student kills self after webcam spying UPDATE: Conviction Overturned

[oceanblueeyes]

While Tyler's death was tragic, I don't think we've been allowed to know the full story. The hate crimes legislation was enacted as a reaction to Tyler's suicide and now I believe Ravi is a victim of that emotional wave. A respected friend of mine put it this way:
"...It has caused me to rethink the whole hate crime concept and it is really hard, at least for me, to find the reasonable middle ground in such things.

The law is better suited to regulate behavior (ie illegal to d)o things that harm other people. Those things are tangible and can be demonstrated with evidence.

It is akwardly suited at best to regulate motivation. People are complex beings that sometimes act rationally, sometimes not, may be mature in one situation and act differently in another depending on who is present. etc etc etc . People may say one thing and do another. Someone may talk about hating gays and never try to harm someone and someone else may never talk about it and try to harm someone. How do you demonstrate what specific thoughts motivated someone to act a certain way?"

I don't feel this is justice in any way. I feel for Tyler's family but Tyler was fragile for other reasons.

I do agree that Tyler was probably fragile before this happened to him. He was dealing with personal issues......such as his mother being shocked when he told her he was gay.......a new campus...but I do feel those who commit suicide have some major event happen in their lives that pushes them over the edge where they just want ALL of the pain to go away. While Ravi is not responsible for Tyler's death he did play a part, imo.

From all the evidence entered it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know what Ravi's motivation was when he invaded Tyler's privacy. All of the evidence pointed toward bias against gays.

So, imo, justice was served, and I hope it sends a strong message to others who may be thinking about acting out on their biases.

Ravi had every right to dislike gays but he did not have any right to put those biases in action in order to humiliate and demean another human being by spying on him with the webcam and wanting others to join in on it.

IMO

 

[zippitydoda]

wow, I stepped out for lunch and the jury comes back. Thank you all for the updates, this was the first place I looked.

Its a great day for Tyler and his family - Justice.

I know there are people who don't agree with some or all of the verdict. I see that the NJ.com message board is blowing up, its just vile what they are writing, and I am glad that WS does not allow that here. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and when we ask each other questions, and use facts in our answers or speak from the heart - we have the kind of discussions we can be proud of here.

 

[mck16]

Beth Karas InSession

Ravi is out on $25,000 bail since his arrest. He surrendered his passport as a condition of bail months ago. The prosecutors did not ask for an increase in bail after the verdict. They agreed to let him go home. Prosecutors said they will consult with the Clementis and MB before making their sentencing recommendation on May 21.

https://www.facebook.com/BethKarasInsession

Why would they consult with the Clementis and MB? And what influence do the Prosecutors have on sentencing? Oh and isn't Ravi a minor? Was he tried as an adult? tia

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Why would they consult with the Clementis and MB? And what influence do the Prosecutors have on sentencing? Oh and isn't Ravi a minor? Was he tried as an adult? tia

No, Ravi is an adult. He was 18 when he did this.

IMO

 

[Luna24]

Why would they consult with the Clementis and MB? And what influence do the Prosecutors have on sentencing? Oh and isn't Ravi a minor? Was he tried as an adult? tia

as OBE said, he was 18 at the time of the crime...

I have seen many cases where the PT consults with the victim's family regarding what to recommend for sentencing....but obviously the judge makes the decision. I really hope this guy serves time before he's deported - he deserves it IMHO.

 

[KaraKitty]

Here is another article with video.


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...rmer-rutgers-student-convicted-in-webcam-case

 

[Luna24]

I thought he turned down 1 plea deal but he actually turned down two deals..I can almost see why he would roll the dice on the first one but not on the second one:

Ravi rejected two plea deals before the case went to trial. In October, he declined a plea bargain that would have come with a recommended sentence of three to five years in prison, but with a chance that the judge could waive any prison time. And in December, he rejected a deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail altogether, and instead be put on probation and be required to perform 600 hours of community service and receive counseling. The state would have also helped him try to stave off any attempt by the federal government to deport him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ding-privacy-in-rutgers-clementi-spycam-case/

 

[Jacie Estes]

Ravi is in the position he is in now because of his actions, no other reason. Justice was served.

