student kills self after webcam spying UPDATE: Conviction Overturned

[ziggy]

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?

Yes, because the number one fear is public speaking. It is terrifying to be on the stand. Had the camera been focused on hands I'm sure many average joes have shaking hands due to the sheer nervousness of having all eyes in the room on them and being under oath.

It is impossible to know what Tyler would have testified to and under the law it's not a legal principle and in common sense terms it's not really fair to base taking a person's liberty on what someone might have said.

But you are proving my point that no matter how much they try to pretend Ravi was not on trial for Tyler's death, he most certainly was.

 

[thumbtack]

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.

Actually, I raised 3 boys, who are now in their early 20's. I asked one of them what he thought of your statement in post #615 & he said he would think those boys rather pathetic & would wonder about parental upbringing. He had a gay roommate as a freshman, & from the beginning, & to this day, they are great friends.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Yes, because the number one fear is public speaking. It is terrifying to be on the stand. Had the camera been focused on hands I'm sure many average joes have shaking hands due to the sheer nervousness of having all eyes in the room on them and being under oath.

It is impossible to know what Tyler would have testified to and under the law it's not a legal principle and in common sense terms it's not really fair to base taking a person's liberty on what someone might have said.

But you are proving my point that no matter how much they try to pretend Ravi was not on trial for Tyler's death, he most certainly was.

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't agree with you. We will just have to agree to disagree. That's what I love about WS. We have room for mature conversation and intellectual disagreements.

One point I would like to make about MB is the fact that the media was not permitted to see his face or broadcast his voice. MB was obviously averse to having himself "outed" in the media. I'm sure he knew that his life would become even more difficult if everyone who knew him found out he was gay.

For me, it is just more proof that immature behavior is not justification for a crime that has been committed. I've seen so many immature adults behave just the way DR did.

 

[prayers4missing]

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.

Respectfully, IMO it has everything to do with how they are raised. I am raising my children to be kind to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. My siblings and I were raised with "proper" guidance and my brothers never behaved in the way you are suggesting, just because they are boys. MOO

 

[ziggy]

So we will punish those who don't have a parent as good as you were?

You don't have to take my word for it. Just cruise Facebook in that age range and you will see it for yourself posted on the walls.

Your boys are obviously the exception. I'm happy for you. I'm happy for them. I'm not so happy for other kids not similarly situated.

I also don't think that simply teaching kids doing something is "wrong" will keep them from doing it...obviously...look at all they do even after being educated about the pitfalls.

 

[ziggy]

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't agree with you. We will just have to agree to disagree. That's what I love about WS. We have room for mature conversation and intellectual disagreements.

One point I would like to make about MB is the fact that the media was not permitted to see his face or broadcast his voice. MB was obviously averse to having himself "outed" in the media. I'm sure he knew that his life would become even more difficult if everyone who knew him found out he was gay.

For me, it is just more proof that immature behavior is not justification for a crime that has been committed. I've seen so many immature adults behave just the way DR did.

I don't think he was worried about being outed as gay. Perhaps he was worried about being recognized as an older male who is into the "younger" looking males...maybe he goes for that type and well, it could get uglier.

I think he was more afraid of being known as a mature male who preferred going to college boys' dorm rooms.

 

[ziggy]

PS: you can tell me all the good things about your kids, but I apologize for being a cynic. I know so many parents who have a certain opinion about how great their kids are but would be absolutely shocked if they read their Facebook pages or knew how they really talked with their friends. It is your job to love and defend them and think they are the best kids in the world who would NEVER do anything heinous or bad. That's OK. It just doesn't carry much weight for me in the discussion.

 

[prayers4missing]

We do need to make it unacceptable regardless PERIOD. 40-50 years ago it was unacceptable for a mixed race couple to wed, now it isn't a problem, because people stood up and took a stand.

PS imo it is a parents job to know that their child is not always perfect and will do things that the parent disagrees with. Being slanderous against homosexuals is wrong regardless of who says it or why. MOO

 

[thumbtack]

So we will punish those who don't have a parent as good as you were?

You don't have to take my word for it. Just cruise Facebook in that age range and you will see it for yourself posted on the walls.

Your boys are obviously the exception. I'm happy for you. I'm happy for them. I'm not so happy for other kids not similarly situated.

I also don't think that simply teaching kids doing something is "wrong" will keep them from doing it...obviously...look at all they do even after being educated about the pitfalls.

I am not talking about punishing kids for not having good parents. I am just taking issue w/ your statement about boys having to do some seemingly anti-gay stuff to keep from getting bullied. I am aware that this behavior exists, but, it should not be tolerated. They don't have to do this. Education & awareness & tolerance is what is needed, not a "boys will be boys" attitude.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

I am not sure why you think getting into the mind of the defendant is something new. Jurors are asked all the time to consider the mindset of the defendant at the time they committed their crime. While motive is not required.......... in most criminal cases 99% of the time the DA will introduce a motive for the jury to consider.

