E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John O'boyle / AP
Dharun Ravi listens to testimony during Ravi's trial at the Middlesex County Courthouse in New Brunswick, N.J. on Monday.
Dharun Ravi could face a decade in prison over charges that he used a web camera to spy on the romantic encounters of his gay roommate, who later took his life. As jurors mull his fate, experts disagree over whether he should be convicted of the most serious charge: bias intimidation.
Ravi’s roommate and fellow first-year student at Rutgers University, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 22, 2010. Authorities say that was three days after Ravi watched Clementi kiss another man via a web camera and one day after Ravi tried to do it again.
Closing arguments wrapped up Tuesday in a New Jersey courtroom where Ravi faces 15 criminal charges, including invasion of privacy. The jury would need to find him guilty of that in order to convict him of bias intimidation.
“Invasion of privacy is a very odd crime for bias intimidation or hate crimes. It’s usually something violent – baseball bat, swastikas, cross burning,” said Marc Poirer, an openly gay professor of law and sexuality at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey. “Maybe it’s new territory, lots of things involving computers are.”
The presiding judge in the case has expressed some skepticism about the bias intimidation law, The Associated Press reported.
"I could be wrong," Judge Glenn Berman told lawyers on Monday after the jury left. "I said this statute to me is muddled. It could be written better."
The bias crime law has been on the books since 2002, replacing an earlier version of the state’s hate crimes legislation. It has seemingly never been applied in a case where the underlying charge is invasion of privacy – or such cases haven’t been publicized, experts said.
The law’s author, state Sen. Joe Vitale, said he felt the legislation’s intent was clear and was applied correctly in this case.
AFP - Getty Images
This undated photograph shows Tyler Clementi in one of his Facebook profile pictures.
“We didn’t spell out under what circumstances a bias crime would be applied to sexual orientation, whether as a violent crime or a crime of intimidation. It’s really … a bias intimidation law,” he said, adding that it was akin to domestic violence, which can occur as emotional abuse rather than physical harm.
"Domestic violence takes on many shapes and forms as does … a bias crime against someone because of their sexual orientation,” he added.
And though the law apparently hadn’t been used this way before, he said he thought it was “probably the blueprint for a case like this.”
The jury heard from about 30 witnesses over less than two weeks of testimony. Ravi did not testify, but jurors saw a video of a statement he gave to police.
The defense said Ravi was immature but not homophobic, while the prosecution said he intended to intimidate Clementi and the man who visited his room – known by the initials M.B. – because they were gay.
For a bias intimidation conviction – which carries a 10-year sentence – the jury has to unanimously agree that one of three criteria has been met: There’s evidence that the victim felt he was being intimidated or evidence that the defendant purposely or knowingly attempted to intimidate based on biased motivations.
Louis Raveson, a law professor of criminal and civil trial litigation at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, said he thought all of the bias intimidation criteria had been met, citing M.B.’s testimony that he felt intimidated, and Tyler’s request to change rooms, which was followed by his suicide. He also said he believed from watching the testimony that Ravi wouldn’t have treated heterosexuals the same way as he did the gay pair.
“I think the statute correctly predicted this kind of crime and … is being used appropriately,” he said. But he surmised that if Ravi is convicted, the defense would try to appeal based on the “victim” aspect of the bias criteria.
“This is an effort to say this is a serious crime, it inflicts serious harm, it’s intolerable … and I think that’s great,” he later added. “A prosecution like this spreads the word that it’s not fooling around; it’s not immature jokes by young people. It’s real damage, and the damage can be great, as it was with Tyler, and we’re not going to tolerate it anymore.”
But Poirer thought the case was “really a stretch … I’m not sure the state thought very hard about it. I also think the evidence is pretty weak on bias intimidation.”
Though the suicide was technically not part of the case, it loomed over the proceedings, he said.
“I think there was clearly political pressure by one segment of the gay community … to make Ravi an example because there have been and continue to be gay suicides and there continue to be examples of bullying,” he said.
But a bias intimidation conviction “won’t do anybody any good,” he added.
“I think that people who want to police odious behavior will be encouraged, even when it’s not appropriate to criminalize it, and I think there will be a backlash in terms of people who blame the gay community for being motivated by vengeance rather than justice.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Foreign exchange students were molested in US
- Sausage industry blasts 'Hot Dogs Cause Butt Cancer' ad
- Study: Thousands face drinking water pollution risk
- Strip club donation saves Little League season
- Warm weather records falling across Northeast, Midwest
US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
This entire prosecution is balony.
I couldn't agree more. We've all done stupid things in our lives and as adults we still do stupid things. We're human, sometimes we make REALLY stupid mistakes we may regret later. I don't think we should be punished for stupidity. Obviously, Tyler had other issues and reasons he took his own life. We cannot blame Ravi because he didn't know his state of mind. This is no HATE crime, unless we can read a persons thoughts we do not know what Ravi was thinking. This is a slippery slope and NO group of people should be favored over another. His stupidity and immaturity was on display. He should not be punished for this nor waste taxpayer money on something that Tyler did to himself. I blame his parents for not accepting him and supporting him and loving him NO MATTER WHAT.
Please check your facts before you comment. Ravi is not being held responsible for Clementi's death. None of the charges relate to his death. Ravi has been charged with invasion of privacy (which it's pretty clear that he is guilty of), tampering with evidence (which they have him dead to rights on), witness tampering (which the witness testified to during the trial and they have the text Ravi sent to her), and bias intimidation (this is the only charge they may have a hard time proving because it is difficult to prove Ravi's motives, but his numerous texts and tweets indicate his motivations).
You blame Clementi's parents for not accepting him, supporting him, and loving him? What evidence is there of that? He came out to them before school started. He spoke to his parents regularly and they had even made arrangements to visit him during parents weekend, which would have been two weeks after his death. Clementi also has a brother who is openly gay. His parents have no issues accepting him.
We don't know the reasons why Clementi took his life, but is extremely disrespectful to his memory for you to make guesses like that with no evidence to support them.
He should face jail time..but he won't. Our justice system lets people off the hook for worst crimes then this. Can see the results from the jury already.
I think this case will get thrown out, but it concerns me that there are so many "Hate" crimes that don't deserve the classification. It seems as though any crime committed against a gay person or minority is automatically classified as a hate crime. Soon we will see someone charged with a hate crime for shoplifting from a gay store owner. Even though this case is non violent, wouldn't we be able to classify any murder as a hate crime? If I kick the @!$%# out of someone, isn't that a hate crime too? Does it matter what sexual orientation or what the skin color is? If this case shows any merit, then we must go after anyone that even speaks any kind of bad thing about anyone, as that is hate too.
I agree with you. This as a stupid college prank that has gotten blown out of all proportion because of political correctness and the fact that an emotionally unstable kid killed himself. The claim that this as some kind of intimidation is also BS. Clementi supposedly was in the closet and this outing of him is what they are using to support the bias claim. That is a load of crap. The guy asks his roommate for the room to himself and then brings another guy into the room with him. At that point, it was pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that lived on that floor of the dorm and saw them go into the room that Clementi was gay. If you want to keep the fact that you are gay private you do not bring your gay lover to your college dorm room to have sex after asking your roommate to let you have the room to yourself. I do not think that bias had anything to do with what Ravi did. This was just a matter of a college roommate being an ass and trying to catch his roommate on camera having sex - period. I just do not see how they can make a case for this being a bias crime. It was sleazy for him to be snooping on his roommate, but even invasion of privacy is a stretch when it is a shared dorm room. Even if Clementi did ask for the room to himself, there was no guarantee that Ravi would honor that and not walk in on him. I am sure that there have been cases where one roommate has walked in on another by accident even when they had agreed to give the other roommate some privacy. Expecting privacy in a shared college dorm room is just a bit of a stretch.
Regardless of how you feel on the bias intimidation or hate crime, Buffy, the spying charges are legit regardless of the outcome. There are other charges here that do not relate to the suicide. It's not like the law says "it's only spying if someone kills himself." With the way that technology is going, it will be cases like this that will set a precedent for how we handle invasion of privacy cases. If someone set up a web cam in your bedroom, would you say "oh, no big deal, people make mistakes"? I doubt it.
Also, before you go off blaming some kid who committed suicide, don't you think that he's suffered enough? He's not the one that brought this to the courts, he made his decisions. So why don't you lay off? Also, all people that kill themselves, don't do so simply because they are unloved. It's a lot more complicated than that. Grow up.
Kevnc,
he was his roommate, how can he be invading privacy?
if thats the case i have a wife and 3 kids that invade my privacy everyday, can they be proscuted for hate?
i dont see how a roommate can invade privacy, this is an invasion if he breaks in to the house to place cameras, but he lived there.
if my wife and i divorce and both of our names are on the car note, i can legally take the car when i want it.
it isnt gand theft auto.
look on youtube, how many videos are on there that would classify under this law of "hate"?
NBC to catch a predator is on the hook BIG TIME if one of their criminals ever commit suicide!!
think about it, whats the difference?
Video taping someone doing something people disprove of!
NBC could be held liable for someones death!!
if this kid was still alive this wouldnt be a hate ruling. he would be made fun of, but i am 35 and STILL get made fun of for stupid crap.
but to say this is a hate crime is absolutely dumb.
this is streaching the law to its fullest right here, and could make youtube a prosecuters dream!
there is stupid and then there is the obvious of wanting to do harm. planning it. The stupid thing was to turn your camera on while you knew your roomate was in the room. the criminal act was to tweet about it and try to do it again. Most of you are missing the intimidation part. its constant intimidation when a person is tweeting and trying to stream your private matters. One of my theories is that ravi wanted them room so he wanted to intimidate tyler to leave. next door was his friend and he did not like that tyler was gay. While most people who comment have not had the cold hand of prejudice put on you. I ask that you sit back and think really think.
