Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
JUSTICE SERVED

BREAKING: Jury Delivers Verdict In Dharun Ravi Trival—Guilty On Most Counts

The jury reached a verdict in the Dharun Ravi trial today, reports the Star-Ledger: After 12 hours of deliberation, they found Ravi  guilty of numerous counts of invasion of privacy, tampering with witnesses and evidence, and hindering an investigation.

It was a surprising result for the Rutgers student, who could’ve avoided jail time by taking a plea deal for 600 hours of community service. He appeared stunned as he left the courthouse.

Ravi was charged with four counts of bias intimidation as a hate crime, two counts of invasion of privacy, two counts of attempted invasion of privacy and seven counts of witness tampering and hindering apprehension. Depending on the judge’s harshness in sentencing, he faces up to 10 years in prison and possible deportation, since he is not an American citizen.

Sentencing will take place on May 21.

Here is the full verdict breakdown from the Star-Ledger:

COUNT 1
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Clementi’s guest, M.B.: GUILTY
(Observed Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 19)

If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 2; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 2 and proceeds to count 3

COUNT 2
3rd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 4th Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)

• Invasion of Privacy with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

COUNT 3
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Activated webcam so other people could view Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact on Sept 19.)

If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 4; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 4 and proceeds to count 5

COUNT 4
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated, because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

COUNT 5
4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Tried to observe Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 21)

If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 6; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 6 and proceeds to count 7

COUNT 6
3rd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 4th Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: guilty

COUNT 7
3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Tried to show Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact to other people on Sept. 21)

If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 8; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 8 and proceeds to count 9

COUNT 8
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

COUNT 9
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Deleted tweets relevant to police investigation)

COUNT 10
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Wrote and posted a false tweet)

COUNT 11
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Destroyed evidence relevant to investigation)

COUNT 12
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Prevented a witness from providing testimony)

COUNT 13
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Lied to police)

COUNT 14
3rd Degree Witness Tampering: GUILTY
(Tried to influence what Molly Wei told police)

COUNT 15
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Deleted text messages sent to and received from witnesses)

By:           Evan Mulvihill
On:           Mar 16, 2012
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 112 Comments
    • melissa baker
      melissa baker

      one can only hope that his privacy is invaded in prison.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spike
      Spike

      The jury is to commended.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • arjuna52
      arjuna52

      Pride goeth before a fall.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MKisNE
      MKisNE

      I have to say I did think he was guilty on every charge but 10 years and possible deportation seems too much to me. I hope he gets a lesser sentence and stays in the country, and then after that I hope we never see his smug/sorry face again.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      To all the trolls that kept coming in here and claiming that all the supposed evidence against him was a lie and that the jury was hearing the REAL story….

      Well I guess the REAL story that the jury heard was not the pro-Ravi Lies that you all were spewing.

      His lawyers told him NOT to take a plea that would have given him only community service and no jail time. Guess they thought that there were more bigots in New Jersey than there are.

      This is a major step. A Jury had sympathy with the gay victim, and Ravi’s attorney’s tried but failed to use bigotry as a way for their client to win.

      I doubt he’ll get the full ten years, but even if he does hardley any jail time the guys life has been turned upside down. Multiple felonies, etc…

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam Sass
      Adam Sass

      A terrible waste of both boys’ lives. If he serves his full prison term, I hope he is not deported. That seems too far. That stupid kid needed some sense. So sad. A waste is all I can think about.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stace
      Stace

      He should be deported. How many “boys” like him have been “stupid” meaning bigoted and small minded and gotten off scott free? There needs to be examples so the general public will learn. Unfortunately for him, he is one.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ron
      Ron

      I gather Mr. Ravi is from India.

      If he is sent to prison, it is likely the next American citizen charged in India, over something that to U.S. eyes seems trivial, will also be sent to prison.

      They’re mostly a very conservative country over there and there is likely to be some reaction. (especially if he’s from a rich/well connected family)

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Red Meat
      Red Meat

      How the hell is he acquitted on so many privacy counts for M.B. ?? Just because he didn’t kill himself does not mean he was not a victim just as much as Tyler.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • not blind
      not blind

      @ No. 8 Ron

      so do you think all people from India should get acquitted of whatever they do, so people in India will be nice to American defendants? And you’re worried about their “reaction” because they’re a conservative country? Hey, I know…how about we arrest M.B. for being gay, do you think the conservative people in India will approve?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ron
      Ron

      @not blind:

      I am not saying it is right, only that it is.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Kickin’ in the Jury seat
      Sittin’ in the back row
      Gotta make my mind up
      What’s he guilty of?

      It’s Friday, Friday
      Gotta convict on Friday

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Ron:

      I think that is a ridiculous opinion. Do you know how many Indians are arrested over here every year and how many American’s are arrested over there? I’m willing to bet it’s more than one.

      No Americans are going to freak out of some American is arrested for stealing cars in Ireland.

      India has over a billion people, they have other things on their mind, and frankly, I think the parents over there would be just as shocked at the idea that somebody could film a child of theirs without their knowledge.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EmmaMTF
      EmmaMTF

      BEAUTIFUL. Thank the jury for using their heads!

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • parasite eve
      parasite eve

      deport him but first send him in jail then DEPORT HIM

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shax
      Shax

      All I have to say is Dharun Ravi is a dumb F***. Wished he got a lesser sentence though he has learned his lesson by now.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      It’s good that they found him guilty of these charges but he’s guilty of murder and was never charged with that.

      Another slap on the wrist for another murder.

      I think that when GLBT people are harassed and commit suicide that it’s murder and should be punished as such. Thankfully not everyone succumbs but it’s not for a lack of effort by the bigots.

      And I think that definition of murder is a political question we’ll solve at a later date when we make new laws. Among them we can expect robust laws criminalizing the dissemination of bigoted views by cults and the people who pander to them, including bigots like Obama and his Republican rival.

      Current law has as its basis the protection of the private property of the rich and is class law that largely ignores the needs of working people, people of color, women and children and the GLBT communities.

      The idea of equality under the law is manifestly a crock.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Larry
      Larry

      charge 16…1st degree arrogant asshole GUILTY

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kit
      Kit

      RE: Red Meat’s question as to why the jury acquitted Ravi on most of the counts involving M.B., I think the reasoning must have been that M.B. wasn’t the target of the spying, Tyler Clementi was. Because Ravi set out to expose Tyler, and NOT M.B., Ravi was not guilty of the bias intimidation counts involving M.B.

      Unfortunately and regrettably, M.B. was simply collateral damage. At least he gets his measure of justice, along with the Clementi family, by the jury finding Ravi guilty of the invasion of privacy counts that involved him as well.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cwm
      cwm

      Wait until the sentencing before flying off the handle. Ravi being an upper-middle-class young man with no priors, it seems unlikely they’re going to be unduly harsh.

      I’m stunned; I doubted Ravi would have been found guilty on any of the bias charges.

      Initially, I expect, many will be shocked by the verdicts. In the long run, people may finally will begin to take more seriously the non-physical but devastating effects of bullying (for any reason! though we all know, LGBT people are more likely to be targeted).