 

[mck16]

I thought he turned down 1 plea deal but he actually turned down two deals..I can almost see why he would roll the dice on the first one but not on the second one:



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ding-privacy-in-rutgers-clementi-spycam-case/

Do we know whether or not he turned down the plea deals on advise of council or not? Seems they were pretty minor compared to the case the state put on. jmo

 

[Luna24]

While Tyler's death was tragic, I don't think we've been allowed to know the full story. The hate crimes legislation was enacted as a reaction to Tyler's suicide and now I believe Ravi is a victim of that emotional wave. A respected friend of mine put it this way:
"...It has caused me to rethink the whole hate crime concept and it is really hard, at least for me, to find the reasonable middle ground in such things.

The law is better suited to regulate behavior (ie illegal to d)o things that harm other people. Those things are tangible and can be demonstrated with evidence.

It is akwardly suited at best to regulate motivation. People are complex beings that sometimes act rationally, sometimes not, may be mature in one situation and act differently in another depending on who is present. etc etc etc . People may say one thing and do another. Someone may talk about hating gays and never try to harm someone and someone else may never talk about it and try to harm someone. How do you demonstrate what specific thoughts motivated someone to act a certain way?"

I don't feel this is justice in any way. I feel for Tyler's family but Tyler was fragile for other reasons.

BBM

Are you sure the legislation was enacted after Tyler's suicide? I read an article the other day that said the bias intimidation statute in NJ was adopted in 2001 and amended in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised to see if it was amended again because they said the judge said how it's written is muddled...and that this is one of the first times it was used in conjunction with invasion of privacy - it's usually with some sort of assault...I'll link the article I read below:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/03/di_ionno_muddled_legislation_e.html

I do feel this was justice for Tyler's family. it shouldn't matter if Tyler was fragile because Ravi wasn't charged with Tyler's death ...it's not the victim's fault that he was treated with bias because of his sexual preference. JMO...

 

[mck16]

I thought he turned down 1 plea deal but he actually turned down two deals..I can almost see why he would roll the dice on the first one but not on the second one:



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ding-privacy-in-rutgers-clementi-spycam-case/

I think he needs to be punished, but I think 10 years in jail is a bit much. jmo

 

[Luna24]

I think he needs to be punished, but I think 10 years in jail is a bit much. jmo

I agree that 10 years is a bit much..I think what he did contributed to some horrible consequences but he should only be judged and sentenced on what he did..and I'm sure the judge will take into account that he was an 18 year old kid. However, I do think at least 3-5 years is fair. JMHO...

 

[ziggy]

I do agree that Tyler was probably fragile before this happened to him. He was dealing with personal issues......such as his mother being shocked when he told her he was gay.......a new campus...but I do feel those who commit suicide have some major event happen in their lives that pushes them over the edge where they just want ALL of the pain to go away. While Ravi is not responsible for Tyler's death he did play a part, imo.

From all the evidence entered it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know what Ravi's motivation was when he invaded Tyler's privacy. All of the evidence pointed toward bias against gays.

So, imo, justice was served, and I hope it sends a strong message to others who may be thinking about acting out on their biases.

Ravi had every right to dislike gays but he did not have any right to put those biases in action in order to humiliate and demean another human being by spying on him with the webcam and wanting others to join in on it.

IMO

All of the evidence to me suggested immature behavior and according to even the jury instructions, the victim has to reasonably believe he was targeted because of his sexual orientation? This is garbage. Jurors not only have to go into the minds of the accused but the victim as well?

If a straight guy gets a gay roommate, he is going to have to do some stuff that seems anti-gay to ward off the teasing he'll get from other guys. That doesn't mean he hates a gay dude or wishes them harm. It's immaturity. The law is not going to curb natural cultural behavior of straight boys any more than it can stop the natural sexual behavior of gay boys.

 

[mck16]

I agree that 10 years is a bit much..I think what he did contributed to some horrible consequences but he should only be judged and sentenced on what he did..and I'm sure the judge will take into account that he was an 18 year old kid. However, I do think at least 3-5 years is fair. JMHO...

