Roommate charged with hate crime in Rutgers suicide

Marc™ wrote:Is this really a "hate crime?" Invasion of privacy and conspiracy, sure...but a "hate crime?"

Rockbird wrote:Of course. Do you think he would have done it if he were straight? I doubt it. There's no weight in that.

RiteDiva wrote:A "hate crime" doesn't have to be murder or something especially brutal. If someone's property is vandalized, and is spray painted with antisemitic epithets, then that is a hate crime. ANY basic crime that is inflicted with bias against the target, because of a "group" they belong to is a "hate crime." Dharun Ravi tweeted that his roommate was gay and went out of his way to humiliate Clementi for it by invading his privacy (invasion of privacy is illegal.) That makes it a "hate crime."

Rockbird wrote:I disagree. If one Straight Guy #1 reveals a sex type of ANOTHER Straight Guy #2... well, then #1 just looks like a loser who isn't getting any. Common sense.

If Straight Guy reveals a sex type of Closeted Gay Guy, there's a LOT more heft to that. There's an opportunity to exploit, which is exactly what the person in question did. Now he has to suffer the consequences of his actions. Hate crime? Probably no "hatred" involved, but to say that Tyler's sexuality wasn't even a slight motive is preposterous.

tmontyb wrote:

Rockbird wrote:I disagree. If one Straight Guy #1 reveals a sex type of ANOTHER Straight Guy #2... well, then #1 just looks like a loser who isn't getting any. Common sense.

If Straight Guy reveals a sex type of Closeted Gay Guy, there's a LOT more heft to that. There's an opportunity to exploit, which is exactly what the person in question did. Now he has to suffer the consequences of his actions. Hate crime? Probably no "hatred" involved, but to say that Tyler's sexuality wasn't even a slight motive is preposterous.

I agree. This is definitely a hate crime and is rightfully so charged as such. I hope dude gets the maximum. What the fuck is wrong with people? I don't get why anyone would try to pull such a rotten prank, whether the person is gay or straight.

Rockbird wrote:

tmontyb wrote:

I agree. This is definitely a hate crime and is rightfully so charged as such. I hope dude gets the maximum. What the fuck is wrong with people? I don't get why anyone would try to pull such a rotten prank, whether the person is gay or straight.

Baaad example. You're comparing apple and oranges.

A man who got into debt, got HIMSELF into debt. Nobody told him to spend the money that he didn't have. Nobody told him not to pay the bills off as they came in rather than let they accumulate.

You're not getting my point. Regardless if he spent money he had or not, the man killed himself as a DIRECT result of being in debt and he couldn't take bill collectors harassing him. So are you going to blame the bill collectors for trying to get their money back? It's not a bad example. Clementi decided to jump off that bridge HIMSELF. Same rule applies.

Tyler was not gay of his own volition, nor was it his decision to be have born and raised in a country where homosexuality is still seen as an affliction. A place where you are seen as less of a man just for who you are attracted to. Tyler didn't get himself into his own mess. His privacy was invaded by people who knew that he could be easily exploited. Happens everyday.

Shale wrote:

RiteDiva wrote:A "hate crime" doesn't have to be murder or something especially brutal. If someone's property is vandalized, and is spray painted with antisemitic epithets, then that is a hate crime. ANY basic crime that is inflicted with bias against the target, because of a "group" they belong to is a "hate crime." Dharun Ravi tweeted that his roommate was gay and went out of his way to humiliate Clementi for it by invading his privacy (invasion of privacy is illegal.) That makes it a "hate crime."

That is a good definition of why this is considered a hate crime and "... it is important for our criminal justice system to establish clear accountability under the law."

RobbieFTW wrote:The INTENT under which Ravi set up those camera's to record & broadcast Clementi had everything to do with his being gay and wanting to put him on blast for it. Wouldn't that make it a hate crime?

But Kerr said the key to the crime is intent.

"If someone deletes information because they don't want it to be a news story, that's different than trying to keep police from arresting them," Kerr said.

The alleged harassment of Clementi and the case against his roommate will be made using many of the young men's own words from their postings on Twitter, Facebook and in chat rooms.

For Clementi, those words also offer insight into his mindset before he killed himself only weeks into his freshman year. For Ravi, his words will be used against him, as well as the posts he tried to erase.

The intimidation of Clementi went back to Aug. 6 – the day Ravi "learned the name of his roommate," according to prosecutors.

In an Aug. 22 post on Twitter, according to Forbes.com, Ravi said: "Found out my roommate is gay," and linked to a thread that Clementi is believed to have posted on a gay community chat room.

Less than a month later on Sept. 19, a cached copy of Ravi's account shows he tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/23/tweeting-deleting-rutgers-webcam-spying-case-tyler-clementi_n_852901.html

RobbieFTW wrote:The INTENT under which Ravi set up those camera's to record & broadcast Clementi had everything to do with his being gay and wanting to put him on blast for it. Wouldn't that make it a hate crime?

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — A former Rutgers University student was convicted on Friday on all 15 charges he had faced for using a webcam to spy on his roommate having sex with another man, a verdict poised to broaden the definition of hate crimes in an era when laws have not kept up with evolving technology.