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Danny
      Danny

      Give him 10 years and then deport him. He should have known better. When he came to the country, he had to certify he wouldn’t commit any crimes. If the American had never met him, the American would be alive.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 9 · Red Meat wrote, “How the hell is he acquitted on so many privacy counts for M.B. ?? Just because he didn’t kill himself does not mean he was not a victim just as much as Tyler.” He was convicted of conduct that he should have reasonably expected would cause intimidation, but acquitted of willfully trying to intimidate anyone. The people who viewed the videos all knew Clementi and would see him daily, but did not know M.B., so Ravi’s behavior was objectively much more intimidating for Clementi, regardless of the suicide that followed.

      Ravi’s defense raised reasonable arguments in his favor. According to http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/dharun_ravi_found_guilty_in_ru.html one of the jurors said, “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, This was very difficult, but it was a really good experience. You feel like justice has been served.” It wouldn’t have been very difficult for the jury if the defense didn’t do a pretty good job.

      The jury probably didn’t believe Ravi’s attorney’s statement that he turned off the chat program on Sept 21 before anything happened. Some of the evidence was ambiguous (e.g., some witnesses indicated that the cam was pointed at Ravi’s bed and the door, whereas others thought it was pointed at Clementi’s bed). You can take that ambiguity as reasonable doubt or you can discount what some of the witnesses had said.

      If I were on the jury, I don’t think I would have convicted him for deleting tweets if he did that before he knew that the police were looking into those – he could have been trying to cover things up to avoid getting in trouble due to university policy and wasn’t thinking of the police at all. Records from Twitter, however, would typically have time stamps, and the level of detail as to what happened first wasn’t reported in the press but hopefully was brought up during the trial (e.g., did he delete things before or after the police indicated an interest). Also, some people like to clean out text messages they don’t care about to reduce the clutter. That argument wouldn’t work very well, however, if it appeared that the only messages Ravi deleted were about his web-cam
      usage.

      I’d have some doubts as to the bias convictions being warranted – the ones Ravi got required Clementi to reasonably believe that he was targeted due to his sexual orientation. The question is whether Ravi would have behaved the same way if his roommate was straight and wanted the room for the evening while bringing in a 25 year old woman.

      No news yet on whether the defense will appeal the conviction. One guy commenting on the nj.com article cited above wanted a “defense fund” for Ravi to appeal, although I doubt if that would pull in enough cash to get his lawyer to write a short letter at $300 per hour.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleW
      KyleW

      I agree that he was guilty, but even prison time is ridiculous, and deportation would be an outrageous overreaction.

      Bill, I don’t know where you get your knowledge of the law, but there needs to be intent or premeditation for it to be murder. As there is no proof that Ravi even intended Clementi psychological, let alone physical harm, charging him with murder would be ludicrous.

      Ravi should be punished for being an asshole, in which case, we should all stand guilty, because none of us has lived a life without being an asshole at least once. The fact that Clementi was mentally unstable is not his fault, and he should not be punished for that.

      And Danny, you have no way of knowing what would have happened to Clementi, oops sorry, “The American”, if he had never met Ravi (presumably “the brown person”). Clementi might have had a more homophobic “Glorious White American” roommate who would have beaten him to death sooner. There’s certainly a lot of recent prevcedent for that huh? I don’t like to insulting, but you really need to think about your own bigotry a bit here. Do you not see the irony? For the record, Ravi came over to the US as a young child, and signed nothing. He’s almost as much an American citizen as you are are. Get over it.

      I think that if this case shows anything, it’s that yet again, the main beneficiaries are the damned lawyers. I don’t know what his lawyer saw in the evidence that enticed him to advice Ravi that pleading not guilty, against a ten year prison sentence and deportation, was wise, but it seems like he was gravely misadvised. Of course, the fact that Obama was commenting before the trial made it virtually impossible that Ravi would get an unbiased hearing.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      So what’s going to happen now?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      I think I pointed out that the law needs to be changed so we can robustly punish not only the thugs but those who promoite violece.

      And I said that in my opinion harassment that leads to suicide is murder, intenional or not.

      I have a different view of the what the law is and should be than you.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Justme57
      Justme57

      A life was lost due to the Mr. Ravi. Everyone is talking but what about the young man who killed himself after finding out his privacy was invaded. What about his family who lost a young man who know might done something great with his life. But we will never know cause he is dead. Ms. Ravi have to pay for what he did is this were they say live and lean. Lets hope he did.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      My college roommate at Tufts would sometimes ask me to leave our room for the night so he could have sex with his girlfriend. I had no problem because we respected each other although not particularly close. The thought of spying on him would have been inconceivable. As a gay college professor in NYC who has watched this trial with great interest, I am shocked by the ignorance of people when it comes to the effects of bullying. The defendant used Tyler Clementi as sport which led to an unbearable humiliation. Perhaps it was the final straw, but Ravi was not charged in Tyler’s death. He was found guilty on specific crimes related to the spying and subsequent intimidation conceived and executed by the defendant. From what I understand, what happened between Tyler and M.B. was innocent, nothing more than a kiss. Its horrifying to know how much this poor boy suffered, myself a victim and survivor of terrible bullying. I have struggled to come to terms with my sexuality in a country where homophobia is so common that candidates for President are championing their anti-gay positions to win votes. I regularly see GLBT college-aged students who face excruciating homophobia right here in gay centric NYC whether at home, at school, and always on-line which, when used by bullies, become real weapons of mass destruction, the effects of which are all too evident in the suicides of gay youth around the country. This verdict is certainly a step forward in a bid to make such behavior unacceptable, if not in the hearts of men, then in our laws.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Well Played
      Well Played

      Now deport his sorry ass.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Well Played
      Well Played

      @KyleW:
      He’s not anywhere close to an American citizen. You either are or you aren’t. Close isnt a category. He’s simply not.. He’s been convicted of a crime which makes him eligible for deportation. Hold a hearing & he lives with the results. Simple, really.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      B-

      I can’t believe you had the audacity to show your face here. You lack shame just as you lack a capacity to engage in useful legal analysis. You said on this blog that Ravi had a 90% chance of acquittal on a bias charge. You said that the state had at best a 40% chance of convicting him on the lightest of the 15 charges. Please, please, please give us your full name so that we can know never to hire you.