Is driving drunk stupid. or irresponsible and dangerous where you can harm other. You can read a persons thoughts when they spew them out on the web or in text messages. This is hate in its early form because he wanted to show tylers business to the public. not just to his friends but anyone who saw ravi's public tweet. Most of you dont know this but tylers life would be changed as well if he lived.
There was no reason to perform these acts in your first year of college not even a month went by. There was no reason to tweet, He knew the kid was shy & gay so why go out your way to constantly talk about him. why go out your way to showcase his business. He should be punished to show its not okay, its not cool to do these illegal acts, its not cool to go after people you dont know. Its not cool to lie or even erase evidence or try and tell your friend to say something else to the police. Even the cop said it best that people will know you had some bad ideas in mind. Why not testify yourself oh no you wont do that you will show some video of your words.
TO ctviking, its simple because people who bash someones head in with a baseball dont do it for the wallet. they do it for the hate. some people take the wallet to add "salt to the wound" and get a slap on the wrist meaning only community service. A crime is not a crime. if any of you knew it or had something of this sort happen to you. Your mind set wouldnt think this way. Obviously you never lived in the south, or had a member of your family hanged or beaten half to death or a group of guys shove a pole up your ass in the school shower just because they suspect you are different.
lastly its not his room. its Rutgers room. Also Ravi did give permission for tyler to have the privacy. Ravi admits this in a text message and in the police video. he wont testify because he knows he will convict himself. While many of you want to go this child like answers i say this to ya. WHAT IF IT WAS A STREAM OF YOUR KID. OF YOUR DAUGHTER. hmmm look how some of you start to use that brain now. open your eyes and stop making excuses for this guy who knew what he was doing. He was no kid. He was smart and intelligent.
I hope he gets 20+ years in jail. Anybody who thinks he deserves less deserves to have their most intimate moments in their bedroom videotaped and thrown online.
KevNC - I disagree with you about the invasion of privacy. It was Ravi's room too. He should be able to use his web cam in his room 24/7.
joe1022joe
I agree.
While Tylers sucide is tragic, I believe the Gay community will get their pound of flesh through the media and the PC crowd.
I feel that what he did was personally repugnant but doesn't violate the laws as written. Even if the jury does convict him (50/50) it gets tossed out up the line in review.
OMG: if you placed webcams in your bathroom and posted videos of your kids peeing, you can bet your rearend that you would be charged with being a pedophile. So you can invade privacy of family members. There was also a case where a guy was prosecuted and found guilty because he read his wife's E-Mail. Being a roommate does not excuse criminal behavior. Also, there is clearly a difference between walking in on a roomate having sex and planting a camera to catch the action. Ravi is a skell and should be held responsible for his actions.
If he had done this to a conservative, Republican, or TEA party member, he would be hailed as a hero. But special treatment for 'special' groups.
Since none of us really knows what motivated Clementi to jump to his death we should leave that aspect out of the discussion. It could be that the webcam incident pushed him over the edge, so to speak, but it could also be that he was a troubled young man regardless of how stupid Ravi was to him.
I think the invasion of privacy is an easy issue to convict on given the apparent evidence. Yes, it si Ravi's room as well, but it was also Clementi's, and if one is out of the room to give the other some private time--for whatever reason--then there is an expectation of privacy. Ravi violated this. I don't see the bias intimidation crime though, and I think we are going much too far into trying to criminalize every aspect of human life.
The fact that MB felt intimidated doesn't mean that Ravi was intimidating him. It means that MB felt that way. If there is evidence that Ravi did want to intimidate or embarrass for effect or ridicule these people then maybe a case could be made. But simply not liking homosexuals doesn't mean your stupid actions are based upon hate and intended to intimidate. It's a major mistake to criminalize simple stupidity since we will all, at one time or another, become felons.
Ditto. I mean, don't get me wrong, this Ravi guy seems like a real jerk, probably the type that made fun of everyone who wasn'te rich enough, or strong enough, or hip enough. I think he teased Clemente more because the kid was just sort of odd. He was painfully shy, socially awkward and kind of geeky. I think if he had been having a girl over the same thing would have happened. Only instead of "My roomate's hooking up with a dude!" It would be "my roommate's hooking up with a fat/ugly/weird chick"
Here's the thing, I knew guys like Ravi in school. I was often the victim of their verbal jabs. They are bullies, but they rarely resort to outright violence, they use words to hurt. And these mean people absolutley suck. I don't like them one bit.
However, you cannot legislate that people must always be nice to one another. You can't make it a law that people like you. People are going to hate other people for all sorts of reasons. Every mean person acts out of some sort of bias. Bias against fat people, skinny people, ugly people, pretty people, rich people, poor people, gay people, straight people, brown people, white people, old people, young people, smart people, dumb people, etc. Very rarely are people mean to those they have no problem with.
Hey dude, you're just like me and I like everything about you, but I'm going to trip you as you walk past me just because I'm a b@sturd like that.
So yeah, he's a jerk. And he kind of deserves to be brought down a peg or two. I would even say he deserved to be kicked out of school. But 10 years in prison? Seems excessive.
This kid did not kill himself because his roomate spied on him. He killed himself because he had other mental health issues. And let's face it, the ONLY reason this went to trial is because a gay kid killed himself and the community wants someone to blame, someone to make an example of. If the kid was alive there is no way that this guy would be up on charges and going to prison for 10 years for what amounts to a mean spirited but physically harmless college prank.
I agree with most posters that it will be very difficult to prove "hate." Stupidity on the part of both parties, Yes. Hate? No. (There is not really anything known as privacy in a dorm room.)
Additionally, what if Tylers response would have been web casting his roommate having sex on the web. Would it have been treated exactly the same as this? Bias goes both ways, but lately, that has not been the case. We should not set one group above all others and give them special rules. (Except for crimes committed to children.)
Hate has nothing to do with this trial....
No, this entire prosecution is not bogus. 1) Invasion of privacy, because he is gay. 2) Made public without consent, because he is gay and the bully wanted to intimidate. 3) publicity drove to suicide, result of emotional stress due to hate and bullying. Throw the book at this bigot.
Stupidity is not what makes a crime or the severity of it, it is intent. I.e.
Run-over and kill someone accidentally = manslaughter.
Run-over and kill someone on purpose = murder.
And of course everyone has a bias; it is not a crime to hate someone, but it could be a crime if you act upon it.
In prior news reports it was stated that he not only "tweeted" but actually posted the video of the two having sex. Would I be embarrassed if my roommate did that - most likely, imagine walking into class and everyone knows how you like to have sex... It seems pretty clear that a camera would NOT be up and running if the deceased had a female in the room - she could certainly sue.
I don't find it a harmless prank when other students, professors, etc can have a visual on your sex life and Tyler didn't want to be outed like that obviously.
We have have one student dead, one facing 10 years- I think it is a hate crime. Otherwise, show me where the tapes are of Ravi having sex with women or masturbating - and posting those for all to see! If he posted his sex life, whatever that amounted too, then he is just an odd duck - but posting your roommate because he's gay, hate crime or sexual harassment - either way, Tyler is gone and Riva was the last straw.
@ OMG Really people?!! "he was his roommate, how can he be invading privacy?" Are you for real?
I'm speechless. Maybe by VIDEOTAPING him in an intimate encounter WITHOUT his consent. Not to mention tweeting about it and placing it on the internet.
Are you really saying it's only wrong to videotape someone without their knowledge if you "break in to the house to place the cameras"??? That's absolutely insane.
Your comment about taking a car post-divorce if both names are on the note is both irrelevant and incorrect. It does not matter whether both names are on the note in any state in this union. The relevant factor is who, within the marriage, has used the car, and whether it's been considered one spouse's or the other's. The note may be admissible evidence, but testimony re: who was considered to have owned the car in the marriage always override two signatures on a note. You don't understand the law.
The guys on To Catch a Predator are committing crimes. NBC works with law enforcement who have received the proper warrants and clearances. With proper warrants, based upon probable cause, law enforcement may videotape criminal activity. Law enforcement, working with NBC, drums up probable cause through its fishing for predators online, whether that practice is sketchy is irrelevant to your comment. The fact is they have court approval to videotape these guys. Riva did not have court approval or any right to videotape another person without that person's consent. Your comparison is sophomoric at best.
Ravi's actions would have still fallen under the purview of "hate crime" legislation even if his victim hadn't committed suicide. Suggesting otherwise evidences an ignorance to the language and interpretation of these statutes. Gay people are a minority. "Hate crime" legislation was written to protect minorities from the abuses of the majority. As such, they are "strict liability" statutes. That means they only require a "mens rea," which is the evil mind component, and not an "actus reas," which is the action component. Hate crimes do NOT require a particular result. They are a new brand of criminal law and, as such, are still in their development through case law, or stare decisis. Ravi's actions fall squarely within the "hate crime" statute. Whether more is required will be determined by the higher courts.
There is no possible way to describe Ravi's actions as anything other than "hate."
Revnc was correct in everything he/she said.
My issue with the whole situation is that while one can argue that the charges Ravi faces are not directly related to Clementi's death, there is absolutely no way that he would be facing such extreme penalties if the incident had not ended in a suicide.
The weight of the charges against Ravi are heavivly influenced by the suicide of Clementi. If the charges were truly aimed at adressing the aspect of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation he would not be looking at such extreme penalties. I refuse to believe that if Clementi had not committed suicide but rather pressed charges against Ravi for the same exact crimes, it would not have gotten very far through the court system.
