Rutgers Student uses webcam to view roommate's sexual encounter

[Apeman81]

I watched a HLN story on this case which they called a "hate crime".

It seems Clementi asked Ravi to have the room for the night. Ravi activated his webcam, viewing Clementi and another man. No video was released by Ravi.

Ravi made a public comment via twitter concerning the fact:

"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."

Two days later, Clementi, aware that Ravi had used the webcam earlier, asked again to have the room. Ravi granted the wish. Clementi blocked Ravi from using the during this encounter.

The next day, Clementi committed suicide.

I fail to see a "hate crime".

Opinions?

[barts]

Is there a link to the story, A'81?

[Apeman81]

Is there a link to the story, A'81?

No single link, as it has been ongoing. Here are some:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/ny...ntentions.html

Suicide of Tyler Clementi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia, for what its worth

[Dieval]

I could understand invasion of privacy, maybe, but I don't see a hate crime from the info provided.

[lsbskins1]

This story is very complicated. I have read about it in the past. The problem was that on the second occasion, the plan, which was active and thwarted by Clementi, was to have a "viewing" with multiple people present in Ravi's friend's room and several live web links. That it did not happen is not because Ravi "thought better" of it, but because Clementi saw the red light that activated the first time Ravi pulled this crap and unplugged the computer the second time around. Its like saying that because a teller thwarted a bank robbery, no crime occurred. I call bullshit on that. Add to that the fact that Ravi attempted to go back and falsify dates and times of postings and lied about his intent when questioned, and I think you have a fuller picture. If he was not guilty of anything, why the consciousness of guilt illustrated by his attempts to cover his tracks? His friend, whose room the "viewing party" was to be in, gave him up to the cops. Look, is it possible that this guy was not thinking, "I am going to torture the fag!" Yup. I believe it is more like he was thinking, "I am going to have lots of fun at the expense of my slight, nerdy, not very attractive room mate, who also happens to be gay, which is an added bonus." Both thought patterns, and all of his actions were stupid, cruel and reckless. He deserves to be charged and he deserves a pretty harsh punishment.

[Apeman81]

This story is very complicated. I have read about it in the past. The problem was that on the second occasion, the plan, which was active and thwarted by Clementi, was to have a "viewing" with multiple people present in Ravi's friend's room and several live web links. That it did not happen is not because Ravi "thought better" of it, but because Clementi saw the red light that activated the first time Ravi pulled this crap and unplugged the computer the second time around. Its like saying that because a teller thwarted a bank robbery, no crime occurred. I call bullshit on that. Add to that the fact that Ravi attempted to go back and falsify dates and times of postings and lied about his intent when questioned, and I think you have a fuller picture. If he was not guilty of anything, why the consciousness of guilt illustrated by his attempts to cover his tracks? His friend, whose room the "viewing party" was to be in, gave him up to the cops. Look, is it possible that this guy was not thinking, "I am going to torture the fag!" Yup. I believe it is more like he was thinking, "I am going to have lots of fun at the expense of my slight, nerdy, not very attractive room mate, who also happens to be gay, which is an added bonus." Both thought patterns, and all of his actions were stupid, cruel and reckless. He deserves to be charged and he deserves a pretty harsh punishment.

Two questions.

First, would your appraisal be any different if Ravi had done the identical thing to Clementi if Clementi had been with a woman?

Second, to what information do you attribute in your summation

who also happens to be gay, which is an added bonus.

Thanks

[ruksak]

I don't get this? Why was this deed made worse than it was, deemed as a hate crime, because the "victim" was gay? What if he was monitored fucking a grossly obese woman and this embarrassment led to his suicide? Why is that not a hate crime?

[crimethinker]

My guess is that it has something to do with power dynamics. Those who prey on the weak tend to get our special scorn, unless you hold contempt for the weak in question (faggots). This is why the rape of a child is considered worse than the rape of an adult, or why it's considered worse for a man to strike a woman than the reverse. The lynching of a black person, or the deliberate public humiliation of a gay person, are "hate crimes" because they're done to harm someone of a minority group, and by extension to put that minority group in its place. The penalties are worse because we want to protect minorities and the weak, and to set the precedent that it's not okay to wage war against them.

Personally, as far as the law is concerned, I could go either way -- hate crimes or no hate crimes. But a "hate crime" is a valid concept.

As for this particular case, I'm not really sure. Isbskins makes a good argument though.

[lsbskins1]

Two questions.

First, would your appraisal be any different if Ravi had done the identical thing to Clementi if Clementi had been with a woman?

Second, to what information do you attribute in your summation

Thanks

As I said in the first place, given the fact that his motivation was to mock and humiliate, it doesn't matter much what characteristics inspired the behavior. He is an ass that recklessly harmed another human. He deserves punishment. And if you bully and humiliate a woman out of disdain and hatred for women, or fat people out of disdain and hatred for fat people, you commit a hate crime. If the mocking and humiliation were motivating factors in the hypothetical heterosexual encounter I would not feel differently.