      I have been thinking about who you are. It isn’t that you are the first person to post foolish nonsense on Queerty comments, but you clearly fancy yourself as some sort of attoreny, even while you spew nonsense that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the law of evidence and a lack of competence in evaluating the evidence in this case. I concluded that you are not an ordinary layperson who has watched too many eps of Boston Legal. No, you are a law student, probably at a third tier law school like Rutgers. If that is true, get out now. Save your money and go to B-school.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      @melissa baker:

      He will be shitting on that can they use in jail cells, in full view. He’s learn about lack of privacy.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      If Tyler had been a Log Cabin Republican, would it then have been okay to expose his sexual orientation?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      @Ron:

      I don’t think that you are correct. Anyway, your argument that we should not prosecute foreigners and we should be afraid of their home country response is ridiculous. Anyway, India gets too much from the US government to government relationship to care a thing about Ravi. He’s just one in a billion, and a little smarmy one at that.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • evanb
      evanb

      @MKisNE: He had that opportunity for a lesser sentence and help avoiding deportation, and unwisely rejected the plea offer. I don’t care if he goes to prison or not, but he’s certainly lost the privilege of living in this country.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @KyleW: said…


      Ravi should be punished for being an asshole, in which case, we should all stand guilty, because none of us has lived a life without being an asshole at least once.”
      ______________

      Give me a break, if this had happened to some freash faced freashman woman people would have been calling for the roomates head.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdon't
      Bill Perdon't

      @Bill Perdue:
      I just read your comment and want to kill myself for how insane your comment is. According to you, be prepared to stand trial for my ‘murder’.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • surita
      surita

      i don’t really care! all i know is he’ll get what he deserves in jail! better not drop the soap! ;0

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Bill Perdon’t: Please, there are drugs and therapies that can help. Or maybe just get off the bottle for awhile.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MKisNE
      MKisNE

      @evanb: I think I would agree if he came to the US as an adult, but he came here as a young child.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      @KyleW:

      You are blaming Ravi’s lawyer for Ravi not taking a small plea with community service. How do you know that? I bet it was Ravi and his parents who said “No”. Just a year ago, his parents took out an ad in Ravi’s high school year book saying what a privilege it has been seeing him grow and develop into such fine young man. Meglomania runs in that family. He has been so smug all along, that turning down the plea is totally within character.
      I bet Molly Wei is running over to her lawyer’s office to kiss her lawyer for getting her off with community service, like Ravi should have taken.

      To everyone arguing that Ravi needs a lenient sentence, I say the laws in this case were designed to protect the weak and the fragile like Tyler Clementi who obviously was battered in life by the effects of homophobia. Many of us may be stronger and feel that we do not need such protection, but I am glad that the law is there to protect the future Tylers, who hopefully will not be so shamed that they kill themselves. And I hope that Ravi gets at least 5 full years, no time off earlier, to send a strong message against picking on gays.

      Let’s hope that Ravi learns how to get along with his jailhouse roommate, and that the guy is from a poor background, since Ravi said he hates poor people. He can learn about the fact that gays and the poor are human beings too. He can probably get into a higher education program in prison, and work toward his college degree. Hopefully his college experience in jail will open his mind and mature him in a way that this little shit would never have gotten at Rutgers, since he is obviously not really college material.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Giovannidude
      Giovannidude

      @B:

      Hey, B, you were wrong. Totally wrong. You can apologize to all of us now for your long-winded pro-Ravi diatribes. Oops, I see you are still coming through with the long-winded stuff. You haven’t changed. You’re probably glad Tyler Clementi is dead.

      Get a life, loser!

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      One additional bit of enjoyment for me comes from the fact that Ravi’s family probably spent something north of a half million dollars on this defense. A full defense team, substantial motion practice and a full trial lasting several weeks – all very expensive. They also hired a fancy shmancy “jury consultant” who supposedly guided them in selecting the a sympathetic jury. Those consultants are overrated and overpriced and in this case, I doubt that the Ravi family is feeling good about the jury that was selected. So Ravi, who once opined that he hates poor people, is now a lot closer to those whom he hates.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      I’m glad he was convicted, but I’m disappointed his sentence isn’t more Hammurabi-like in its nature.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA
      1equalityUSA

      Can you hear the violin, Ravi?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Giovannidude
      Giovannidude

      @Steve:
      Steve, you’re right, I hadn’t even thought about that.

      All of a sudden, that generous plea deal that the prosecutors offered to Ravi is probably looking pretty good to him right now — and it wouldn’t have cost him a cent if he had taken it.

      But the homophobic trolls who came on here sticking up for Ravi and taunting us didn’t want Ravi to take the plea deal. Because it wasn’t enough that we lost a gay teen through a needless suicide to a bully. They wanted the bully to walk away scot free on top of it all. Because the homophobes view us as expendable. They place no value on a gay life.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PS
      PS

      I don’t know much about each individual count, but it is seems unfortunate there were several “acquitted” decisions regarding bias and sexual orientation. My guess is that the jury didn’t think sexual orientation was that important of a factor. If I recall, there were some pieces of evidence that the jury never heard, such as evidence regarding Tyler Clementi’s complaints pertaining to him wanting to change roommates, etc.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Well Played
      Well Played

      When an IHOP waiter, who was in public, had his picture taken & posted on the net people cried it was an invasion of privacy. Now when someone is broadcast on the Internet while in the privacy of their own bedroom some want us to believe that was not an invasion of privacy? Get real.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      @PS:

      Actually, a few acquittals is good to shoot down Ravi’s chances for an appeal. It shows that the jury carefully considered each charge, and did not just “throw the book” at him for any reason. The lawyers would have preferred that he be guilty on all counts so that they would have shots at calling the jury biased or not careful in their deliberation.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Melanie Nathan
      Melanie Nathan

      No matter which side of the Israel-Palestine conflict one finds oneself, I believe the most important duty for an LGBTQI commission is to recognize the commonality of all LGBTQI people in the world; we are unified in a worldwide struggle for equality and acceptance. While some endorse the so called ‘pinkwashing’ of Israel and others denounce it as mere anti- Israeli or anti-Semitic smoke-screening, I believe the argument has no relevance in our mutual quest for LGBTI acceptance and equality. I broke the story and was shocked no other LGBT websites showed courage to report so thanks QUEERTY

      The Commissioners caved to a handful of protestors after saying they were NOT going to vote. COWARDS!

      http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/seattle-lgbt-commission-shuts-down-israels-lgbt-voice/

      Mar 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bryan
      Bryan

      I’m not fist pumping or jumping with joy, but he got his just desserts.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Giovannidude: When i first heard about this case back in 2010, my first reaction was that it was probably just a young guy being an idiot and trying to reenact that webcam scene from American Pie. But as more tweets, emails and IMs came out and as more details came out about the role of Wei and the other group of “friends” who were to have formed the “viewing party,” the more it became apparent that this was a malicious scheme.

      What appalls me is that other students have gotten off scot free. One student admitted to helping Ravi set up the cam and to lying to the police about it? Yet he hasn’t been charged and hasn’t even suffered an discipline at the school. And then there is the loathsome Michelle Huang at Cornell, who fired up Ravi’s homophobia by IM’ing him about “gross” Asian lesbians and urging him on to broadcast cClementi. Why is she still at Cornell without a care in the world? If Queerty were to track down Huang for an interview, I would forgive it for all of its prior journalistic sins.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 30 · Steve made a fool of himself by saying. “B- I can’t believe you had the audacity to show your face here.” Why? Even a member of the jury said it was a difficult decision, which wouldn’t be the case if the defense didn’t do a decent job. All I did was to point out that there were possible arguments that the defense could use and that they would have to argue certain things given the wording of the statutes Ravi was accused of violating and the fact that he did set up a web cam.