Yes Ravi violated Clementi's privacy, yes it was an insensitive, cruel spirited and demeaning thing to do, but I feel people's vision is being blurred by the fact that this troubled young man took his life. If Ravi is not accused of murder then the fact that Clementi took his life becomes irrelevent in the case.
Regarding the witness tampering, it is pretty evident that he is guilty that. Stupid.
OK, clearly not everyone has been folowing this story closely.
The media has reported this to sound like Ravi had hidden cameras and recorded gay sexual intercourse and posted it on-line for the world to see. Like I said before, Ravi sounds like a jerk. But being a Jerk shouldn't be a 10 year jail sentence.
Oh, c'mon. I can make the same case that the government commits hate crimes every day because they spy on Muslims or people that look Arabic and have an 'el' or 'al' in their names...
Clementi may have been a troubled young man, but he had not taken his life until Ravi invaded his privacy. Had it not been for what Ravi did, perhaps Clementi would still be alive today.
Other articles have said that his mother had just found out about his lifestyle and wasn't too happy about it. Also it had been reported that she was the last or one of the last to talk to him.........so maybe that had more to do with it than anything else. The truth is we will never know and it all is just speculation as to the cause. Sad that he thought the best way to deal with whatever was the cause of his pain was to end his own life.
But that wouldn't have had any impact on his state of mind now would it?
It's not nice to accuse a mother of being part of the reason her son killed himself, so lets blame his college roomate instead. Or how about this? Maybe the guy just suffered from untreated clinical depression and the stresses of college pushed him past the breaking point. In case you didn't know, straight people kill themselves all the time, his suicide could be completely unrelated to being gay.
I totally agree, gtouch. I often wonder, if you could bring back the people that turn to suicide, if they would do it again.
OMG really people?!!--Your claims are off the mark. it is amazing how when the word "gay" enters the conversation, certain people suddenly start excusing all kinds of actions though they know perfectly well that that the same action, between individuals that are not gay, is a crime.
If a person that you reside with puts a webcam in an area that you have a reasonable expectation is private and makes video of you doing something embarrassing and puts it on the web (without your knowledge or consent)--that person can be prosecuted and people have been prosecuted. A teen boy who videos his preteen sister in the shower and then posts that video to the web can be convicted of child porn--a teen boy who videos his over-18 sister in the show and then posts that video to the web can be convicted of invasion of privacy.
In fact, depending on the state, one cannot use a webcam to capture the image of another person without that person's consent--just turning on the webcam and pointing it at someone is enough to merit a lawsuit (that is why so much news video these days has the faces blurred out).
If you and your wife are divorcing, and you take the car--it depends on how far along the case is. If the divorce was granted and the wife was given the car, then it is theft. If you have only just separated, it probably is not unless the property has already been divided--in which case the police will not come after you, but the lawyer will.
A dorm room is not like a car--a dorm room is more like a rooming house that puts multiple people in a room. One does not "own" the room--one has the use of it. If a person leaves the room when requested, then that person is expected not to be using the room--the person cannot leave a webcam on and use that webcam from a remote location to spy. This is far more analogous to the school district that gave out laptops and then remotely activated the webcam to spy on students--quite illegal.
The charges on which this young man is likely to be convicted are tampering with evidence--for which there is pretty well air-tight evidence--and tampering with a witness--also for which there is pretty much airtight evidence. He will probably get convicted of invasion of privacy--but I doubt that he'll get bias intimidation. I don't think his actions had to do with wanting to intimidate the roommate--I think that they had to do with his own immaturity and lack of thought.
He needs to be convicted of the crimes he committed--I think that a conviction that can be wiped off his record if he behaves himself, some house arrest, and a whole lot of community service (and a hefty fine) sounds about right. He doesn't need to be put in jail--it's not as if he beat someone's head in with a hammer. We don't actually know what led Clementi to commit suicide--he seemed to be doing okay at first--and I suspect that there is more to this than we know. Perhaps he was told that his future as a violinist had just been compromised by the video, perhaps others (who saw the sex act online) were bullying him--it's too hard to know his state of mind. I'm sure the video contributed to the problem, and may even have been the factor without which he would not have committed suicide, but it's a bit of a stretch to blame the roommate for the suicide itself. There's just no intent there to cause Clementi to commit suicide--it's more a negligence thing, and fairly minor negligence at that.
Some people are so fragile that a simple prank will send them over the edge--if the other person knows how fragile the individual is, then the other person is liable. If the other person doesn't know, there's reduced intent and reduced responsibility. This young man needs to be convicted for the prank--and he deserves a pretty stiff (though not overly punitive) sentence.
Beanathome-
I am going to say this again, just for you.
The video feed was not posted online. It was only viewed on one computer. The only people who saw it were the handful of people in that room. It was not recorded. They only looked for a matter of seconds.
What they saw was not X-rated. It was 2 men kissing. There was no nudity or intercourse or fondling. It was KISSING.
The kid was not outed. He had already come out to his family and close friends and was inviting guys to his dorm room for make-out sessions.
The media has led you to believe that the incident here was much more than it really was.
If this guy was white or ugly would you think that way? If the guy who killed himself wasn't white would you feel that way? I know some of you are thinking "who cares, just another white person killed themselves, this non-white guy shouldn't be held accountable".
"Whats ina", Perfect explanation!
While poor judgement was displayed by the defendant in this case, a hate crime, it does not make.
Actually, it probably would have ended up on the internet and ALL of his friends would've been watching
If this kid was embarrassed that he was seen kissing another boy then he shouldn't be kissing boys. If I wanted to kiss a dog and then someone saw me do it, are they also a bigot against beastiality? Of course I feel for the mom and dad, and yes its too bad that this kid killed himself because of his own actions, but he did it to himself. Stop blaming everyone else for his decision to kiss a boy and regret it afterward.
Dear moderator,
Please restore all the posts above that were collapsed because someone didn't agree with them. They are valid, appropriate arguments and people really need to stop abusing the reporting system.
Thank you.
Dear comment collapsers,
A post which contains an argument you don't agree with may make you angry, but that is not the meaning of "Inflammatory" or "No Value" in this case. If I were to say what I think of you for doing it, that would be inflammatory. Please stop abusing the report button.
Thank you.
bscol
Completely unfounded speculation!
What if Clementi was already suicidal? What if Clementi accidentally fell off the bridge? What if Clementi was pushed off the bridge by someone (not Ravi) who hated gays? What if all of this should be focusing on the gay lover instead of Ravi, because the gay lover broke Clementi's heart?
The above questions are simply more speculations and any one of them could be true... or false.
The whole concept of a "hate crime" is ridiculous. Why is bashing someone with a baseball bat because he is gay worse than doing it because you want his wallet? He still got bashed with a baseball bat. The motive should be irrelevant.
I agree. A crime is a crime, no matter what the motive.
Then why do we have different levels of murder/manslaughter? Rape versus aggravated rape? Motive, and motive alone, often is utilized to distinguish one crime over another. Hate crime statutes are no different in this regard.
We as a society have determined that targeting somebody merely because they belong to a particular group is more egregious a crime. Just like planning to murder someone is worse than murdering them without premeditation.
It's different because someone is sought out merely because of their beliefs and often the crimes of hate are much more brutal than a mere robbery....as was the case with Matthew Shepherd. We all stand an equal chance of being robbed, but only gays stand a chance of being a hate crime victim. Their odds of being assaulted are increased for nothing more than because of what they believe. Motives are relevant in all cases. Crimes of "passion" are viewed less stringently than a brutal murder. No one should have to live a life of fear merely because of who they are. If you walk down certain areas, you are much more likely to be harmed because you are gay than you are to be robbed. When one segment of our population is targeted for violence, it IS different. The motive certainly plays a part in crime. Someone who pulls the plug on an aging parent is viewed as "compassionate" whereas one who shoots his father for money is viewed much more harshly. Motive has a big impact on sentencing, too. Your view of hate crimes is too simplistic when you say the motive is irrelevant. It's very relevant...especially if you are gay.
" but only gays stand a chance of being a hate crime victim " Really? Try being a Christian in this effed up society, especially if any gays in the area know you're a Christian.
*Michael Hawk: ""Try being a Christian in this effed up society, especially if any gays in the area know you're a Christian"
What an insipid remark.
1. Many gays are Christians themselves.
2. Christians make up 80% of American society.
3. Statistically, people attacked because of being a Christian is a minute percentage of all bias crimes.
Seriously, go read up on this instead of spouting ignorant garbage.
Uh huh, like there's all these cases of Christians having been beaten up for their religion by groups of gays. WTF?
thats is ignorant in its best cause. jews, black, whites, gay, str8, hispanic, asian. anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. Chistian's. lol while there are some numbers of christian in overseas being targeted for their faith it is small in comparison to all demographics. In fact majority of people spreading to much hate and persecution are so called christians. Those are the real facts even though jesus christ said to love thy neighbor. interesting
I am gay and a Christian, Michael....
If a christian is beaten up, etc. due to their religion, then it would also be a hate crime in most jurisdictions. It doesn't matter WHAT group you are attacked for belonging to, but rather the MOTIVATION of the assailant to go after that group because of who they are.
Motivation is extremely important in the prosecution of crime. The reason we've carved out new laws to increase punishments when a crime is committed for the purpose of "hate" is to prevent "hate" from turning into violence. Come one, these are simple concepts.
ctviking: Motive is relevant in any crime. Motive, means, opportunity are all considered. Negligent homicide is different than murder in the first. For a good reason. The victim is just as dead. But one is an accident and the other is planned. Invading his roommates privacy, spying, illegally broadcasting his roommates private activities because he's an ass is a completely different reason than because he wanted to embarrass his gay roommate.