“It’s a watershed moment, because it says youth is not immunity,” said Marcellus A. McRae, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice.

The student, Dharun Ravi, had sent out Twitter and text messages encouraging others to watch. His roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge three days after the webcam viewing, three weeks into their freshman year in September 2010.

The case set off a debate about whether hate-crime statutes are the best way to deal with bullying. While Mr. Ravi was not charged with Mr. Clementi’s death, some legal experts argued that he was being punished for it, and that this would result only in ruining another young life. They, along with Mr. Ravi’s lawyers, had argued that the case was criminalizing simple boorish behavior.

But Bruce J. Kaplan, the prosecutor in Middlesex County, applauded the jury for sending a strong message against bias.

“They felt the pain of Tyler,” he said.

Mr. Ravi, 20, wearing a dark suit over his slight frame, sat expressionless as the jury forewoman read the verdict on the first count, of invasion of privacy. But he seemed surprised when she pronounced him guilty on the next charge, of bias intimidation. His eyes popped and he quickly turned his head from the jury. As he left the courtroom in a swarm of television cameras, his mother clutching his arm, he looked straight ahead and said nothing.

The jury also found him guilty of lying to investigators, trying to influence a witness and tampering with evidence after he tried to cover up Twitter and text messages inviting others to join in the viewing.

Some of the charges carry penalties of 5 to 10 years in prison. Mr. Ravi has surrendered his passport; prosecutors said he could face possible deportation to his native India, but that decision would be left to immigration officials. Judge Glenn Berman set sentencing for May 21.

The case was a rare one in which almost none of the facts were in dispute. Mr. Ravi’s lawyers agreed that he had set up a webcam on his computer, and had then gone into a friend’s room and viewed Mr. Clementi kissing a man he met a few weeks earlier on a Web site for gay men. He sent Twitter and text messages urging others to watch when Mr. Clementi invited the man again two nights later, then deleted messages after Mr. Clementi killed himself.

That account had been established by a long trail of electronic evidence — from Twitter feeds and cellphone records, dormitory surveillance cameras, dining hall swipe cards and a “net flow” analysis showing when and how computers in the dormitory connected.

What the jury had to decide, and what set off debate outside as well as inside the courtroom, was what Mr. Ravi and Mr. Clementi were thinking.

Had Mr. Ravi set up the webcam because he had a pretty good idea that he would see Mr. Clementi in an intimate moment? Had he targeted Mr. Clementi and the man he was with because they were gay? And had Mr. Clementi been in fear?

Without Mr. Clementi to speak for himself, that last question was perhaps the most difficult to determine, and jurors struggled with it.

“That was the hardest because you really can’t get into someone’s head,” said one, Bruno Ferreira, as he left the court. The jury deliberated longest — for well more than an hour, he said — on the bias intimidation charge.

Mr. Ferreira said he ultimately voted guilty on the bias intimidation charge because Mr. Ravi had sent multiple Twitter messages about Mr. Clementi.

“They were being done twice, not just one day,” he said.

Another juror, Kashad Leverett, himself a student and a Twitter user, said he could relate to Mr. Ravi’s constant stream of Twitter and text messages.

But the defense’s insistence that Mr. Ravi had set up the webcam because he was afraid Mr. Clementi’s visitor would steal something, he said, rang hollow.

“If I knew someone was going to steal something from me, I would definitely take it with me,” Mr. Leverett said, adding, “Just from the fact of the second incident, it seemed that it was intentional.”

The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for 13 hours over 3 days after 13 days of testimony.

Reflecting the difficulty of defining hate crimes, it had taken the judge more than an hour simply to instruct the jury on the questions they had to answer to reach a verdict.

The jury concluded that Mr. Ravi had not knowingly or purposely intimidated the men when he watched the first time, on Sept. 19, 2010.

But it found him guilty of the charge because Mr. Clementi “reasonably believed” he had been made a target because he was gay.

Nystyle709 wrote:The jury concluded that Mr. Ravi had not knowingly or purposely
intimidated the men when he watched the first time, on Sept. 19, 2010.

But it found him guilty of the charge because Mr. Clementi “reasonably believed” he had been made a target because he was gay.

LOL. Did Mr. Clementi visit him in his sleep to tell him that? I knew they were going to throw the book at that kid. Dah well. Justice doesn't always get served.

tmontyb wrote:

So are you saying he should just get a slap on the wrist?

No.

I'm just asking because I don't understand what you mean by "justice not always getting served".

He was convicted of a hate crime, which is the top charge and carries the most years. So basically he's going to spend a decade or better of his life in jail for the action of someone else taking his OWN life. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in directly blaming another individual for ones SUICIDE, which is exactly what they're doing by convicting him if a hate crime. If that's the case, then you have millions of people walking around here who needs to be in jail. Should he be punished? Sure. But to this extent? No. But ultimately, do I care? Not really. Let him do his time.

If that was you're brother and someone did that to him and cause him to kill himself, would you not want the "book" thrown at him?

Tony Marino wrote:I hope he gets the Max. sentence, he deserves it.