Also the victim's mindset before or around the time of the crime is brought into play.

There is no evidence that Ravi is a straight guy. Not one girlfriend testified in his behalf. I have never even heard he has dated.

In fact I have wondered why a straight guy would want to use a webcam so he could spy on a sexual encounter between two men.

Whether he is immature is irrelevant. I have seen other defendants much older than him act immaturely. He broke the law. Had he not acted on his biases he wouldnt have found himself in a court of law but this was his choice and now he has to live with the fact that he is a convicted felon.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Juror Bruno Ferreira said it was the second incident that tipped the jury toward its guilty verdicts.

“Thinking about it not being done once, being done twice,” he said. “Not just one day.”


Ferreira said the jurors were not in conflict with each other during deliberations.

"I'm actually satisfied with the verdict. It was very hard, very difficult. Nothing means we would be personally biased toward the defendant. You have to look at all the facts and the evidence. That's why you have 24 counts guilty and 11 not guilty. Witness statements and the evidence were not there to prove those," he said. "This was very difficult, but it was a really good experience. You feel like justice has been served."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...lty_in_ru.html

 

[jjenny]

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

Even if there is, the parents aren't likely to actually ever see the money. You can't get blood from a stone.

 

[gxm]

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?

He could be like me, shy and/or terrified of public speaking. I was called as a witness recently and was sick to my stomach for days and trembling just sitting in the courtroom. Luckily, I was never called to the stand.

 

[gxm]

I am not sure why you think getting into the mind of the defendant is something new. Jurors are asked all the time to consider the mindset of the defendant at the time they committed their crime. While motive is not required.......... in most criminal cases 99% of the time the DA will introduce a motive for the jury to consider.

Also the victim's mindset before or around the time of the crime is brought into play.

There is no evidence that Ravi is a straight guy. Not one girlfriend testified in his behalf. I have never even heard he has dated.

In fact I have wondered why a straight guy would want to use a webcam so he could spy on a sexual encounter between two men.

Whether he is immature is irrelevant. I have seen other defendants much older than him act immaturely. He broke the law. Had he not acted on his biases he wouldnt have found himself in a court of law but this was his choice and now he has to live with the fact that he is a convicted felon.

IMO

BBM

IMO, Ravi's actions come across as someone who has not come to terms with his sexuality. I really don't think hate or bias was his motivation. MOO, JMO, OMO, etc. etc.

 

[~n/t~]

Not sure if any of you watched Prime News with Vinnie Politan but he had juror #2 on the phone. Vinnie asked him if he thinks Ravi should get prison, the juror said no.

Vinnie's reply: Interesting.


I think VP was just as shocked as I was with that answer. Why would he vote guilty if he didn't want Ravi to get prison? :waitasec:

No link so I'll say IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Not sure if any of you watched Prime News with Vinnie Politan but he had juror #2 on the phone. Vinnie asked him if he thinks Ravi should get prison, the juror said no.

Vinnie's reply: Interesting.


I think VP was just as shocked as I was with that answer. Why would he vote guilty if he didn't want Ravi to get prison? :waitasec:

No link so I'll say IMO.

He voted Guilty because he believes beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

He may not want him to do any time because of his youth.

Who knows. The Judge will make his decision whatever that may be.

IMO

 

[HMSHood]

I wonder how long Dharun Ravi will be serving. I wonder what kind of upbringing Ravi and Wei had and their relationship with parents, siblings, and classmates.

Part of infamous group of bullies.

Lori Drew and Ashley Grills
Kayla Narey, Flannery Mullins, Ashley Longe, Sharon Chanon Velazquez, Sean Mulveyhill, and Austin Renaud
Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei

They also join a list of infamous people alongside with Casey Anthony, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.

 

[~n/t~]

If one renders a guilty verdict, the assumption is they expect the perpetrator to pay for the crime.

If not, what's the point of having a trial?

Juror #2 reply to the question made no sense. What does he expect will happen? This wasn't a civil case. It was a criminal trial.

 

[daisy7]

If one renders a guilty verdict, the assumption is they expect the perpetrator to pay for the crime.

If not, what's the point of having a trial?

Juror #2 reply to the question made no sense. What does he expect will happen? This wasn't a civil case. It was a criminal trial.

He may have thought he was guilty, but that the punishment didn't fit the crime. JMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

He may have thought he was guilty, but that the punishment didn't fit the crime. JMO.

The jury is not even suppose to know what the sentence may be nor consider it in their deliberations.

Juror #2 probably heard through the media the amount of time Ravi could be given after the verdict had already been rendered.