OMG: There's not enough space on the entire Internet to instruct you on law and manners. I leave you to be gauche and ignorant.
It is impossible to be a "Gay Christian." How can you profess to be that which your actions show you clearly are not; being a self professed Christian you do know hypocrisy is a sin don't you?
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Yes motive plays a part in any crime. Of course an accident or negligence is treated differently that premeditation. Yes crimes of passion are treated differently.
However- Lets say a serial killer only wants to kill young white boys because that's his thing. He likes young athletic good looking white guys. He was picked on by the jocks in school and so no whe hates them and wants to see the look on their faces as he disembowls them.
Is that a hate crime? Is that Bias? He's choosing his targeted demographic based on nothing more than his hatred of a particular group. Because that group is not a "recognized minority" it's not considered a hate crime though, that's just murder. But if he had targeted gay kids or mexican women, the penalty would be higher because.... why exactly?
What about people who discriminate against fat people. Fat bias is real. And not protected by law.
What about people who are discriminated against because they are ugly? It's a fact that people who are good looking get promoted over ugly people disproportionately. Is that fair? Can they sue?
I guess most of us wouldn't have a problem with "hate crimes" if the laws were written so that they could be applied to any crime where the motive could be proven to be coldly calculated based on a victim's real or perceived belonging to a specific demographic. But that's not how they are written, they are written with specific references to protected groups. And that's not fair to people who belong to persecuted groups that are not recognized specifically in law.
You are just plain wrong. While everyone agrees that bashing someone with a baseball bat is wrong regardless of motive, human society has seen way too much intimidation in its history. "Hate crimes" have a broader social implication that reach beyond the direct vicitim of the crime, and I have no problem with additional penalties being laid on bias intimidation as a means of discouraging this behavior that ranges beyond normal crime.
Xina, per your hypothetical, is the murderer killing the people because they are white boys, or is this just the target demographic? Therein lies the difference.
I someone robs Latino women because they are weaker then males and less likely to go to the police that isn't a hate crime. If the murderer kills people because they are white (as apposed to someone who murders and prefers white boy victims) then you have the makings for a hate crime penalty enhancer.
ctviking wrote..."The whole concept of a "hate crime" is ridiculous. Why is bashing someone with a baseball bat because he is gay worse than doing it because you want his wallet? He still got bashed with a baseball bat. The motive should be irrelevant."
Hmm...following that logic there shouldn't be any different charges for abusing someone just because they're old, young or disabled. Correct? It's all just abuse, right? Again...following your logic there is no difference in raping a child than raping a woman. The victim still got raped. Their age should be irrelevant.
And that is why your "logic" is such an EPIC FAIL.
The motives of the criminal are absolutely relevant in any criminal case because they proove the level of intent and maliciousness of the perpetrator. As someone noted, we have different levels and degrees of charges for causing a death....which are all entirely related to the motives and intentions of the person causing that death. Again, following your logic...we should just have murder....someone who accidentally, mistakenly or recklessly kills someone should be lumped together with a serial killer or gangbanger.
I find it odd that anyone who believes in law and order would have a problem with taking the motives and intentions of a criminal into account in the charges and sentencing they might face. Unless, of course, they have more of a problem, personally, with the people who are most often the victims of those crimes.
The crime here was invasion of privacy and "peeping Tom" type crimes. The roommate had no business broadcasting someone else's private sexual encounters. For what it's worth, it doesn't even appear he is bigoted against gay people. If anything, he's a dumb kid who thought it would be clever to embarrass his roommate, and did not appreciate the devastating effects on a young gay man.
I happen to agree that hate crime statutes are nonsense. They can only be proven by evidence as to someone's speech, which is constitutionally protected.
It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court upheld hate crime penalty enhancement in the context of using it against black youths who beat a young white man into a coma after watching "Mississippi Burning" in the theater. These statutes are in fact more often used against members of minority groups than against the supposed protected minority.
Hatred is not a crime. Hurting someone is. To quote a poster above, "These are very simply concepts."
Ray Butt -
So you believe that white rednecks who bash in a black guys head witha baseball bat because he's black deserve harsher punishment than Black gangbangers who bash in a white kid's head because he's white.
And here I though justice was supposed to be blind.
Orlando - It wasn't sexual, it was kissing. It wasn't broadcast, it was privately viewed on a single computer by Ravi, Wei and 3 or 4 other friends who stopped by the room.
Michael Hawk said, "Try being a Christian in this effed up society, especially if any gays in the area know you're a Christian"
Who knew Bizarro World had internet access?
Xina, it was a sexual encounter, and Ravi offered to show to anyone interested via his Twitterfeed. If offering to show it to a billion Twitter users isn't broadcast, what is?
To your comment to Ray Butt -- hate crime statutes apply across all races. The "black gangbangers who bash in a white kid's head because he's white" would absolutely be pursued under hate crime statutes. Wisconsin v. Mitchell is the U.S. Supreme Court case finding that "hate" based penalty enhancements are Constitutionally acceptable, and in that case black youths had their sentences doubled for beating a white youth after they'd watched "Mississippi Burning" and allegedly said, "You all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" Then they stole his shoes.
Non-whites are typically prosecuted more often under hate-crime statutes. A common use is when non-white people who, upon being arrested (perhaps abusively) scream out an anti-white epithet while struggling with police. If they make physical contact while doing so -- instant "hate crime." Instant threat by the prosecution to double the penalty.
The problem with enforcing crimes against "hate" is that it inevitably requires looking into what people think and punishing that. What tattoos they have. Who their friends are. Of course, now it will be a close examination of everyone's Facebook page. This is contrary to our American idea of a free marketplace of ideas. You dont' beat a bad idea by throwing people in jail.
The other problem is that it diminishes crimes to which group bias "hate" does not readily apply. Someone mentioned the infamous case of Matthew Shepard. Would his killers have been less guilty is Shepard was straight? Would that have been a less serious crime, somehow? Would that life have been less important?
We need to address bias and bigotry by dragging it into the open and demonstrating that it's wrong, not by throwing people we disagree with in prison.
@EngEsq, you're not exactly correct, the difference between murder/manslaughter is INTENT, not MOTIVE. Intent is, did I intend to kill you or merely intend to harm you or scare you. The difference between Aggravated rape and rape or Aggravated battery and battery is whether a weapon is used and what kind of weapon.
Nowhere else in the law does it matter what the MOTIVE is, other than for a hate crime.
Orlando - The testimony provided during the trial was that the images seen were of two clothed men kissing and then later during the same evening the same except that their shirts had been removed. It was not X-rated. It wasn't even PG-13.
The twitter message you refer to was in reference to a second date that happened on a different day. That date was not actually seen by anyone. Tyler had learned of it by that point and unplugged the computer or something, so while his intent may have been to spy and perhaps allow others to do so as well, he was not successful.
Maybe you could get him on ATTEMPTED invasion of privacy for the second incident. Though the proof that he actually intended to broadcast and for people to see and not that he was just speaking sarcastically might be hard to establish. according to the AP
If the only images he saw were of kissing and the only images he expected to see were of kissing, the only way he can be found guilty would be if kissing were considered to be a "sex act" at which point the argument is open that anyone seen kissing in public could be prosecuted for committing a lewd act.
It's not a slam dunk case at any rate.
The concept of a hate crime is NOT ridiculous. Do you believe the Nazis murdered millions for their wallets????? If some one is brutally murdered because of their beliefs, orientation or race, then the motive is hate and that makes it a hate crime. It's not robbery, revenge or sexual sadism...it's hate! It carries a personal bias that has no reward except the death of an individual who offended you by simply being alive. It's why we have what is called a crime of passion, we call it that and have done so for centuries. It's why the concept of crimes against humanity were enacted after WWII.
So you think there is no such thing as a hate crime......put down your X Box control, stop texting, turn off whatever vampire show you are watching and tell that to victims of the Holocaust, the WTC Bombings, the victims of the genocide in Rwanda, the people dying in the Holy Land conflict and Christians in the middle east (just to name a few).
Hate crimes don't have to include murder. All that's necessary is that it can be proved they did what they did with the intent to intimidate based a personal bias.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the posts here come from young people who are themselves immature and uninformed.
Do I think this was a hate crime? Not really. Ravi did invade Tyler's privacy in a very cruel way and deserves to pay the price for that. From what I've read, Tyler had just come out to his family, who were not very supportive. Starting college, the pressures of family approval-disapproval and the prospect of what would be total humiliation for him (the privacy invasion) could have been a lethal combination for Tyler. Personally, I feel what Ravi did comes more under the umbrella of bullying rather than a hate crime. But it's still reprehensible.
Spiritguy, how do you propose to prove "personal bias," and to then determine which biases are illegal? If two men fight, and it turns out one is gay and one is Republican, do you have a prima facie case for a hate crime? Will we then examine whether the gay man was flamboyant, and whether the Republican man supported anti-gay politicians?
"Hate crime" and "hate speech" laws are, at the end of it, punishment for holding unacceptable political views. Dragging the Nazis into it is plain silly. Was their crime anti-semitism, or murder? Were the gypsies and intellectuals and Polish peasants they killed somehow irrelevant?
Also a bit presumptious to presume anyone you disagree with is a feckless child who needs to "put down the Xbox." There are very real problems with criminalizing "hate" and real problems with enforcing these laws. Plenty of constitutional lawyers and other experts hold the view that "there is no such thing as a hate crime."