      I’ve been ignoring most of your statements because, from what I can tell, you are simply an ill-bred moron with some sort of personal agenda and I really don’t see the point in wasting much time on you. It is rather comical, however, that you apparently think it takes a “lawyer” to know that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is a requirement for a criminal conviction in the U.S., something that people should know before graduating from high school. It’s also rather comical that you apparently don’t know that to convict someone under a law that says, “you are guilty if A and B and C”, and there is plenty of factual evidence for A, then the defense is obviously going to try to show that either B or C is false (or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt).

      http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148758636/ex-rutgers-student-convicted-in-webcam-case has a summary. You might want to read it. Interestingly, the article states, “Ravi told police he had put his computer to sleep. Prosecutors argued Clementi himself unplugged the computer.” You’d probably assume Ravi was lying. I’d assume Clementi was telling the truth (aside from no reason to lie, the network traffic data collaborates that statement), but I also know that these two events are not mutually exclusive. Maybe Ravi did put the computer to sleep (whether that would be sufficient to deactivate the cam is a different issue), but if he did, there should be some sort of entry in a system log file, and the prosecution should be expected to check that if only to lower the risk of a false conviction. If the log file entry was not there and other activity indicated that the system was not sleeping, then that would argue against Ravi’s claim. You apparently don’t want such details checked, but those details are precisely the ones that a jury should be checking in order to reduce the risk of convicting an innocent person. Now, exactly why do you have a problem with that?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rutgers1017
      rutgers1017

      to all the pro-ravi posters on here, I just want to say a big

      FUCK YOU

      I hope you enjoy this verdict and soak in the direction that this country in going: equal rights for all.

      Homophobia kept me a closeted, depressed person for too much of my youth, like many other gay men, and it was only through the discovery of gay blogs, even like querty, that allowed me to step out of the closet and feel good about myself as a gay man.

      So Querty, thank you, and the Ravi trial jurors, thank you, and all the gay men that have the strength to stand up for yourself and one another, THANK YOU.

      it is you who is paving the way for easier lives of the future generations of gays!

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 51 · Steve [Different person #1 using similar name] wrote,”What appalls me is that other students have gotten off scot free. One student admitted to helping Ravi set up the cam and to lying to the police about it? Yet he hasn’t been charged and hasn’t even suffered an discipline at the school.”

      According to http://gma.yahoo.com/burden-proof-prosecutor-presents-first-bias-crime-evidence-161258205–abc-news.html one student who helped Ravi doesn’t seemed to have done much beyond letting Ravi use his computer: “Ravi had used Ojha’s laptop to determine the position of the webcam in his own room. While Ojha was folding clothes nearby, Ravi clicked on his own iChat video screen name. He then walked down the hall to his own room and repositioned the webcam “an inch” toward Clementi’s bed, according to Ojha.”

      One question is whether Ojha knew why the cam was being set up – if he was folding clothes, he might have been preoccupied, at least initially, or was thinking merely about a technical problem (how to configure the computer). While the article says he admitted to lying, it claimed he admitted to lying “since he later admitted, ‘I helped him set it up.'” While lying is one possibility, talking to investigators could be stressful and it is possible that it was simply a memory lapse.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 41 · Giovannidude, “Hey, B, you were wrong. Totally wrong. ” LOL. No I wasn’t. I stated what sort of things the defense could argue and what some of the difficulties were for the prosecution. Your problem is that you are so obsessed with wanting a conviction that you think rational statements about what is going on could only be made to support the side you don’t like. Some of us aren’t going to rant about one side or the other.

      As to your “long winded” nonsense, that just shows how limited your attention span is. Did it occur to you that the case might be a just a tad complex to prove if it took weeks to go through it? The reality is that the defense did a reasonable job. So did the prosecution. Members of the jury stated that it was a difficult decision for them, which wouldn’t be the case if the defense was completely lame.

      Why do you have a problem with that? Also, why do you assume that comments about what the defense might do are be an indication of the outcome someone wants? Quite frankly, you need to grow up.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lloyd
      lloyd

      B: You said that Ravi was “acquitted of willfully trying to intimidate anyone.”
      Not true, since the jury found Ravi guilty of bias intimidation against Clementi for the Sept. 21 attempted viewing on all aspects of bias intimidation, including “with the purpose to intimidate.” I won’t call you an “ill-bred moron,” as you do in many of your postings. Nor will I go on and on like a self-important windbag, as you do.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      @Stace: (comment #7), I do agree w/you to a point, somewhere an example has to be made, but I do think the verdict is quite harsh. He’s 20…what he did was stupid, absolutely! But the real problem is the conservatives in this country put such ideas into people’s heads at how terrible and how homosexuality is detrimental to society. If rhetoric like that didn’t happen, there wouldn’t be a situation like this, and Ravi problen wouldn’t have done what he did…honestly, I wish people would live and let live and not make being gay such a big deal…we’ve come so far, but we still have such a long way to go. This case is a good example. Two wastes of two lives, because of the bullshit that others put into people’s heads how homosexuality is something to be made fun of, ostracized, etc…

      If anyone should be jailed, it’s idiots like Santorum.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Giovannidude
      Giovannidude

      B, I nominate you for homophobic troll of the year. No, wait, make that prissy condescending bombastic Homophobic Troll of the Year.

      You side with the villain against the victim, just because the victim was gay. You are evil.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • William
      William

      Today I am proud of my justice system.

      Lets see if Ravi enjoys his privacy violated in prison.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J Stratford
      J Stratford

      Deport him now. I dont care if he imprisoned, we don’t want lawbreakers like him in our country!

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stupid
      Stupid

      Maybe it’s justice; maybe it isn’t. What’s undeniable is that it’s a tragedy all around. This is another chapter in a very sad tale. A lot of the glee I’m seeing here and in other LGBT places is just gross. This is nothing for anyone to celebrate. (And anyone who thinks prison rape is a joking matter, or a just punishment for any crime, is seriously demented.)

      To me, it sort of seems like Ravi is being made an example of, and that’s not fair to him. He broke some laws and did some terrible things, yes. He’s guilty and should be punished. But if Clementi had never killed himself, this matter would not have progressed much past campus-level discipline. So the maximum punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I
      I

      So B, do you think what Ravi did was wrong?

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      I don’t think they could have possibly pushed for the involuntary manslaughter they were talking about when the case first broke. He violated the privacy, he did not push him off the bridge or murder Tyler like some are wishing he did. It’s a tragedy all the way around for everyone involved. I don’t think that Ravi or Molly should have been charged with murder since Tyler made the choice to kill himself and only he knows the reasons why he did, and Molly and Ravi are not responsible for another person’s actions.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      Should have been an involuntary manslaughter charge in there as well.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jimmy Velvet
      Jimmy Velvet

      Although I think he should be butt fucked by a fire extinguisher then deported after serving ten years of busting up rocks, I wonder if he would have been convicted had he been a blond haired blue eyed kid from Ohio? Thoughts???

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The_FNG
      The_FNG

      Well, it’s been several hours of feeling better about having my blood-lust satisfied with the guilty verdict for Ravi’s actions. On reflection, and after examining other views, I can only hope that the judge in the case shows mercy on a 20 year old “jerk”. At this point, the statement has clearly been made that “You bully, You pay”. As tragic and heartbreaking as Tyler Clementi’s death was, there’s no need to destroy another man’s life.

