Tyler Clementi’s roommate pleads not guilty to hate crime

Roommate of Rutgers student who committed suicide pleads not guilty
By Nina Golgowski, CNN
May 23, 2011 3:22 p.m. EDT


New York (CNN) -- Defense attorneys entered a not guilty plea Monday for the roommate of the Rutgers University student who committed suicide following a candid online broadcast of his sexual encounter with another man, prosecutors say.

Dharun Ravi, 19, is charged with streaming the footage of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, 18, engaging in a physical relationship with another man in their shared dormitory last September.

According to prosecutors, the video was allegedly accessed from another room and advertised on Twitter, providing "others an opportunity to view the encounter," Middlesex County (New Jersey) Prosecutor Bruce J. Kaplan said in a statement.

Clementi later killed himself, jumping from the George Washington Bridge between New York and New Jersey.

Ravi faces a 15-count indictment of hate crime charges involving invasion of privacy and evidence tampering after prosecutors say he tried to stage a cover-up, deleting the previous Twitter post and replacing it with another intended to mislead investigators as well as asking witnesses not to testify against him. Defense attorney Steve Altman was not immediately available for comment.

A second student charged, Molly Wei, 19, pled not guilty earlier this month in two counts of invasion of privacy. She reached a plea deal agreeing to testify against Ravi, who allegedly set up the room's camera. Should Wei complete a three-year program on cyberbullying and alternate and cultural lifestyles, as well as 300 hours of community services without any additional legal troubles, the invasion of privacy charges for allegedly watching the video will be dropped, the prosecutors office said.

The case exposed the issue of bullying on school campuses and has fed anti-bullying efforts across the nation.

In October, less than a month after Clementi's suicide, President Barack Obama released a taped video message condemning such acts. "You are not alone," the president said. "You did not do anything wrong.

"You didn't do anything to deserve being bullied and there is a whole world waiting for you filled with possibilities," Obama said.

In November, Clementi's family consented to the use of his name on federal anti-harassment legislation called the "Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act." The proposed law would require schools that receive federal student aid "to create policies prohibiting the harassment of any student," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey.

Nystyle709 wrote:Rightfully so. He didn't commit a 'hate' crime.

captainbryce wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:Rightfully so. He didn't commit a 'hate' crime.

Sure he did!

Hate Crime (definition):
A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. (USLegal.com)

I've already addressed this. By the definition you've provided.......invading Clementi's privacy wasn't motivated by prejudice, it was motivated by humiliation. He wanted to embarrass him for being gay. He didn't target him for being gay. So now, 'harassment' is left. Which is a very broad, and very difficult crime to prove. So how did Ravi harass him? How many times? What did he do? All of this comes into play. Was he regularly harassed....verbally, electronically, physically, psychologically, sexually?

He invaded Clementi's privacy by streaming video of his private sexual encounter over the internet with motive and intent to humiliate Clementi on the basis of his sexual orientation. That is a clear case of harassment of the worst kind and there is no doubt that the acts committed by Dharun Ravi fits the textbook definition of hate crime in that jurisdiction. He didn't appear to exhibit any remorse whatsoever for the death of Clementi and then tried to cover up his involvement. I concur with the previous comments in that he deserves everything he gets!

Nystyle709 wrote:When does wanting to embarrass someone constitute a hate crime?

Nystyle709 wrote:So you mean to tell me if I assaulted someone I didn't like that happened to be gay and that I knew was gay, I should be charged with a hate crime?

Nystyle709 wrote:One of, if not the, characteristic of harassment is repetitiveness. So if you're going to say he harassed him, then you need to provide a clear cut history of harassment. A one time incident that resulted in a one time tragedy doesn't do it.

Nystyle709 wrote:Now, bringing my personal feelings into this....I really don't care if he goes to jail for a hate crime or not. He shouldn't have done it. However, I don't think hate crime is a correct charge.

captainbryce wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:When does wanting to embarrass someone constitute a hate crime?

1) When it crosses over into the realm of harassment

That can be argued and that is not easy to prove.