And my information on the details of this crime came from a story on it that I read some weeks ago. In that story, the facts as presented indicated Ravi had been assigned Clementi as a room mate. Being of the social network generation, he set about doing searches on twitter and different networking sites and figured out who Clementi was. He found postings from him on a gay web site and began to immediately text and tell his friends about his discovery and though he did not request a change, his attitude to others was...you guessed it...mocking and condescending.

[The Decider]

This story is very complicated. I have read about it in the past. The problem was that on the second occasion, the plan, which was active and thwarted by Clementi, was to have a "viewing" with multiple people present in Ravi's friend's room and several live web links. That it did not happen is not because Ravi "thought better" of it, but because Clementi saw the red light that activated the first time Ravi pulled this crap and unplugged the computer the second time around. Its like saying that because a teller thwarted a bank robbery, no crime occurred. I call bullshit on that. Add to that the fact that Ravi attempted to go back and falsify dates and times of postings and lied about his intent when questioned, and I think you have a fuller picture. If he was not guilty of anything, why the consciousness of guilt illustrated by his attempts to cover his tracks? His friend, whose room the "viewing party" was to be in, gave him up to the cops. Look, is it possible that this guy was not thinking, "I am going to torture the fag!" Yup. I believe it is more like he was thinking, "I am going to have lots of fun at the expense of my slight, nerdy, not very attractive room mate, who also happens to be gay, which is an added bonus." Both thought patterns, and all of his actions were stupid, cruel and reckless. He deserves to be charged and he deserves a pretty harsh punishment.

I think Ravi committed a hate crime, but the state will have a tough time proving it. The prosecutors have to prove that Ravi intended to harm the guy because he was gay. However, Ravi's text messages and statements to police do not provide a clear indication of such hate. The defense will argue that Ravi committed a college roommate prank--a stupid, thoughtless, and damaging prank without intent to harm. The state must show that Ravi has a history of hating homosexuals. From what I gather, he does not.

The spectator gathering in the next room will be powerful evidence for the state, but I'm not sure how the defense will persuade a jury that it was a gathering of gay haters organized by a gay hater. Perhaps I'm missing something in the case. Am I off base in my assessment here?

[lsbskins1]

I think Ravi committed a hate crime, but the state will have a tough time proving it. The prosecutors have to prove that Ravi intended to harm the guy because he was gay. However, Ravi's text messages and statements to police do not provide a clear indication of such hate. The defense will argue that Ravi committed a college roommate prank--a stupid, thoughtless, and damaging prank without intent to harm. The state must show that Ravi has a history of hating homosexuals. From what I gather, he does not.

The spectator gathering in the next room will be powerful evidence for the state, but I'm not sure how the defense will persuade a jury that it was a gathering of gay haters organized by a gay hater. Perhaps I'm missing something in the case. Am I off base in my assessment here?

I don't know the specific laws of New Jersey in the matter. It depends on how the law is written. It depends on how the jury is instructed. The biggest issue for Ravi, legally, is the fact that he backtracked and tried to alter and/or destroy evidence in the form of his electronic posts. That is classic and clear consciousness of guilt. You don't try to cover up innocent actions, especially not before you have even been contacted by police. If I were on the jury, that fact alone would lead me to be highly likely to convict. But, it is very difficult to prove state of mind. The picture that emerged for me, reading the pretty involved piece I read, was that the guy is a fucking arrogant prick. Being an asshole doesn't make you guilty of shit, but a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Presented with the pieces of evidence I have seen, a picture emerges, you know. Put together his past attitude towards those he felt "better" than, his actions in attempting to alter evidence and the testimony of the friend, he should be toast. But, there is no predicting what a jury might do, what a judge might withhold from the jury and the relative eloquence of the various attorneys. Who the hell knows what might happen.

[LetThereBe]

I don't know the specific laws of New Jersey in the matter. It depends on how the law is written. It depends on how the jury is instructed. The biggest issue for Ravi, legally, is the fact that he backtracked and tried to alter and/or destroy evidence in the form of his electronic posts. That is classic and clear consciousness of guilt. You don't try to cover up innocent actions, especially not before you have even been contacted by police. If I were on the jury, that fact alone would lead me to be highly likely to convict. But, it is very difficult to prove state of mind. The picture that emerged for me, reading the pretty involved piece I read, was that the guy is a fucking arrogant prick. Being an asshole doesn't make you guilty of shit, but a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Presented with the pieces of evidence I have seen, a picture emerges, you know. Put together his past attitude towards those he felt "better" than, his actions in attempting to alter evidence and the testimony of the friend, he should be toast. But, there is no predicting what a jury might do, what a judge might withhold from the jury and the relative eloquence of the various attorneys. Who the hell knows what might happen.

Is it reasonable that he felt guilty of being a dick, and not guilty of being a criminal?

One way or another his actions may have contributed to the fellow's suicide. Even if he didn't think he was legally culpable it seems reasonable he would want to wipe out his own involvement as much as possible. This really doesn't prove to me that it was motivated by homophobia.