      Steve

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 56 · lloyd “B: You said that Ravi was “acquitted of willfully trying to intimidate anyone.” Not true, since the jury found Ravi guilty of bias intimidation against Clementi for the Sept. 21.” I read the article too quickly and got it right for Count 2. There was a mix in the others, with him consistently getting convictions because of what Tyler would reasonably have assumed the motivation was, and a lot of acquittals regarding M.B., and I didn’t notice that the same pattern wasn’t repeating exactly – had a long day yesterday and was a bit sleepy this morning, so thanks for pointing out the error.

      No. 62 · I wrote, “So B, do you think what Ravi did was wrong?” Of course – the question was whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated the particular provisions of the laws under which he was charged. There were reasonable arguments both ways. That’s why the jury found it difficult, as one of the jurors was reported to have said when interviewed after the trial. You need to keep in mind that not everything that is wrong is illegal, and that sometimes laws don’t track changes in technology very well and need to be re-written, which often doesn’t become obvious until there is a trial and you find that justice wasn’t served – either someone who everyone thought should go to jail didn’t or someone who did something trivial ended up with a harsh sentence.

      BTW, it isn’t over yet. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/15/national/a012152D35.DTL mentioned that Altman is going to file an appeal at the appropriate time. I’d guess he’s going to wait until after sentencing, so they can
      trade off the cost of an appeal versus the sentence. It appears that the judge could
      give Ravi no prison time at all. The prosecutor is going to consult with Clementi’s family and M.B. before recommending a sentence.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I
      I

      B, so you think what he did was wrong but not meant to be mean spirited? I certainly don’t know anyone who would do what Ravi did out of kindness. What Ravi did shows a lack of judgement and illwill. He wanted to make a joke out of Clementi and when he got found out he tried to cover it up.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve [Different person #1 using similar name]

      B:

      I don’t know what “ill-bred” means. Do you mean that I am the wrong race or ethnicity? Or perhaps you mean that I am bred of a lower socio-economic class. If so, you have a lot in common with Dharun Ravi.

      I do, however, know what a moron is. For example, it is someone who doesn’t know the difference between “corroborate” and “collaborate.” Another example would be someone who thinks that the Ravi jury was going to be permitted to hear argument about what might have happened if hypothetically Ravi had gone back to the dorm room on Sept. 19 for a book. Those would be 2 examples of a first-class moron.

      The jury may have grappled with some of the bias-related counts, and I agree that those were more complicated. But that was not what you said. You said that he had a 90% likelihood of acquittal on those counts. You thought that they were easy, not hard. And the other counts did not seem to confound the jury at all. Apparently, it isn’t that hard to convict someone of invasion of privacy when that person states on videotape that he intentionally invaded Clementi’s privacy. I guess the jurors just lacked your sophistication.

      Anyway, thanks for the entertainment. I hope that your fellow 1Ls at Rutgers get as big a laugh out of your attempts to pretend to be a lawyer as I did. And please consider my advice to pursue alternative career paths. The law firms are not going to be breaking down your door to offer you a job.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @Jimmy Velvet: I really don’t think race was an issue this time. I think that folks are finally noticing that hey, kids all over the nation are offing themselves due to this kind of bias intimidation, and we need to send a message that this is unacceptable.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D P
      D P

      @melissa baker: — melissa, I LOVE YOUR RESPONSE! …second the motion! Aye!

      Mar 16, 2012 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      There is no excuse for what he did. He violated his roommate’s trust and used homophobia as a reason to subject his roommate to public ridicule. Absolutely a hate crime. I applaud the jury’s decision. Justice prevailed. The fact that the perpetrator was a guest in our country may cause some liberal guilt. Too freaking bad. I constantly come on Queerty and ridicule GOProud and other conservatives, but this case is something else again. If in the name of diversity we are bringing students from around the world to US universities, some are more worthy than others. I see no benefit to providing homophobes advanced educations in the United States. Diversity is one thing, but unless students from other countries can meet the highest ethical standards or (at the very least) do no harm to American students then they have no place here. Full Stop.

      Mar 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • shannon
      shannon

      PUT HIS UGLY ASS IN JAIL FOR TEN YEARS SO HE CAN HAVE “GAY SEX”….THEN DEPORT HIS SORRY UGLY ASS TO THAT GARBAGE OF A COUNTRY HE HAILS FROM!!!!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 12:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taser Him
      Taser Him

      Hold him down. Taser his anus until one of his teeth falls out. Then deport him. Jail time, however, is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 1:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wesley Horace
      Wesley Horace

      send him back to india!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 8:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • starz
      starz

      @I: Ravi is from our town and went to the school my kids go to. He has been described to me by my kids’ friends as someone who takes the joke too far, who does not see the consequences of his actions, who thinks things are funny that other people don’t think are funny. That having been said, his “joke” in this case caused grievous pain to a person who was already suffering. Tyler Clementi probably thought he’d escaped the worst, high school, and would find an accepting peer group in the huge pool of people at college. Having a roommate who humiliated him must have been an ugly epiphany, that the crap was not going away.

      I think in this case, Ravi did not see past that he thought this was a crack-up and people would laugh. He did not see the consequences of his actions–that he devastated another human being. He knows that now, he knew it the night Tyler died because he sent him a text saying he was sorry and did not want this to ruin his freshman year. I think this man, before he found out Tyler died, knew that he had done something terrible. I think this past year-and-a-half have been an ugly wake-up call for him, and I guarantee you that he is more compassionate now and more aware of what cruelty can do that he was in September 2010.

      That he did not take the plea deal, I blame on the parents. We have a large Indian population here, The Ravis are very wealthy, and it is likely that they thought pleading guilty would be a shame on the family and that there was no way a jury would find their son guilty. I don’t think it was the son’s arrogance that rejected the plea deal; it was the family’s.

      I do not believe 10 years of jail time will fix this situation. Community service that consisted of bringing meals to the elderly, volunteering in an HIV clinic and kids’ hospital. That would have been more effective. I do not want to see any more life destroyed. This boy’s life has been destroyed, too, by stupidity and ignorance. I do not think that stupidity and ignorance exist anymore. I would sooner punish the parents for their poor attitude.

      starz

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • starz
      starz

      @Steve: Absolutely. There was a culture here that encouraged this, and one person took the hit for a large group of @ssholes.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleW
      KyleW

      @Steve: Respectfully Steve, Ravi bet his life on the fact that he would be acquitted, on the advice of professionals presumably more qualified than you. The fact that they were wrong just goes to show that even the best are imperfect…

      Mar 17, 2012 at 10:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleW
      KyleW

      @Cam: “Give me a break, if this had happened to some freash faced freashman woman people would have been calling for the roomates head.”

      Perhaps you’re right Cam. So had Clementi not suffered as a result, and simply been robust enough to tell Ravi to fuck off, what penalty would you have felt was appropriate for Ravi’s actions then?

      Personally, I have never felt that the consequences of a crime should affect the sentencing. Ravi could not reasonably have foreseen this result, and if he had, I doubt for one nanosecond that he would have acted as he did.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 10:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleW
      KyleW

      @Xerxes: Mayyou are right, and Ravi went against the advice of his lawyers. I would disagree with your characterisation that Ravi has been smug all along. He was clearly up himself before all this started, and I don’t think any sane person can blame anyone for fighting to protect themself even by lying, when the public is baying for blood, but the fact that Ravi has turned up to court red-eyed and looking shattered shows that there has been a toll. You can interpret that toll as self-pity, or horror at the consequences of his actions. I think a bit of each is likely.