That said, agreed there's no indication this was a "hate crime." It was a nasty invasion of privacy, and the devastating aftermath doesn't make it any more or less than that.
I wouldn't convict him, because it was his room too. There should be no expectation of that sort of privacy. What is the difference between the webcam & Ravi walking into the room (his room, mind you) while they were intimately involved? None.
"He also said he believed that Ravi wouldn’t have treated heterosexuals the same way as he did the gay pair." He believed? Since when is that fact?
There should be no expectation of "that sort of privacy"? Seriously? It is unreasonable for Clementi to expect privacy for a specified period of time after he asked for it and Ravi agreed to it? This is not a situation where Ravi had no idea that Clementi was in the room with someone and accidentally walked in on him. Ravi told Clementi that he could have the room to himself and then walked straight across the hall and used his friend's computer to activate his webcam that he had aimed at Clementi's bed. There is intentional malice behind Ravi's actions. I hope they throw the book at this disgusting excuse for a human being.
The difference is walking in on them is just an embarrassment between those involved. The webcam was used to broadcast the incident online. There's a pretty big difference there. Plus what KevNC said.
@Kev: Did you watch American Pie? if you did like million others did you laugh at the scene where Jason Biggs has a premature ejaculation?
This is a college prank gone horrible because Mr. Clementi committed Suicide. that is all if he had not nothing would have happened. what about the other boy who was with Mr. Clementi? why no one knows his identity?
What is so shameful when more than 70% of today's urban society accepts Gay Relations.
He could have expected all the privacy in the world that doesn't mean it had to be given. What if Ravi forgot his wallet in the room and came back to get it with three friends before heading out? Should he have been arrested in this case? What if Ravi was worried about who was going to be in his room? You would like to believe there was malice, but that is just your opinion, although you state it like it is fact. If Ravi came back in the room and beat Tyler's ass while calling him a fag than I might agree with you, but I think he was just being a nosie child. If Tyler took a hot ass girl in the room I will bet you everything I own Ravi would have still been watching!
stewgotts
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas - You seem to like this American Pie argument. The problem is you are talking about what is ok in a fictional story and what is ok in real life. If American Pie were real life, Jason Biggs character would have been within his rights to press charges against his friends for broadcasting his sexual encounter. However, being that it was a comedy about having sex, that probably wouldn't have worked in context.
When pranks go wrong, there are consequences. If, in the process of the prank, you break the law, you could go to jail. Ravi broke the law when he used his webcam to watch Clementi and when he allowed others to view the video feed. Had he successfully set up his viewing party during Clementi's next date, Ravi would have broken the law again. He knew what he did was wrong because he tried to tamper with the evidence and tried to get Molly Wei to lie to the police.
You ask about the other 'boy' involved. He is a 30 year old man (28 at the time of the incident) who is known in the court records as M.B. He does not want his identity to be known because he is concerned about the harrassment he would be subjected to because of the case. During his testimony, he mentioned how, as he left that night, a group of girls was standing outside the dorm staring at him and some of them called him a f@g. These were the girls who Ravi allowed to watch the video feed. Ravi didn't consider the ramifications of his actions. He just thought about the fun of exposing some gay people. He deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.
In this oddball law it is a fact for the jury to decide what Ravi's intent was, and that can be too subjective to accomplish. Even so, I don't think this is what the state legislature had in mind. Q1 - What is spying? Q2 - What is felony spying? Q3 - What expectation of privacy do you have from your own room-mate? Q4 - If this was not a crime without the intimidation (questionable) then should it be one with it?
KevNC - Yes. Seriously. There should be no expectation of that sort of privacy when you SHARE a dorm room. If Clementi REALLY wanted privacy, they would have gone somewhere off campus. He must not have been too worried about someone finding out he was gay if he invited his lover to his DORM room.
Mario, intimidation bias and invasion of privacy are two separate beasts. There can be witness intimidation without any breach of privacy.
That stated, I don't think there is any dispute that an invasion of privacy occurred.
Wry: so your telling me that hidden cameras in bathrooms and bedroom are fine because you share the same room? When a door is closed, it is expected you would have privacy. If Ravi happened to walk in on the action and told his friends what he saw, that's one thing. Bit when you secretly plant a camera to broadcast on you-tube, it is a total invasion of privacy.
wryview, there is no expectation of privacy between roomates? That is really your stance? Even after the roomates agree to not be present at particular times?
Hell, courts have found that a person has an expectation of privacy when in a public phone booth for their verbal communication. Anyone can walk in there, and it's a public space but the expectation still exists. How could one argue that his own room, when he requested the other party not be present (and they agreed) would have a lower privacy expectation.
Thank god you aren't the "reasonable person" used in the standard.
In the American Pie story, Jim (Jason Biggs) sets up the camera himself and intends to send the link to it to his friends; instead he sends it to the entire school directory. He could not sue himself for stupidity. Nadia on the other hand, (Shannon Elizabeth) might have a case.
The camera wasn't hidden though. It was out in plain sight. It's not like Ravi had a Teddy Cam in the room and made porno tapes. The first time, he had it on for like 2 seconds, saw some kissing, went "oh no! shoot Ugh, yuck" or whatever and turned it off. A little later some friends stopped by the room and he showed them, again, more kissing for a few seconds. Tyler found out about that incident BEFORE he invited the dude back AGAIN to the same room with the same web cam set up in plain sight. He could have easily thrown a towel over it if he was that concerned about his privacy. In fact, if I recall the second incident was thwarted because Clemente unplugged the computer or something.
The video was never actually streamed from what I understand, and no one saw anything more sexual than kissing.
Also, how can they say Ravi's intent was to intimidate when after he found out that Clemente knew about the incident and wanted to change rooms he sent an apology text, granted it was too late but he didn't know that.
Take into consideration that that "apology" was written after Ravi was informed about the room change. In other words, Ravi apologized after he was caught. Clementi never received this note, by the way. Ravi put it on his desk after Clementi left to end his life. It is altogether possible that Ravi put this note there after he knew that Clementi was missing and was trying to cover his ass.
KevNC - Actually according to police reports it was a text message, not a note. And it was sent 4 minutes after he posted that he was going to jump. All of this is verifiable and fact. It is tragic that Clemente didn't get the message from Ravi. Perhaps if he had he would have hesitated. This is one of those situations where the two of them could have ended up as friends after starting off hostile. We'll never know. But what it does show is that once Ravi found out that Tyler knew about the incident, he felt badly about it and didn't want him to feel like he was forcing him into a room change. So how could his intent have been to intimidate his roomate into switching rooms? If that was his intent wouldn't he have said, "OK, maybe changing rooms is for the best?" Like I said, the way the media has portrayed this case is distorting.
@ Xina The Awesome "The camera wasn't hidden though" What???? A reasonable person would expect the camera to be turned off. Come on.
What Ravi did here was a huge invasion of privacy. At this point, I'm thinking that anybody who thinks it wasn't an invasion of privacy has a different agenda, perhaps the gay thing. Perhaps it's their "moral" objection to homosexuality.
I wonder what's more morally reprehensible, sharing consensual intimacy in the privacy of a room you asked and were granted to have privacy in, OR, secretly videotaping someone without their consent doing ANYTHING behind a closed door that you, yourself, allowed them to close.
Xina - I don't think that it shows that Ravi felt bad at all. I think that Ravi knew that he was facing disciplinary action from the school and was trying to get on Clementi's good side to get out of it. If he felt badly about what he did, then why hasn't he owned up to it? He has given a couple of bs stories about why he used the webcam, tried to alter his tweets to make it seem like he didn't want people to watch the video feed, and tried to get Molly Wei to lie to the police. He did all of these things after he wrote the note. Still trying to get out of trouble. He is a sick and disgusting person. He broke the law and deserves to be punished accordingly.
I agree he's a jerk.
But the question is if Tyler hadn't killed himself would he be prosecuted to the extent that he is? No. But the suicide isn't suposed to be a part of the charges?
Part of the outrage comes from the media distorting what actually happened here as well. It has been widely reported that Tyler killed himself after his roomate showed video of him having a sexual encounter online.
Except that it was not sexual, it was two guys kissing, no nudity involved. It was not posted online, it was viewed on a single computer for a matter of seconds. Tyler himself sent messages to friend that said he wasn't bothered by what they saw. And there's no evidence to suggest that's why he killed himself.
Look. I like gay folk. I don't have a secret agenda. I am all for people loving whoever they want to. And I think that Ravi is a douche. But I don't think that he deserves 10 years in jail for this. If Tyler hadn't jumped off the bridge, they either would have worked it out between them or the school would have seperated them. At worst, Ravi might have been kicked out of school if Clementi had persued it (but it didn't seem like he was going in that direction).
I beleive that the law should be objective. You can support gay rights and still feel like this kid is being made into a scapegoat. There are many movements that are colliding here. Cyber bullying, homophobia, etc. All are hot topics and people in the press have been distorting the facts of this case to cash in on that. At the end of the day though, we don't have to like Ravi. And I agree he is guilty of tampering with evidence. But I fail to see how what actually went down that night is a crime deserving of prison time.
Since Ravi had already given permission for private use of the room and knew that his roommate had a date, a reasonable person would have knocked first.
And accidentally walking in on an intimate encounter isn't the same as illegally spying on that intimate encounter.
StateAtty - You think people would assume the webcam was off? Really? After all the incidents in the news over the past couple of years? I would assume it was on and cover it up.
skrekk - You are assuming it was illegal spying.
Not only was it quite obviously illegal under NJ law, but it was a clear violation of Rutgers' student conduct code. Ravi likely would have been expelled on that point alone even if he hadn't committed obstruction of justice.
wryview - according to the police and the da's office, it was illegal spying, hence the invasion of privacy charges.