2) when it involves illegal activity

Then just about every crime could be considered a 'hate' crime.

3) when it is motivated by opposition towards the persons sexuality

As I've said....it was motivated by humiliation. You've already acknowledged this.

4) when said victim kills themself as a result of such harassment

So you don't think Tyler Clementi should shoulder any responsibility for his death? Not even a fraction?

When you do the math it all adds up to "hate crime".

Nystyle709 wrote:So you mean to tell me if I assaulted someone I didn't like that happened to be gay and that I knew was gay, I should be charged with a hate crime?

No. I'm trying to tell you that if you assaulted a person who was gay BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY, then you should be charged with a hate crime. Tyler Clementi's sexuality isn't what is relevant. The motive of the actual crime is!

Which wasn't prejudice. By the definition YOU provided, a hate crime has to be motivated by prejudice. He wasn't targeted for being gay. His streaming of that video wasn't intended to provoke or put fear in or intimidate the gay community. It was a juvenile prank that resulted in tragedy

Nystyle709 wrote:One of, if not the, characteristic of harassment is repetitiveness. So if you're going to say he harassed him, then you need to provide a clear cut history of harassment. A one time incident that resulted in a one time tragedy doesn't do it.

Actually IT DOES. Your argument is illogical and your statement actually answers itself. "History of harassment" implies that harassment happened at least once before. There is no history of ANYTHING until it happens ONCE. Then there is! If harassment happened once, it was still harassment the first time. And if I sexually harass a co-worker, I can be charged with sexual harassment whether I've done it ONCE or a hundred times. It doesn't take multiple offenses for it to equal harassment.

Harassment (Definition):
Harassment is any behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and that a reasonable person should have known would be unwelcome. It includes actions (e.g. touching, pushing), comments (e.g. jokes, name-calling), or displays (e.g. posters, cartoons). - USLegal.com

Fair enough. But repetitiveness is still a main characteristic. How do you think the majority of the population identifies harassment? My argument is not illogical. You just don't agree.

Nystyle709 wrote:Now, bringing my personal feelings into this....I really don't care if he goes to jail for a hate crime or not. He shouldn't have done it. However, I don't think hate crime is a correct charge.

Somehow I doubt Tyler Clementi's mother would agree with you!

I doubt she would either. One of the benefits of being an individual.

And fortunately, neither does the prosecution in this case.

Nystyle709 wrote:When does wanting to embarrass someone constitute a hate crime?
1) When it crosses over into the realm of harassment

That can be argued and that is not easy to prove.

2) when it involves illegal activity

Then just about every crime could be considered a 'hate' crime.

3) when it is motivated by opposition towards the persons sexuality

As I've said....it was motivated by humiliation. You've already acknowledged this.

4) when said victim kills themself as a result of such harassment

So you don't think Tyler Clementi should shoulder any responsibility for his death? Not even a fraction?

Nystyle709 wrote:Which wasn't prejudice. By the definition YOU provided, a hate crime has to be motivated by prejudice. He wasn't targeted for being gay. His streaming of that video wasn't intended to provoke or put fear in or intimidate the gay community. It was a juvenile prank that resulted in tragedy

Nystyle709 wrote:If harassment happened once, it was still harassment the first time. And if I sexually harass a co-worker, I can be charged with sexual harassment whether I've done it ONCE or a hundred times. It doesn't take multiple offenses for it to equal harassment.

Fair enough. But repetitiveness is still a main characteristic. How do you think the majority of the population identifies harassment? My argument is not illogical. You just don't agree.

Nystyle709 wrote:Now, bringing my personal feelings into this....I really don't care if he goes to jail for a hate crime or not. He shouldn't have done it. However, I don't think hate crime is a correct charge.
Somehow I doubt Tyler Clementi's mother would agree with you!

I doubt she would either. One of the benefits of being an individual.

And fortunately, neither does the prosecution in this case.

LOL. Prosecutors typically don't have a good reputation anyway, so it doesn't matter. Better hope Ravi doesn't have Johnnie Cochran the second on his defense team.