      I certainly agree with you that Ravi will learn the most important lesson in his life in jail, and I agree that the laws are there to protect the weak. I just don’t think it’s right that society has to tip-toe around because some people might be mentally unstable and could overreact. I don’t know if that’s what Clementi did in this case, but if all that happened was that people saw him kissing another male, it seems like a massive overeaction to me.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleW
      KyleW

      @rutgers1017: I don’t think a single person here is Pro Ravi, and I expect almost all agree that he deserved to be found guilty of something. But speaking personally, I am simply in favour of a measured approach to his punishment, rather than giving in to a baying, lynch mob mentality.

      Of course, everybody is in favour of equality and fair treatment, but that swings both ways.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cane His Booty
      Cane His Booty

      @KyleW:

      I agree. Cane anyone who violates someone else’s privacy. A little caning would do him good and probably be a more effective way of rehabilitating him. Jail time is stupid.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @KyleW: said…

      “Personally, I have never felt that the consequences of a crime should affect the sentencing. Ravi could not reasonably have foreseen this result, and if he had, I doubt for one nanosecond that he would have acted as he did.”
      _______________-

      Oh yes, all his actions definitely point to a warm hearted sweet guy who never wanted to upset anybody. (Eye Roll)

      Mar 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @starz: Ravi did not genuinely apologize. His last email to Clementi came AFTER he realized that he was in trouble with his RA and that he might suffer disciplinary action by Rutgers. He was covering his ass. In that same email, he tells Clementi that he told other people about what he saw on the cam because he was confused and upset as to what had happened and he reached out to others for advice.

      That was a lie. We know, and Clementi knew, that Ravi was tweeting about a second viewing party. He wasn’t upset or confused and wasn’t reaching out for advice. But Ravi didn’t know that Clementi monitored his twitter, and he was in any event cleansing his twitter of his original tweets relating to the viewing party, so he thought that he could get away with this lie. The man is loathsome to the core. Stop trying to spin a tale of redemption because it really doesn’t reflect the real world. BTW, I understand that Ravi frequently yawned during his trial and even dozed off during closing arguments. Poor dear.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon
      Brandon

      I am sad for both boys.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 68 · “I”, who has a reading comprehension problem, wrote, “B, so you think what he did was wrong but not meant to be mean spirited?” Let’s see. You asked if what he did was “wrong”. I said it was but the question had been whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated certain laws. Now, why don’t you explain how the hell that has anything to do with whether he “meant to be mean spirited”? You didn’t even ask if he was, yet you try to draw a conclusion from text that clearly had nothing to do with that. Are you trying to convince me that you are not very bright?

      Mar 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 69 · “Steve [Different person #1 using similar name]”:: I don’t know what “ill-bred” means. Do you mean that I am the wrong race or ethnicity?”

      First, there are two people posting as “Steve”, and unless QUEERTY’s tag is misleading, you are a different one than the one I used that term for. That “Steve” had been posting non-stop personal insults. The term “ill-bred” traditionally means that the person was brought up poorly and not taught how to behave in public. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It probably has nothing to do with you either.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No 69: “You said that he had a 90% likelihood of acquittal on those counts. You thought that they were easy, not hard. And the other counts did not seem to confound the jury at all. Apparently, it isn’t that hard to convict someone of invasion of privacy when that person states on videotape that he intentionally invaded Clementi’s privacy. I guess the jurors just lacked your sophistication.”

      You didn’t read the charges, nor even a juror’s comment that it was a very difficult decision for them. The problem with proving a bias charge is to show that the victim (in this case) was targeted because of his sexual orientation. A bias charge would not be valid if Ravi was simply nervous about a roommate having sex in general or thought what he was doing was very funny for some strange reason related to immaturity.

      Also, you are simply wrong when you wrote, “Another example would be someone who thinks that the Ravi jury was going to be permitted to hear argument about what might have happened if hypothetically Ravi had gone back to the dorm room on Sept. 19 for a book.” The defense would have every right to argue that, if someone just gathered up some material quickly and left the room, one would reasonably expect that the person might return shortly afterwards for something he forgot. It’s fairly common behavior (for example, sometimes I’ll go out, lock the door, head to my car, put something in the trunk, and then realize that I forgot something, and go back to pick it up). That expectation however, has an impact on exactly when there would be a reasonable expectation of the sort of privacy one would want if engaged in some sexual activity. If the defense could have convinced the jury that Ravi viewed the web cam before Tyler had a reasonable expectation that he would not be observed (e.g., by Ravi returning to the room for a moment), Ravi might have avoided one count – not only did there have to be an invasion of privacy, but an invasion of privacy under circumstances in which one would reasonably expect to not be observed with one’s clothes off or engaged in sexual activity.

      Finally, trying to make a big deal of a typo or lack of proof reading (on a web site whose editors don’t seem to proofread very much) makes you look even sillier. Sometimes
      your “fingers” will remember patterns or words you typed previously and kind of autocomplete for you, resulting in the wrong word being typed – not the one you thought. Are you really too daft to know that are are you just being as ass (which seems to be one of Ravi’s primary characteristics)?

      Mar 17, 2012 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      MY UNFORTUNATE PREDICTION: For sentencing, Ravi faces a mandatory 5-10 years IN THEORY. Since it’s a first offense, and since Clementi’s family has been calm, and says that they are not out for blood, he will get closer to 5 years IN THEORY. With good behavior, and early release in NJ with the over crowded jails, with a 5 year sentence, he will be there just a little over 1 YEAR.

      ALSO, normally in New Jersey, he would have been hauled off to the slammer right after conviction, awaiting the formal sentencing, for a class 2 offense. Well, Ravi did not go to jail ! Lots of people do not like the statute under which he was convicted, and there is likely to be a challenge in the court of appeals. So, this will drag along for a couple more years, until we see what goes down with the appeal.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve [Different person #2 using similar name]

      I feel for the judge who must now make a sentencing decision. The particular sentence in this case may be less important than, that other students who are tempted to do similar things should learn from the example. Nothing can bring Tyler back. The news coverage will last a few weeks. If the lesson is taught to future freshmen, similar cases might be avoided in the future. If the lesson is forgot, there will be another case in just a few years.

      I would expect, at the least, Rutgers will add a section to their student manual for incoming freshmen, about the importance of respecting privacy of your room mate, and specifically about the use of web cams to spy on your room mate. A couple of paragraphs. In a perfect world, most colleges would add similar paragraphs to their dorm-student orientation materials. Realistically, most schools will not add those paragraphs until after several additional similar cases, including one in which the school is found liable.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Macmantoo
      Macmantoo

      What is said is it was an invasion of privacy. Clementi had the expectation of privacy in his room when his roommate wasn’t there. If this had been a straight couple I believe the same verdicts would have been there. As far as taking pictures of the IHop waiter, that is in public and clothed. In pubic he had no expectation of privacy, unless he is under 16 (in most states) then it could have been considered pedophillia.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • btseven
      btseven

      So many of you think that prison and deportation is too much…WTF? He isn’t a citizen! I think you commit crimes against our citizen of this country, you forfeit all rights to stay here. Do your time and get your fucken sorry ass out of my country!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 91 · Macmantoo wrote, “What is said is it was an invasion of privacy. Clementi had the expectation of privacy in his room when his roommate wasn’t there.”