And not everyone would assume the webcam was on. Clementi may not have even noticed the webcam or thought about it until they saw the light come on and go off. They may have written this off as a glitch. Most people are not paranoid and try to see the best in people that they are around a lot, until given a reason to think otherwise.
As far as Ravi's "apology" goes, it reeks of calculated @ss-covering. He saw the suicide note and panicked, and hoped to retroactively paint himself in a better light. It makes him look worse, not better.
I've read several articles about this case, both when it happened and more recently. While the events are unfortunate, I can't for the life of me see where "hate" comes in. I was in college and guys go after each other for any and everything. I remember one night when I had a girl in my room and my roommate was hiding and I didn't know he was there until later. He teased me about it, not because it was a straight or a gay situation, but because that's the sort of thing guys do. If the roommate was having a heterosexual fling, guys being what they are, they would have been gathered around the computer to watch that.
It just seems like the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction on the "gay thing". Any time a human is teased and they happen to be gay, it's not necessarily BECAUSE they are gay, and it doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with hate. College guys can be completely immature and that's what I see here. I certainly don't see a "hate crime". I see a college guy who made some immature choices and his roommmate reacted very badly to them. Unfortunate? Absolutely. A hate crime? No way.
Something to think about:
Ravi left the room, but focused the camera on Clementi's bed to view whatever happened.
If Ravi HADN'T left the room, would Clementi have engaged in whatever behavior he engaged in? No.
He shared it...what was his intent? to harass and humiliate Clementi...
Seems pretty clear to me...and those people who are saying 'grow a thicker skin' and 'he was fragile'...does this make it ok to humiliate or harass people, just because you deem them too 'sensitive' to harassment?
It's BULLYING...but obviously, you never endured it, you never had your life made into a living hell thanks to bullies
wherescommonsense - excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
Yeah, but he didn't broadcast what he saw to others.
However, I'm with you in that I believe that the hate crime enhancement goes too far because I don't think that there's evidence of hate, just rampant immaturity. He should be charged only with invasion of privacy.
So cracking on somebody justifies spending 10 years in prison, where is that common sense? There is nobody and I mean not a single soul in this world who has not harassed someone to some extent. If he is convicted it sets a awful precedents. People need to get over theirselves. The kid was a wackjob thats why he killed himself, it it wasnt the webcam it would have been when he found out he had HIV.
"There is nobody and I mean not a single soul in this world who has not harassed someone to some extent. "
It's the ones who turn around and broadcast what they have done and invite others to watch them do it again. That goes far beyond "harassment."
And your "HIV" comment - what is that? Broadcasting and inviting others to join you. Time to grow up, Justin.
Ravi will be deported. Others remain in the USA.
It was not broadcasted. Reading comprehension people. It was only seen on one computer.
No Justin if convicted it sets a fantastic precedent, this sort of behaviour is not just fun between mates and it is certainly not harmless. Your suggestion that itss inevitable a gay men will get HIV is exactly the sort of vile homophobic attitude that has gotten ravi where he is, it makes your defence of his behaviour make a lot more sense.
Xina the Awesome, the initial event was only watched by those in an adjacent room, the rebroadcasting issue has come about because of tweets Ravi sent to his followers planning a second broadcast video " I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes, it's happening again." offering to broadcast similar footage to anyone who wanted to watch.
KevNC - if people DON'T assume a webcam is on, then they are stupid.
Ravi was informed, by the defendant - prior to his assignation that he would require exclusive use of the room for "personal reasons". This is in keeping with college customs through out the country. Its actually a step above and beyond the standard tie on the door knob and lock door customary notification. We are not talking about a baccanal involving hoards of people, in a calligilia style circus of beastiality and exhibitionistic excess. Even if it were - tickets were not advertised for sale, by either of the principles... none of them being Ravi. You can't give away something you don't own. Ravi's privacy was not at stake.
Any justification which could excuse an accidental intrusion is proved by the premeditated use of covert surveillance items and his publicising of the encounter. Obviously a criminal act, unauthorized Peeping Tom - behavior... you do that in a Girls bedroom - room mate or not, its a crime.
I don't see where he has any claim to this being anything other than an assault on the privacy, given the overwhelm bias against Homosexuals, by the police, heterosexuals the issuance of a request for privacy was sufficient (unless Ravi entered his objections?) to constitute his implied consent to remain absent, not intrude.
Ravi seems to have issues he needs to address himself, camoflaging his one insecuritys by publicising the nascent explorations of his room mate show a lot of sublimated hostility.
Hopefully, he will have time to explore his own issues in the privacy of a secure environment while in the penitentiary?
How many times does it to be repeated: No means - No!
If "hate" is a criminal offense, the entire country gets locked up.
word.
Where has FREE speech gone? Sometimes speech is ugly and we need to accept that. How can we remain a FREE NATION if we punish people for disgusting speech? Are we going to start hiring WORD Police to monitor our thoughts and speech? We have strayed to far from the Constitution as a nation and it's a real shame. Remember Pat Benatar, Words are like weapons and they wound sometimes, but they don't kill.
What words has Ravi been charged with uttering? Free speech has nothing to do with this situation.
you can hate anyone you wish. That is not the crime. When your hate becomes actions that is the crime. most of you just dont realize whats the difference. Hate is not the crime. thats between you and your god. The crime is if you go after someone with that hate. Prank. many of you say. its only been 3 weeks. you dont know this person but you feel its okay to run a "prank" on them.
Putting food color in someone shampoo is a prank and for people you know only. Putting tooth paste in your room mates hand while they sleep is a prank. Hell even giving them alactacid shake is a crazy form of a prank. some of you just have no sense of reality and how far is to far unless its done to you. When things become public and wide spread its no prank. it becomes serious.
Besides the RA did not think it was a prank or he would have no esculated such an incident that very night. The school did not think this was a prank or he would not have been expelled, Ravi friend doesnt feel this was a prank.
lastly to all of you who have no idea of the rules the school sets up here take a look:
The Rutgers University Code of Student Conduct prohibits "making or attempting to make an audio or video recording of any person(s) on University premises in bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, or other premises where there is an expectation of privacy with respect to nudity and/or sexual activity, without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings."
that's a real call to gamesmanship... - Hate is not a standard size unit, where you can say its all the same. I can momentarily "hate" my brother, sister, sibling because they won't share, but that does not translate to me stabbing them to death in their sleep over some petty slight. What sort of Crime, slight or overt act caused Ravi to think it was OK, to publicise his roommate's activities?
... I kid tossing a pebble at you is not the same as a gang of bullies pushing a boulder down the hill or tossing a garbage can filled with bricks off a 3 -4 story building as you walk to school or a cinder block tossed off the overpass as an innocent driver is going by a 70 mph. There is now way you can expect the same treatment - even if all were, ostensibly, done in an attempt to do harm. The maturity of the assailant have as much to do with the nature of the crime as does the act. Ravi, a college student is/was well aware of the ramifications of his actions and the nature of his betrayal of trust... he certainly went to extraordinary steps to disguise his acts... innocence is not marked by, nor enhanced by subterfuge.
Not a crime, although it is repugnant, despicable and childish. The suicide is a condemnation of our society for demonizing sexuality in general, and homosexuality specifically.
Oh yeah... and what is with "bias intimidation"??? Sounds like a setting on my stereo.
This is a hate crime. This is an invasion of privacy. This is also illegal pornography.
I agree that this was invasion of privacy, however bias intimidation is a bit of a stretch to me. I'm a staunch civil rights supporter, but can't get behind this one.
If he hadn't committed suicide there wouldn't be any charge leveled (except for maybe invasion of privacy). Under the statute, the suicide itself should have no bearing upon the intimidation charge. It's inconsistent in my mind.
actually there would be because tyler made a legal complaint in writting to the school who would then have to file charges. goes to show what most of you have no idea about. tyler's & Mike B. legal, civil & constitutional rights where violated by ravi. Ravi would have still have been expelled/suspended and the legal actions would have come to his table because tyler made a serious legal complaint that the RA pushed to the administrational level
If a cop drove by at night and saw you peeking in a window watching a couple having sex could you be charged with being a peeping Tom? Would it matter if later it was discovered you also lived in the house and knew the couple? Is Ravi's use of the cam any different than peeping?
The point is that Clementi had an expectation of privacy because of the agreement/contract with Ravi which Ravi intentionally broke TWICE to ridicule and intimidate Clementi. If, (as someone earlier suggested), Ravi realized he had left his wallet in the room and had to go back in after he left, any considerate person would think Ravi would be expected to knock and wait to be let in, before entering the room.
A "hate crime" is a form of "aggravated crime", in other words, slapping or punching a person is "simple assault" and is less considered onerous than hitting someone with an object or using a weapon weapon which would be considered "aggravated assault". A simple assault labeled as a "hate crime" raises the assault to an "aggravated level" even if a weapon wasn't used if the motive of the assault was based on perceived membership in a certain social group,
The whole point in having hate crime legislation is to broadcast or make known that society will not tolerate assaults motivated by prejudice. Homophobia, racial bigotry or a misogyny is no longer the excuse it used to be.
I think he gets nailed for invasion of privacy, and he walks on the rest of it. He didn't kill this kid, and he shouldn't be punished as if he did.
The rest of it has nothing to do with Clementi's death. Why should he walk on them? They have him dead to rights on tampering with evidence and witness tampering. Those are the slam dunk charges and they carry a prison sentence with them.
