marys and assorted other haters and alarmists have to say about what they produce. And good for them.

          • A.C.

            First, a birth certificate is not subject to hearsay in Delaware. In fact, according to the Delaware Rules of Evidence, section 16:4 (entitled) Hearsay exceptions, Availability of the Declarant Immaterial – records of vital statistics, which include birth records, comprise statements that are not subject to hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available for testimony. Again, the Prosecutor does not need the minor’s cooperation in that regard. It will be as simple as filing a subpoena and more importantly the prosecutor likely calling another office in the same building for that information. As for the claim of sex or sexual relations, that is the only thing that I believe a Prosecutor has to prove. That is where the young man might have to testify, but since performing a rape kit is standard practice whenever an allegation of rape is made, I am pretty sure of that “IF”, particularly since it involves a minor.

            I would not suggest that Mr. Steele’s attorney attempt a blame the victim strategy. Statistically it rarely works, and in the instances where it has worked the victim has been close to the age of consent and the accused was just just shy of the same. If the entire strategy is that the minor lied therefore he was fair game, then as the Prosecutor I am already preparing my sentencing report for the judge. The Prosecutor’s response is going to be, he lied, yes, that was bad, but his wrongful act does not absolve the Defendant of his responsibility and better yet, his guilt. Just because they both did wrong things does not make Mr. Steele not guilty. Based on your analysis Mr. Steele is near convicted, because if his guilt is dependent on whether a jury believes that a 14 year old boy is some ravenous, wanton slut instead of Mr. Steele being seen as a…ravenous wanton slut, then odds are he has no hope.

            I do not mean to suggest that Mr. Steele could not find work in this industry as a sex offender, but the reality is that there will be plenty of disgust in the industry (and that takes a lot) and I cannot see an outfit that would be willing to work with him. Stranger things have happened though and it could happen in this case, but again, that is the difference between possibility and probability if this goes to trial.

          • Nunya

            We’ve both seen how strange things happen at trial. I’ve won cases that were losers on paper. You’ve lost cases that were winners on paper.

            If the prosecutors offer the defendant a bad deal, he’ll go to trial if he’s smart. If the prosecution doesn’t want a trial (and who wants to put a 14 yr old lying gay slut through the crucible of cross examination), they’ll offer him a deal that’ll make it worth his while to give up the chance of an NG in exchange for a light sentence. But that’s only if the evidence is weighted toward the state. I haven’t seen any of it. I’ve only read 2 blog posts by alarmist bloggers who are clearly grinding axes with Mr. Dozer bc of his professional choices.

          • A.C.

            You are certainly correct about that, I have seen some rather strange outcomes at trial. I have lost cases that were winners on paper, so thank God for the Appellate Division. That said, the question here is whether Mr. Steele has a chance if this matter goes to trial. First, let us consider that Delaware has a rape shield law (Title 11 sections 3508 to 3509). The Rape shield laws seek to avoid putting the victim on trial for their
            clothing, attitude, behavior or sexual past. In Delaware if a victim
            has had a prior relationship with their assailant it may be introduced
            as evidence on the issue of consent, but in this case, since a minor is presumed to not be able to give consent the prosecutor will file the appropriate motions during pretrial to preclude Mr. Steele’s attorney from raising any evidence of the minors sexual history or behavior. Second, that history or behavior is irrelevant to the proceedings. Presume that the minor has a history of this behavior as Mr. Steele’s attorney suggests, none of that is relevant to the question of whether Mr. Steele had sex or sexual relations with the minor. If the minor is compelled to testify or willing does so, the Prosecutor will make sure than any questions dealing with his past or pattern of behavior is excluded as a matter of irrelevance. In fact, if the Prosecutor is competent, he will make sure that the jury does not hear that information at all. Again, I do not see any reason why Mr. Steele should not plead out and plead out immediately, it is not in his interest to contest this case. I have enjoyed this back and forth by the way, I love legal exchanges with no real world consequence. Thank you for the opportunity.

          • Nunya

            Of course YOU don’t see it. You’re a prosecutor. Speaking of which…you don’t get to appeal when you lose at trial, Mr. Prosecutor (I recently had an out-of-control prosecutor threaten to appeal a case she lost against me…I wanted to laugh in her face but that would’ve been unprofessional). Unless you’re talking about civil work? Or defense work in a former life? Or maybe you’re not a prosecutor and I mis-read?