      Not exactly – unless there’s an agreement, you can expect a roommate to return at any time and just open the door, with the only warning being the sound of the key going turning the lock. The web cam use is an invasion of privacy, but it is only criminal under specific circumstances: “An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.” Other sections make it a more serious crime if images, etc. are disclosed to others.

      There’s one curious part of the law: “d. It is an affirmative defense to a crime under this section that: (1) the actor posted or otherwise provided prior notice to the person of the actor’s intent to engage in the conduct specified in subsection a., b., or c., and (2) the actor acted with a lawful purpose.” If Ravi could have convinced the jury that he had a lawful purpose in looking after his possessions (satisfying (2)), then he could claim that his twitter posts, which Clementi saw, satified (1), thereby giving him a defense against the invasion of privacy law on at least some of the counts. That might not fly if he didn’t intend that Clementi would see the twitter posts (which Clementi did see), but then you would have to wonder about the bias charges – you can’t “intimidate” someone by spying on them with a web cam if they never find out that you are spying on them with the web cam and it seems that the only evidence that Clementi knew about the spying was what he saw on Ravi’s twitter posts. You end up in a situation where trying to intimidate Clementi by notifying him of twitter posts ends up implying the “prior notice” that can serve as a defense to the underlying charge (the crime for which the hate-crime enhancement applies).

      I suspect this shows that New Jersey’s laws need some updating to reflect technological changes – the law was undoubtedly written before video chat and twitter became widely used. As written, there are scenarios where you could theoretically get in a Catch-22
      situation due to quirks in the wording.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I
      I

      B, Ravi purposefully acted towards another human being in a way that violated his civil rights. Any reasonable person would know that recording another persons sex act and broadcasting it without their consent is wrong. Ravi crossed the line with his actions,

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      # B: Wtf kind of a callous, sociopathic monster are you? You’re not doing a good job of switching people to your side of that’s your intention. Especially on a gay website,

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jarrod
      Jarrod

      I hope they deport this SOB back to wherever the hell he came from!!!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jarrod
      Jarrod

      @btseven: I 100% agree with you!!!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xerxes
      Xerxes

      @KyleW:

      No one is saying that everyone has to “tip toe around” if someone is unstable. What is said is, do not commit crimes. There is no charge against Ravi for the death of Tyler Clementi. These laws worked exactly qs they were designed to do. Like I have said, it is the weakest who need the protection of the law the most. There are several people here commenting who evidently were lucky and have never experienced the consequences of homophobia. Many people have it really bad from homophobia. So Ravi says that he didn’t hate gay people. Hah. He certainly acted differently. His actions bespoke a total lack of respect for another human being, and were designed to demean Tyler Clementi, and make Ravi look like the cool dude. Fuck Ravi. He is a cool criminal, a convicted one. And everyone arguing that 10 years is too long, remember the way the New Jersey system works, he will likely get 5 years at sentencing, and in reality only serve one. One year for being a total criminal schmuck.
      May he be an example to all t he other ravis out there.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 9:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      B is a willing instrument of the bigots.

      Being a willing instrument in bed is one thing, but in politics it’s fatal. B is a rabid supporter of Obama’s bigotry re marriage equality and denies that Ratzinger, Der Papenfuehrer is an accomplice to child rapists in his cult. In the past has gone out of his way to support Rekers, the anti-gay child torturer and self-loathing anti-gay homosexual quislings like former CA. Senator Roy Ashburn.

      B thrives on being an anti-gay contrarian troll and should be dismissed. Replying to him only feeds his self-loathing, which is the core of demented personal life.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • monroeplace
      monroeplace

      No matter how long he’s in jail his life will be hell. I don’t envy him and I think he’ll be glad to see India again.

      Mar 17, 2012 at 11:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 94 · I wrote, “B, Ravi purposefully acted towards another human being in a way that violated his civil rights. Any reasonable person would know that recording another persons sex act and broadcasting it without their consent is wrong.”

      Sigh. your problem is that you are factually wrong – nothing was recorded. The term
      “recording” means making a permanent copy. Nothing was broadcasted either, On Sept 19, Ravi viewed a web cam from an adjacent room for a couple of seconds. Another person turned the cam on again for a few seconds. Ravi advertised that something would be going on on Sept 21, but claims he put his computer to sleep instead, and his roommate apparently turned off the power strip.

      Also, no sex acts were even seen – only a kiss, which is something lots of people do in public.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 95 · Phil idiotically wrote, “# B: Wtf kind of a callous, sociopathic monster are you? You’re not doing a good job of switching people to your side of that’s your intention.”

      Phil, you are yet another ill-bred moron – using terms like “socipathic moster” are way out of line. Your idea that there is even a “side” shows your limited intellectual ability to follow what I was discussing. I merely posted comments about what the law actually says, quoting it, and pointing out what the defense would have had to prove to get their client off. That’s relevant to the discussion. Quirks in the law are too – they are worth noting so any problems with them can be fixed.

      It’s also fair to ask if Ravi really intended to intimidate Clementi when there is no evidence that he told Clementi about what he was doing (Clementi seemed to have found out on his own). Instead, Ravi seemed to be more of a jerk who was completely oblivious to the effects of what he was doing. Clementi even said that Ravi was a pretty decent roommate, although he could be a real asshole from time to time. That’s not what you would say about someone who was really trying to intimidate you. It’s more likely that Ravi was simply trying to impress friends of his, all just out of high school, with how clever or outrageous he was. Did any of you consider that the problem might be that we are putting technology that can cause some real damage to people in the hands of individuals who don’t have a clue as to how to use it appropriately, and with at best haphazard efforts to educate them?

      BTW, there was a comment on the trail by a law professor on NPR yesterday. She pointed out that the laws were written some years ago, where very few people could afford the sort of equipment needed to spy on someone. The penalties reflected the effort involved. She thought the case was marginal (remember, it is not about to what extent Ravi contributed to Clementi’s death). One concern she had is that, if Ravi gets a severe sentence, that might trigger a public backlash against using such laws, particularly the bias-intimidation ones, which could discourage prosecutors (remember that the D.A. is elected by the voters) from using those laws. There are, of course, real problems with intimidation and the level of prosecution for such behavior is minimal. If you anger the general public by using such laws in a marginal case, you might end up with the laws not being used in far more serious ones where they could do some real good.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 99 · Bill Perdue · lied some more by saying, “B is a willing instrument of the bigots.
      Being a willing instrument in bed is one thing, but in politics it’s fatal. B is a rabid supporter of Obama’s bigotry re marriage equality and denies that Ratzinger, …”

      Pointing out that Obama’s previous statement about his personal belief on marriage while opposing efforts to put such beliefs into law, especially constitutions (Obama opposed Proposition 8) is not being a “rabid supporter” of anything. It is merely stating what the facts actually are, something the likes of Bill Perdue do not want to hear.