Unintended consequences is not the question, The motives are what is under discussion. I assume you agree that his (Ravi's) intentions were not to enhance the victim's standing among his peers? That should satisfy the first accusation that his intent was to harm the character of the victim? His covert survlaince certainly wasn't a neutral act.
. "...Is Ravi's use of the cam any different than peeping?
The question is whether Clementi had an expectation of heterosexual privacy because of the "roommate/ /agreement/contract" with Ravi"? Wow -- legally, two questions in one sentence.
IMO, NO,
1) Ravi's use of a spy-cam is not any different from peeping;
2) Roommates DO have an expectation of privacy.
3) Unless previously agreed "hhomosexual activity" is prohibited" there is no case. Actually, one could make a case that any sexual activities are "private" and therefore "prohibited.
I do not know the facts, so have no opinion.
"Roommates" or "housemates"..." If you are the "intolerant" type, be a little more careful.
p.s.
Sometimes men don't get it how most every woman..."knows" any man can overcome her.
I once had a man as house-mate. He was a great friend! I trusted him!.... But...
...I locked my bedroom door.
He never,ever even tried the door, and he is still one of my best friends!
MEN -- this is the REAL life of women.
Hmmm,
I truly believe the overwhelming majority of men are good! (My father and my bother are men!)
And yet I still believe in "sisterhood." Call me "feminist" (man or woman)? OK <sigh> -- if you want to stay home and home-educate your children, well.. THAT'S WHAT WE FOUGHT FOR! Wanna call me "femi-nazi?" -- I really don't mind because, what and what I other "femi-nazis" did/are doing, gives you respect and RIGHTS.
Me, I am a middle-aged woman who supported the ERA.
Thank you, SISTERS!
Karen
VTKaren,
Hear you 100%.
well he wasn't much of a person to spy...to bad his room mate took his life...had he known that he probably wouldn't have spied...bad deal...
This is another form bullying but with a more sinister motive. If I were on that Jury this little squeek would be sharing a room with Bubba.
.....and this another form of stupidity which is a reason you wouldn't be on the jury. How about getting Bubba warmed up while he's waiting for the "little squeek"? Doesn't require any intellectual prowess.
What the student done was malicious and criminal, leading to suicide. He should be convicted of contributing to the roommate's death by his actions. His roommate would still be alive today if not for the actions of this criminal.
Sadly, the spying thing wasn't the only thing that pushed Clementi to the bridge that day. He also had heard he would not be in the NJSO.
If I were in the Clementi family, I would file that lawsuit against Rutgers and the RA who botched the room change request. When he say "my roommate is spying on me" he should have contacted the Rutgers PD and since they are ST in NJ (all Rutgers cops are), Clementi would be alive.
"A scared kid" lol a scared kid doesn't delete evidence and intimidate witness's.
Tyler was in the room with another guy who didn't jump off of a bridge, but was also caught on webcam just like Tyler. How do you explain that?
You don't know, nor could you prove in a court of law if he would have taken his own life or not. You cannot know what a person was thinking or feeling at the time. He may have had other issues before he came to campus. He may have been thinking of ending his life for sometime. Something in the brain triggers thoughts of suicide not a persons actions toward you, otherwise we'd have a small teenage population. Most people do not think of killing themselves because of an embarrasing moment.
This is a hate crime and he should be locked up. Maybe the next idiot won't try this.
dutchess gaL
Baloney, there's no hate crime here. Just stupidity on Ravi's part.
agreed Milo, this is typical college-kid behavior that took a tragic turn
It's the law.. And the facts not disputed leave no reasonable doubt that Ravi broke it. Put his curry butt into the slammer for his future bedmate to taste ethnic gluteus.
Curry butt? And you accuse others of bias. Interesting.
That's a racist comment if ever I heard one. That can be interpreted as HATE speech.
Not sure if what he did was illegal. But it CERTAINLY was a sh*tty thing to do. If asked, I'd bet my life's savings that he wouldn't want it done to him. Maybe the fear of being in prison will force him to jump from a bridge. That would be poignant.
Invasion of privacy, witness intimidation and evidence tampering are illegal and pretty much indisputable.
The only really grey area is the bias intimidation charge. I'm personally skeptical of this due to the looseness of the statute's wording and the first prong of the test: 1) victim was intimidated. I have no doubt that if there was such intimidation it was 2) purposful, and 3) biased, but intimidation, to me, is more than feeling crappy. It implies fear to me (like swastikas painted on a Jewish person's house/ burning a cross on a black person's lawn).
well i dont think it was a crime at all. you dont want people to know your gay, then dont be gay. i think he made the right decision to jump off that bridge.
should we pray away your stuipity, your a moron and hopefully what comes around
hahaha! your funny! he got what he deserved.
Says the guy who likes to eat sperm from a woman's vagina. Creampie man, really?! That's disgusting.
is that what creampie means? i didnt know that, i thought it was a cake or something. hahahaha!
Sure you didn't. I always pick a name that I'm not sure what it means...
You are either lying, or pretty dumb.
you got it all figured out dont you.. hahaha!
Prison - no, probabtion, house arrest, community service and a hell of a large lawsuit by the dead students parents. And good luck in getting a good job - lol.
As disgusting as what this Ravi guy did is, he did not push the kid off the bridge. He should not be held responsible for this kid's fragile mental state. He should be punished for viewing and sharing the actions of another person without his consent, that is all. And let us not forget that this was Ravi's room, too. It is like taping a nanny in your own home without her consent. You aren't invading her privacy, right?
By the way, maybe the kid who killed himself should bear some responsibility for the spying. He told Ravi to stay out of the room, as I understand it. I don't think that someone should be told to stay away from his own dorm room. Clementi could have arranged to have his encounter at another place, particularly if he felt that Ravi was not accepting of his homosexuality.
I am totally for gay rights, but also for making concessions to a roommate. If Clementi felt that Ravi was intolerant, he should have changed rooms BEFORE having an intimate encounter in their shared room. In college, I was a bit of a prude and wasn't comfortable with my roommate's boyfriend coming to visit periodically. So I switched rooms. No big deal.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Ravi is not being held responsible for Clementi's death. Not even a little bit. Read the charges, please.
As far as it being Ravi's room too, the only portion of the room the webcam was pointed at was Clementi's bed. Taping a nanny in your home involves the motivation of protecting your children. What was Ravi protecting by watching Clementi be intimate with another man? What noble motive did he have?
Clementi didn't tell Ravi to get out of the room. He asked Ravi if he could have the use of the room alone for a few hours and Ravi agreed to give him the private use of the room. If Ravi had an issue with Clementi using the room, he should have said so, not walked across the hall to watch using his webcam.
Clementi had no idea what Ravi's attitude towards gays was before this incident. Once he found out what a sick pervert he was rooming with, he requested a room change.
About fifteen years ago a friend asked me what I thought about homosexualism. I told him that I did not approve, but that violence was far worse.
"He could have expected all the privacy in the world that doesn't mean it had to be given. What if Ravi forgot his wallet in the room and came back to get it with three friends before heading out? Should he have been arrested in this case? What if Ravi was worried about who was going to be in his room? You would like to believe there was malice, but that is just your opinion..."
FACT: Ravi didn't forget his wallet, he wasn't worried about someone being in his (shared) room. He deliberately set up the camera. He deliberately told other parties about it. He deliberately invited others to watch.
The Rutgers University Code of Student Conduct prohibits "making or attempting to make an audio or video recording of any person(s) on University premises in bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, or other premises where there is an expectation of privacy with respect to nudity and/or sexual activity, without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings."
This man pushed his roommate to kill himself he should have to do time.
I didn't know this Ravi kid pushed him off a bridge. I coulda sworn he jumped on his own.
To Traci Billups: Nobody push Tyler Clementi to comitt suicide. If my roomate wanted to use a shared- room privately, I would be curious to know why. Ravi should not be charged with Tyler's murder. I believed that Tyler was not happy with himself and he was going through a lot of stress that young gay men experience when they are just coming out of the closet. It was Tyler's lifestyle that made him comitt suicide. Many famous people have their private encounter watched and they did not comitt suicide. Ravi should only be charged with putting the tape on the net.
francis - do you have any actual facts about what happened? Clementi asked for the private use of the room to entertain a guest, who Ravi met. Ravi agreed to give him private use of the room. If Ravi was curious about what was going on, then he should have asked, like a normal person. Instead he chose to secretly use his webcam to watch what was happening without Clementi's knowledge. The reality is that it was not his business. If he was uncomfortable with Clementi having private use of the room to entertain another man, then he should have spoken up and said so.
Also, Ravi has not been charged with murder or any other crime related to Clementi's death. You have no idea why Clementi killed himself. The police have his suicide note. If it indicated that this incident was the main factor in his choice to end his life, then Ravi would face charges related to it.
Ravi did not put the tape on the net either. It was a live feed that he and 5 other students watched. He planned on broadcasting Clementi's next date to over 150 people. He attempted to alter his Twitter posts and his text messages and he attempted to get Molly Wei to lie to the police about what happened. He is guilty of a number of crimes and should be punished for them.
Ctviking: I'm not sure of the Mr. Ravi is guilty of hate, but he and his parents are guilty of something just as bad, ignorance and insensitivity. He's also guilty of being a homophobe. So, you don't like to see two guys kissing eh? Well some folks find the idea of a guy slobbering all over his girlfriend in public, unappealing. Shall we as a society be "understanding" if a gay person walks up to them and assaults or humiliates them? If that's your normal... good luck in life. The reason why "hate crime" is a higher charge is because it protects people who are more likely to come under attack due to their minority status. This includes Jewish people, gay people, women, black people...your neighbors!!! Study your history. Christian Straight White Men don't need "special protection" They are the power and it's in our collective faith in their good conscience that the rest of us rely to make certain that we live in a just, safe, and decent world. Stop taking a political stance on these issues based on hate-mongering and fear that somehow your entitlement is being compromised by a person with fewer advantages being treated with a bit more sensitivity. That's not what this is about. The world is bigger than your reality. Show some heart and decency for those who are a bit different. Make it a better world, not more divisive.