I think back to my son's first year at university and remember how it was all pranks and noise and fun. Now I wonder what happened to putting shaving cream on a persons phone or switching the toothpaste. Or short sheeting the bed. Glad for my boys they didn't have to go through this kind of crap. Sorry for my grandchildren that they might. jmo

 

[ziggy]

BBM

Are you sure the legislation was enacted after Tyler's suicide? I read an article the other day that said the bias intimidation statute in NJ was adopted in 2001 and amended in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised to see if it was amended again because they said the judge said how it's written is muddled...and that this is one of the first times it was used in conjunction with invasion of privacy - it's usually with some sort of assault...I'll link the article I read below:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/03/di_ionno_muddled_legislation_e.html

I do feel this was justice for Tyler's family. it shouldn't matter if Tyler was fragile because Ravi wasn't charged with Tyler's death ...it's not the victim's fault that he was treated with bias because of his sexual preference. JMO...

Yeah I just closed the tab, had an article up that talked about the jury knowing about Tyler and that (I'm paraphrasing) laws were amended, changed, something like that after he committed suicide. Could be that was incorrect. The article was talking about how even though this was not supposed to be about Tyler's suicide, pretty much it was and the jury knew it, even though the prosecution was prevented from suggesting his death was related - people knew that the suggestion in the media was that it was the cause.

If Tyler had not died I bet the outcome would have been different.

 

[thumbtack]

:nono:

All of the evidence to me suggested immature behavior and according to even the jury instructions, the victim has to reasonably believe he was targeted because of his sexual orientation? This is garbage. Jurors not only have to go into the minds of the accused but the victim as well?

If a straight guy gets a gay roommate, he is going to have to do some stuff that seems anti-gay to ward off the teasing he'll get from other guys. That doesn't mean he hates a gay dude or wishes them harm. It's immaturity. The law is not going to curb natural cultural behavior of straight boys any more than it can stop the natural sexual behavior of gay boys.

BBM is a very sad statement. IMO, only the very immature & insecure (w/ their own sexuality) would act this way.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Yeah I just closed the tab, had an article up that talked about the jury knowing about Tyler and that (I'm paraphrasing) laws were amended, changed, something like that after he committed suicide. Could be that was incorrect. The article was talking about how even though this was not supposed to be about Tyler's suicide, pretty much it was and the jury knew it, even though the prosecution was prevented from suggesting his death was related - people knew that the suggestion in the media was that it was the cause.

If Tyler had not died I bet the outcome would have been different.

If Tyler had not died, IMHO, he would have testified to what DR's actions did to him. All I could remember was watching MB's hands shake during his testimony. Any guesses as to why he was so terrified?

 

[ziggy]

:nono:

BBM is a very sad statement. IMO, only the very immature & insecure (w/ their own sexuality) would act this way.

Then you don't know teen boys - their brains are not yet fully developed in the areas of reasoning, and YES they are very immature and insecure, period. It doesn't have anything to do with them and their sexuality - it is what it is. If there were a law (not suggesting there should be, just illustrating) that forbade gay male physical interaction or even lust for another man, it would not stop the natural instinct. There's a lot of talk and jesting going on perhaps, with straight teen males about being gay - teasing - I just don't think it equates to hate necessarily. I do think it is immaturity.

 

[ziggy]

"Kids are not allowed to be dumb anymore."

I find this article enlightening. There is a good argument for an appeal here.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/cri...uld_bring_change_to_NJ_bias_law.html?page=all

The bias intimidation has previously been used where there is vandalism or violence, but not social media. The laws were not (as I'd thought earlier) written taking social media into account.

“Ordinarily, these bias crimes speak for themselves,” said Henry Klingeman, a former federal prosecutor. “A swastika at a synagogue, or a burning cross on a lawn. This is an unusual set of facts for a bias charge.”

'“One question the court has to answer is whether mere discomfort is a motive for bias,” Klingeman said.'

"Lawyers said the case could have tremendous impact in college and high school contexts, where the line between pranks, boorish behavior and criminality is often crossed online."

 

[ziggy]

Will there be a wrongful death action against Ravi for Tyler's death?