            I haven’t seen the state’s evidence in this case (including any Brady material), I haven’t interviewed Mr. Dozer, I haven’t conducted any independent investigation in the matter, I don’t know who the assigned judge is, I don’t know who the prosecutor is, I don’t know the jury pool in the venue, I don’t know Mr. Dozer’s criminal history, I don’t know if the prosecutors have made him a plea offer…there could be many reasons why Mr. Dozer should take the case to trial rather than plead out based on all of that unknown information. So despite what you claim about Delaware law and procedure (which I also haven’t read since I don’t practice there and am not about to conduct legal research for free since I don’t get off on doing so b/c I’m not that much a geek), I am still not going to agree that Mr. Dozer should just plead out based on having read 2 clearly-biased blog entries w/quotes from a local paper which was quoting a police report and a short interview w/Mr. Dozer’s lawyer.

          • A.C.

            Well, if all of what you said at the beginning of this latest reply is true, then why did you start speculating/commenting at all? You did not have access to any evidence (Brady or otherwise) when you started and yet you speculated in other posts that Mr. Steele was ensnared by the young mans allegedly fraudulent behavior. Nevertheless, your point is well taken, I too do not know the facts of the case nor the technical aspects that you listed, but then again that was not the point of our exchange. Our exchange was about the efficacy of Mr. Steele’s defense in light of Delaware’s statutory rape laws. I maintain that by all that I have read, all the prosecution need do is prove sexual relations or sex to meet its burden. I have not suggested a definite outcome. I have suggested that Mr. Steele plead out because the reality is that Prosecutors are successful in just shy of 94% of the cases they prosecute in that unit of the Delaware Prosecutors office. That sort of success rate does not bode well for a defendant who would be by your analysis, presumably banking on a jury set on nullification, a favorable judge, an effective defense attorney, and or an incompetent prosecutor.

            On a parting note, I choose not to take the geek comment personally, in fact, I revel in the charge because I am proudly geeky. I did not conduct research for the sake of conducting research, I did it out of respect for you and the other readers on this blog. If we are going to have a serious discussion of the law it would be important for us to discuss it correctly. I happened to know that Delaware views birth certificates as self-authenticating, but rather than turn that part of the discussion into a needless back and forth about who was correct, I thought it best to appeal to authority, the law. I included the information on the Rape Shield laws in Delaware for individuals who are still arguing that a plausible defense strategy would entail raising the past sexual behavior and proclivities of the minor. That is the type of light/quick/free research that I more than willing to perform if it helps to move conversation along and frankly, as this story is of some interest to me (I used to prosecute sexual offenses) I found the research to be worthwhile. Sorry if that offended, that was not my intention. Again, it was a pleasure engaging you in this exchange, I hope that we can have other such discussions in the future. Cheers!

          • LB

            Very interesting exchange, thank you both.

          • Nunya

            All of my comments have had more to do w/the reactionary nature of the coverage here than they were about Mr. Dozer’s case – which makes sense b/c I know little about Mr. Dozer’s case since I haven’t seen any discovery. You seemed more interested in discussing the merits of Mr. Dozer’s potential defense in light of Delaware’s rape shield laws and I entertained it a bit b/c I was bored at home waiting out a snow storm. I found the exchange fairly tedious and I’m not interested in repeating it. But I’m glad you got off on it.

          • A.C.

            Let us be clear, you can classify your participation however you would like, but nothing about your response(S) suggest mere boredom or better yet, a singular concern for the reactionary comments made on a message board/public forum that is sure to attract reactionary comments. You also seemed rather keen to make some pretty speculative conclusions of your own for someone who did not have all of the evidence nor conduct an investigation, for instance, the minor is a “14 year old gay slut”.

            Nevertheless, I have been rather respectful and cordial to you, but I can see by the passive aggressive tone that you have taken in your past replies that you have no intention of returning the same.Yes, the conversation could be reasonably interpreted as tedious, but I would think that if you were not engaged you would not have responded. More importantly you would not have kept up the the conversation on this and another thread dealing with the same issue, but, what do I know?

            In parting, since this will hopefully be the last of our exchange on this subject, know that this did not “get me off”. My libido demands something quite a bit stiffer, but I will be careful in the future to be more discerning of the individuals I choose to engage in conversation on this board as it is apparent that a free exchange does not necessarily imply a polite one – which is what I hope for in every conversation.

          • Nunya

            BTW: In
            Pennsylvania it is a defense to any sexual offense charge that depends
            on a child being below the age of 14, if the defendant can prove by a
            preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed the child to
            be above the critical age (Penn. Stat. Tit. 18 § 3102).
            § 3102. Mistake as to age.
            Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this chapter the
            criminality of conduct depends on a child being below the age of
            14 years, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the
            age of the child or reasonably believed the child to be the age
            of 14 years or older. When criminality depends on the child’s
            being below a critical age older than 14 years, it is a defense
            for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
            that he or she reasonably believed the child to be above the
            critical age.