      As to the Ratzinger, Bill Perdue is simply lying. When people called him a former Nazi, I merely pointed out his age during World War II – he was still a minor and was more or less automatically signed up for the Hitler Youth (a legal requirement at the time). He seemed to have done the minimum necessary to stay out of jail.

      Perdue is also lying about Ashburn and Rekers. I merely pointed out that Ashburn did not really do any damage – he didn’t introduce any anti-gay legislation and he didn’t even speak in favor of any anti-gay legislation. He didn’t actively oppose any pro-gay legislation. He simply voted like all the other Republicans, but no vote was so close that one vote would have changed the outcome. He was probably too scared that he would somehow out himself (possibly by just sounding incredibly nervous) if he said anything.
      He attended one rally in favor of Proposition 8, but gave such a lackluster performance that one of the organizers said something like, “he didn’t exactly do a stellar job of motivating the troops.” He just said something about families or marriage being important, and (from what I remember) never mentioned same-sex marriages. And Bill Perdue thinks that is “defending” him. As to Rekers, I merely pointed out things like being able to carry bags at the end of a trip does not mean he could carry bags at the start (he was recovering from surgery apparently). Also that (after doing a test) that it was possible to find some guy’s contact page on rentboy.com via a google search for other terms – you didn’t have to go first to the rentboy.com home page.

      It’s interesting that Bill Perdue would try to resurrect discussions from a long time ago. It shows just how obsessed he is. Perdue actually shares some of the same characteristics that got Ravi into trouble – a completely lack of perspective of what is reasonable and what is not. He thinks that anyone not into ranting as much as he does must be on the other “side”.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      #b, irregardless of his intent, no matter what way you try to explain them away or justify his actions, what Ravi did was illegal. He should be punished for his actions.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 104 · Phil wrote, “#b, irregardless of his intent, no matter what way you try to explain them away or justify his actions, what Ravi did was illegal. He should be punished for his actions.”

      Nobody is trying to “justify” his actions. The question is whether the laws he was charged under are a good match for what he actually did. “Bias intimidation” for example seems a bit of a stretch when someone makes no effort to let the victim know that there is something to be intimidated about and the victim accidentally finds out on his own.

      It’s worth having a serious and non-inflammatory discussion about it because there is a reasonable chance that the laws we have need to be updated. I don’t think you want to “get” people who did something we’d consider to be wrong by stretching existing laws – stretching the meaning of a law to “get” someone you don’t like has been a traditional tactic to harass minorities, including LGBT individuals. If you stretch things enough, you risk a backlash against hate-crime laws, which I think are a good thing (i.e., the laws are a good thing) as hate-crimes are among the hardest to solve: a victim may be selected at random, there can be a lack of witnesses, and no traceable physical evidence such as stolen property, all of which makes catching the culprit and convicting him harder.

      Instead of a bias charge in Ravi’s case, maybe some enhancement for repeated attempts is warranted. that seems much closer to what he actually did and is consistent with what someone who lived in the same town that he does said about him – he apparently would take a joke way too far and do things that no one else thought was funny. If there isn’t such a law, maybe one needs to be added. I think the public in general would be more comfortable with an enhanced sentence for repeated actions rather than bias under circumstances where there was little to no evidence of what the public would typically view as bias (Ravi’s “keep the gays away” text message seemed to be in the context of joking about what might occur in his bed while he was sleeping in it, but that context is lost when reading individual messages a year or two after the fact).

      It is also worth discussing our current situation, where you buy a phone and end up with a video camera that can send what it picks up over the Internet, with a design that makes it easy to use surreptitiously. Then we give these devices to children and people that society deems to be too young to handle a can of beer, and are shocked that some of them use the technology in inappropriate ways. Parents in general aren’t going to do a good job of education on this – the technology is new for them too.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @B: No, the bias charge is correct, because anyone with a brai knows that if it had been a woman and not a man, Ravi would never have been interested in filming the encounter, let alone broadcasting it to others. This was a direct effort on Ravi’s part to out Tyler to other people in the most humiliating way possible. Hence, anti-gay bias.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 10:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 106 · Shannon1981 “@B: No, the bias charge is correct, because anyone with a brai knows that if it had been a woman and not a man, Ravi would never have been interested in filming the encounter, let alone broadcasting it to others.”

      Nope. you don’t “know” that, even if you believe you do, because you have no way of determining if he was immature enough to behave the same way no matter what the sex of his roommate’s partner. Even if you think he was biased, it’s not clear if there was any willful intimidation due to no witness or documentation indicating that Ravi told Clementi about the cam.

      Also, a very recent news article http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/18/alternate_juror_disagrees_with_rutgers_verdict/ contains a comment by an alternate juror, who stated that he would not have voted to convict Ravi of any charges related to bias because all sorts of things could have been going through Ravi’s immature head. This alternate juror also said he was “up in the air” on the other charges, but leaned towards a conviction on the hindering/witness-tampering charges. That indicates that the trial could very easily have turned out differently – if, for example, one of the jurors became ill and had to drop out. Whether you agree with this alternate juror or not, at least he had to sit there for the full length of the trial and pay attention to the evidence – all of it.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 11:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @B: We all have our opinions, but I really don’t think anyone in their right minds thinks anyone, even an immature college freshman, thinks there is anything funny or entertaining about a roommate getting a new girlfriend. However, due to the way many straight folks raise their kids to think about gay people, there sure is something entertaining and very interesting about that same roommate bringing home a new boyfriend. That is a fact. You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.

      Had I been on that jury, I’d NEVER have allowed the bias charges to be acquitted. Thank goodness the probably homophobic alternate juror never got a say.

      Mar 18, 2012 at 11:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 108 · Shannon1981 wrote, “@B: We all have our opinions, but I really don’t think anyone in their right minds thinks anyone, even an immature college freshman, thinks there is anything funny or entertaining about a roommate getting a new girlfriend.”

      Even if the “immature college freshman” thinks the “new girlfriend” is 30 years old?

      BTW, your claim that the alternate juror is “probably homophobic” is completely unwarranted – his statements were ones describing why he had reasonable doubts. He didn’t make any anti-gay statements at all.

      Mar 19, 2012 at 12:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @B: There is no reasonable doubt. If they had wanted true justice in such a case, they’d have started with trying to make sure there were some queers on that jury. Luckily, it looks like that got unbiased straight people.

      Mar 19, 2012 at 2:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      they got*

      Mar 19, 2012 at 2:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 110 · Shannon1981 “@B: There is no reasonable doubt.” People are going to have different standards about what “reasonable” is given differences in their willingness to see an innocent person convicted by mistake. This juror’s threshold seems to be more on the safe side (protection of the innocent) than the others. He has a defensible opinion.

      I don’t think “bias intimidation” really describes Ravi’s behavior. There isn’t good evidence that Ravi was motivated by bias (as opposed to simply being an asshole), and intimidation is problematic because he didn’t seem to be trying to let Tyler know what was going on. A better fit would be a law that made the repeated targeting of the same person a justification for an enhanced sentence, but such a law most likely does not yet exist (otherwise the D.A. would have used it).

      Mar 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.