Considering he went out of his way to watch two men kissing I'm not sure how you can make the assumption that "he doesn't like to see two men kissing." I don't see how any of this was homophobic. Im sure Ravi would have done it if Tyler had a girl in the room. You people are pulling at straws and need to get a grip. It seems like most of you are just interested in vengance, but Ravi didn't push Tyler off the bridge.
irontoinc, let me get this staight. Hate crimes against christian straight white men really aren't "hate crimes"? How about plain old white men? Does being 51% white disqualify you? You need to get the chip of your sholder If we're all going to live together there can't be "special protection" for anyone!
Stop wasting the TAX PAYERS money. This is NO hate crime. This insult is pure assertion and unsupported by facts. It is essentially a threat to socially stigmatize the person if he does not desist from his opposition to the gay agenda.
This tactic is very effective in a politically correct group-think environment — such as college campuses and news rooms. Politicians as a class, are extremely sensitive to the threat of being publicly stigmatized. Almost all of us has been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and expulsion and demonization. One becomes an "untouchable" — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.
for intimidation ??? are you kidding ??? even if the guy was totally spying on him...you KILL yourself ???sounds like the guy who jumped had some more serious issues going on....I find out my roommate sets up a camera and films me having sex.....we get a good laugh out of it and move on...
as sad and unfortunate as this story is in total, and as much as i think what ravi did was really crappy, the only reason this kid is sitting in court trying to salvage his life is because someone else DECIDED to kill himself.
i'm not much for hypotheticals, but let's say ravi streamed video of clementi doing meth instead of making out with a guy, with the same ending. does the story even make the local papers, never mind the national news? i don't think so. the "sizzle" of this story is suicide and non-heteroness, and the story has clearly become a rallying point for non-heteros to get "revenge" against the people they perceive as anti gay--just read the posts if you disagree--you'll see. ravi does in fact deserve some type of punishment, but in my opinion, putting one person in jail because another person DECIDED to kill themself doesn't make much sense...
If he streamed video of him doing meth? How is that a logical comparison in any way? If he streamed video of Clementi doing drugs, then he has caught him in an illegal act. Not exactly the same as watching someone in the middle of being intimate with someone else.
The reason Ravi is sitting in court is because he broke the law. He has not been charged with Clementi's death, so your entire argument falls flat.
how is it a logical comparison? IT'S NOT, and it's not intended to be! it's a hypothetical-maybe you should break out a dictionary.
again, the point is: if the kid didn't kill himself, would you in NC (i'm guessing) even know about this story? THAT is the point.
you're making me want to kill myself right now...hopefully you wind up on the stand defending yourself against why I DECIDED to jump off a bridge.
just like not everyone should own a gun, you shouldn't have internet access. it's dangerous in the wrong hands...
Obviously, the suicide of Clementi helped the story to garner media attention. However, that is not relevant to the trial. Ravi committed crimes that are unrelated to the suicide. He still would have been charged and still would be facing prison time.
IF clementi didn't kill himself, there would have been a room switch and possible LOCAL charges that would absolutely not involve a trial or jail. you are high if you think otherwise...
Ravi is being tried LOCALLY. Clementi could most certainly have pressed charges if he wanted to. We will never know. Charges were filed by the police after they completed their investigation into Clementi's death and turned up evidence of Ravi's crimes against Clementi.
Suicide is not muder. Suicide is committed by a weak mind, instable, has had a lot of issues over time. This guy who killed himself obvoisly didnt believe in himself. It is wrong to publicly humiliate him though, but i think it was kids being kids...had it not been for the unfortunate suicide, this thing wont have been in news. So trying this case for what it is is important.
If you had a child who was taunted in person, or on the internet; who was bullied, laughed at, or made fun of because of her weight, race, or some other thing, and if your child in response took her own life despite your support - would you chalk her death up to "her weak mind"? I think not. You would in part go after the insensitive louts who drove her to it. You'd blame them, and would on some level hold them accountable for her death.
"Suicide is committed by a weak mind, instable, has had a lot of issues over time."
In no way does suicide mean someone is weak. That is a common misconception that really needs to be laid to rest. And stop with the kids being kids thing. Get some new material. It's been the kids being kids thing that has set the foundation for all these suicides across the country over the last few years. It's not harmless anymore.
there are literally a thousand other options BESIDES jumping off a bridge. suicide is the cowards way out. and obviously the shame associated with his "secret" is what created this outcome. you make it sound like ravi should be punished for physically pushing the kid off the bridge.
how about this: i blame YOU for 9/11. is it REALLY your fault? NO (at least i hope not...)
get it? "blame" is one thing, court hearings and jail time (because of what someone else decided to do to themself) are entirely another...people shouldn't wind up in jail because they made someone else feel bad; there needs to be obvious damage (which there is) and then proof that the damage was specifically caused by the other party (which there isn't). the reason the kid jumped was the shame of (potentially) being outed, and because he was sneaking around/living a lie is why he jumped
sebrad - you are so hung up on the suicide. Focus on the fact that Ravi actually did break the law by using his webcam to watch Clementi in an intimate situation without Clementi's knowledge or consent. He further compounded this by allowing others to watch the web feed as well. He tampered with evidence and tried to tamper with a witness by asking Molly Wei to lie to the police. He should be punished for these crimes. The bias intimidation is debatable because it is difficult to prove Ravi's motivation beyond looking at what he posted on Twitter and the text messages he sent. Clementi's suicide is a separate event that occured after Ravi's crimes. Whether or not what Ravi did influenced Clementi's decision to end his life is immaterial to the trial. Since the police have Clementi's suicide note, I am guessing that it was not the leading cause of Clementi's death or they would have pursued that in their charges against Ravi as well.
I agree with you " kids being kids"
A boy who bats a ball through your window might be a "kid being a kid". A girl who writes in chalk on your house might be a "kid being a kid". A child who knocks over your trash might be a "kid being a kid". Up their age to college age however, and a person who breaks your window, defaces your house, or kicks your trash over isn't a "kid", whose actions you'd excuse. A man who secretly makes a sex tape and puts it on the internet, is hardly a "kid being a kid" either, though I'm sure that you'll still feel that way when the secret sex tape that I made of you last night hits You Tube later today.
Ravi is not being tried for murder. He's being tried for invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, evidence tampering and witness tampering. The fact that Tyler Clementi committed suicide is not part of this case in a legal sense. Read the facts; read the charges; read the verdict forms - he's guilty.
One more case of H8 from the misguided Left in their efforts to make anyone that doesn't comply with their view of the world a criminal or bigot. The Left must always find someone else to blame for their actions.
So your world view sanctions secretly filming people having sex and posting it on the internet? Your world view approves embarrassing and humiliating consenting adults for things that they do in private? Your world view equates negative responses to these things with "blaming others"? As a gay man, I wouldn't classify the stupid actions of this individual as a "hate crime", but neither would I embrace your world view, as it is reprehensible, and very, very, small.
You are missing an important point, this is not punishing someone for "not complying with our views" but because the guy DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL.
I don't think there was bias intimidation here, but I'd throw the book at him for invasion of privacy, witness intimidation and tampering with evidence. These illegal activities are not in dispute.
EngEsq - How is it invasion of privacy when it was Ravi's room too?
Hate crimes aren't typically committed by liberals.
A phone booth is available to everyone, but I can have an expectation of privacy in it when I'm making a call. Case law supports this.
Privacy is not tied to the location, but rather to a reasonable person standard. If roommates agree not to be present at a particular time (which occurred here) the expectation of privacy arises. Hell, even if they don't agree, portions of a room (such as a dresser) still maintain an expectation of privacy.
By claiming such an expectation is 1) site specific, and 2) static, demonstrates your woeful incomprehension of the issue.
Wryview: For (at least) the 3rd time
The Rutgers University Code of Student Conduct prohibits "making or attempting to make an audio or video recording of any person(s) on University premises in bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, or other premises where there is an expectation of privacy with respect to nudity and/or sexual activity, without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings."
1POV - the Rutgers University Code of Student Conduct is not the "law". No one can be arrested/jailed for breaking it - the most that can happen is that you can be thrown out of the university.
In any case, there some real state/federal laws that Ravi technically broke. But lets face it, there would have been no prosecution for those if Tyler hadn't committed suicide. Invasion of privacy laws get broken on a daily basis all over the country and especially in college campuses. On this one occasion, there was a tragic follow-up event - and we have no way of knowing whether there was any direct causality. Unless the prosecution can prove willful causality (i.e. Ravi knew this would cause Tyler to kill himself and did it anyway) there is no difference between this and all of the other invasion of privacy situations.
1POV - And again - there should be NO expectation of privacy when you share a dorm room. Therefore, your point is moot.
There is when you grant private use of that room.
"can I have some private time in our room for an hour?"
" yeh sure, no probs I'll be back at 4"
You honestly believe there should be no expectation of privacy after this exchange?
Aussie - Yes. I honestly believe there should be no expectation of privacy in that case. There is NOTHING that prevents the 2nd person from returning BEFORE 4.
It sure sounded like a "hate crime" to me. I hope they convict the guy.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Id., 20:13.
The message is: "Be cool to everybody."
Not because you have peace, love and understanding in your heart, but because you could go to prison on trumped up charges if you don't.