          • A.C.

            Yes, I was made aware of this by a colleague that Prosecutes in Pennsylvania, and I stand, in part corrected. I am glad that you posted that for the benefit of the readership instead of being put off by the prospect of performing free research and or the tedium of it. If you are interested, you might want to do a bit of research on how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted the degree of proofs necessary to meet the standard “by a preponderance of the evidence.” in cases like these. It is the reason that even with this defense it is only successful in less than five percent of the cases. Cheers to you!

          • zach

            Just an FYI, but Dozer’s being tried in Pennsylvania, not Delaware. Not sure how much of a difference that will make.

          • A.C.

            Thank you Zach, that was my mistake and I apologize. I suppose that I could have save you and the rest of your readership quite a bit of spilled digital ink if I had read a bit more closely. Frankly though, that does not change things for Mr. Steele. Pennsylvania has a statutory rape statute similar to that of Delaware, but in the State of Pennsylvania, as is evidenced in the charging papers, it is a Second Degree Felony only that carries with it a a maximum of ten years if convicted. The burden of proof would obviously be the same, and the proofs required for conviction would be the same as well. Pennsylvania, like Delaware does not permit the defense of mistake of age. Defendants accused of statutory rape often claim that they had no reason
            to know that their partner was underage. They may argue that the victim
            himself represented that he was older than he was, and that a
            reasonable person would have believed him. But as in most states, in
            Pennsylvania, even a reasonable mistake of age is not a defense to statutory rape. I quoted the Delaware evidence statutes concerning the self-authenticating nature of a birth certificate, in Pennsylvania there is a similar statute at 225 Pa. Code Rule 902. Pennsylvania also employs an even stricter Rape Shield Law protection than Delaware which means that even if the minor is a “14 yr old gay slut” the defense could not use that information to aide in their defense per 18 Pa.C.S. section 3104. I think that about covers it. Again sorry for the mistake Zach, it was an inadvertence.

      • Gayjedi

        I had sex at 14 with a much older man, it’s possible I shouldn’t have, but I also shouldn’t have put myself in that situation. Go out looking for dick, you get dick. Also, not saying he’s a saint, giving poppers is intended to reduce pain. 29 and 16 is legal in DE. I guess 14 and 33 is a bit different, just not sure it’s 75 years worth of different.

  • DeanD

    “…filed even more charges against the 33-year-old HIV-positive bareback gay porn star…” You are so eloquent.

    • sbd

      Eloquent or not, that’s what Dozer is.

  • John McKee

    They forgot to list his alias.

  • GN

    I know there are underage kids on Grindr, and other apps. And the ones I have encountered, I read them the riot act–My problem is, I feel that there should be SOME kind of charge put on the parents, when these things happen. Parents in our society have all but abdicated their responsibility to supervise their children, and that is not OK. Your 14yo is meeting people for sex and inviting them back to your house—And where are you? You see them on the news, sheepishly shrugging their shoulders, saying, “I did not know my kid was doing that”..If you were to leave a porn mag laying around, and your kid got a hold of it, you would be charged. So how is it any different that you give your kid a Smartphone with hook-up apps, then leave them to their own devices?

  • Cosmic

    Does anyone know if he had unprotected sex with this kid,if he exposed this kid to HIV then he doesn’t stand a chance at trial.

  • http://twitter.com/seaguy11 Aaron Hudson

    Charging papers tend to list anything they think might stick. Its a prosecutorial negotiating tactic.

  • divadhensley

    I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet but he doesn’t have only these charges to worry about. He’s known for 6+ years that he has had HIV, yet goes around advocating for bareback sex and films scenes for studios that “have a testing policy” to “keep their models safe”. Anytime that he knowingly had unprotected sex with an HIV- person without disclosing his positive status, he committed assault with a deadly weapon according to the law. I’ve seen cases where men are charged for that and seems like this could be no different if anyone he infected by not disclosing decides to press charges.

  • Bull

    Geez, I don’t check this blog for a while and I miss stuff like this!

  • gary bevan

    He’s a pedophile SIMPLE AS THAT.
    Sure,…every Gay man wants him and thinks he’s being “victimised” …that in it’self gives the public even more ammunition ho hate Gay men because so many are rooting for Mr.Dozer (Steele) HE’S A PEDOPHILE. A DISEASE FUELLED SEXUAL PREDATOR and if ANYONE wants to argue about that fact,then sjame on them!!