Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  RUN-ON SENTENCE

Ravi Case Lawyers Start Appeal Of Convictions

And so, as Dharun Ravi serves his 30-day sentence, his defense attorneys have kicked off the process to start appealing his conviction.

From The Star Ledger:

…the defense is now challenging the constitutionality of the bias intimidation law under which the former Rutgers freshman was convicted.

Ravi’s attorney, Steven Altman, filed a notice with the appellate court, outlining his intention of appealing the convictions for bias intimidation, invasion of privacy, hindering his own apprehension and tampering with evidence for training a webcam on his roommate, Tyler Clementi, in September 2010.

The notice lists the proposed issues to be raised on appeal, including that the bias intimidation statute is unconstitutional as applied to Ravi and that several decisions by Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman, who presided over the trial earlier this year, “prejudiced the defendant’s ability to get a fair trial.”

We’re curious what the team will concoct to show how bias intimidation is “unconstitutional.”

Meanwhile, the prosecution is appealing the 30-day sentence:

The sentence was a departure from state sentencing guidelines that require a judge to find extraordinary circumstances to overcome the presumption of a prison term for the second degree convictions and replace them with probation.

Middlesex County First Assistant Prosecutor Julia McClure, who handled the state’s case, immediately appealed Berman’s sentence, but it could be years before the appeal is decided, according to court officials. The appeal immediately stayed Ravi’s sentence, but the young man decided to serve it anyway, in order to “get on with his life,” according to his statement, released May 29.

McClure told the judge during the hearing May 30 that she wanted Ravi sentenced to five years in state prison.

By:           Aaron Coleman
On:           Jun 12, 2012
Tagged: , ,

  • 73 Comments
    • Carl 1
      Carl 1

      Is it a 20 or 30 day sentence, Queerty? Either way, I’m glad the prosecution is appealing as well. Less than a month in jail is pathetic when his actions led – even indirectly and as part of a larger series of events – to the death of another human being. 5 years should be the minimum he serves.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Well, it’s a 30 day sentence that will be reduced to 20 days for good behavior.

      I am curious that I have seen no news reports about who is visiting him in jail.

      Also, has he ever been known to have a girlfriend? I do not think so. He had no peers of either sex of either sex attending the trial.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samwise
      samwise

      Wait a minute. Didn’t the guy apologize for his crime? If you appeal, you must think you’re innocent, and if you’re innocent, you don’t apologize. Ravi, when you get out of jail, keeping walking eastbound until you reach India.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sheena
      sheena

      deport this idiot PERIOD!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @sheena: @samwise: And where can we send all the butthurt bigots like you guys? Fighting hatred with more hatred is the perfect way to solve absolutely nothing.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kele
      Kele

      @Kevin, how is what they said bigotted? Sheena just called him an idiot, no reference to anything about his etnicity and Samwise didn’t use any racial slurs, just referenced Ravi’s native country (as I recall he’s not a natural born US citizen and is technically here on a student visa).

      Jun 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SofiaE600
      SofiaE600

      @Carl 1: Totally agree. His sentence was nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @Kele: All the “go back to India” references of any kind are unnecessary. Let’s not forget that he’s been found guilty of various types of privacy invasion; no one gets deported for that. Ravi won’t be going anywhere, and the bigots will just stay mad. It’s over. Let. Go.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexi3
      Alexi3

      @Kevin: But, Kevin, it’s not over. Even his own attorney’s are appealing his convictions on several grounds. If, as he stated, he is going to serve his sentence so that “he can get on with his life” why prolong the whole “ordeal” by having his own attorney’s appealing his convictions which will only keep this in front of the public for years to come. And why the apology, such as it was. No, there is something else at work here.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Janelle
      Janelle

      You all those caught up in homosexuality would care less if the person he taped was a woman. So stop your propaganda and agenda of “victim”, “bullying” ad nauseum. We are sick of the lies and distortions that homosexuals try to pull over society. I have lived in India and know that the media there does not portray homosexuals as normal, but deviant, as in Ellen DeGenerate.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexi3
      Alexi3

      @Kevin: and by the way, he wasn’t just convicted on “various types of privacy invasion” but with witness and evidence tampering and hampering an investigation. People do get deported for these crimes. Not that I am amongst those who are calling for his deportation. I can’t really see what that would solve.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexi3
      Alexi3

      @Janelle: love both your grammer and reasoning.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @Alexi3: Exactly, it doesn’t solve or help anything, and it certainly won’t bring Clementi back. They’re just being bigots because he’s an immigrant. What if it had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed American kid that committed these crimes; would that make it any better? These personal attacks should only be based on his character for what he did, not because he came from another country.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      It’s interesting how all the hatred and predjudice the gay community tends to throw out when we get mad can totally push you to empathize with the OPPOSING viewpoint.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      @Janelle: Are you lost, girl? Or is your life so filled with ennui that you feel the need to read material that will inflame your ‘sensibilities’, and then try to spark that fire in others? (Not coincidentally, this is where the internet term “flamer” comes from.) Either way, it must feel very sad to be just standing on the side of the road pining for the good old days when you didn’t have to acknowledge that ANYONE was gay, while the multitudes march toward a society of equality.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexi3
      Alexi3

      @Kevin: As I said I’m not in favor of deportation, but, I do think I understand why people are calling for it and I don’t think its source is based in bigotry. I think it’s based in frustration over what is perceived, by many, to be a very lienient sentence given that he could have been sentenced to 10 years. I think many people see it as the only way to achieve some measure of justice for Tyler. Added to the mix is the frustration and sadness many of us feel over all the suicides of young people because of bullying. I could be wrong and you could be perfectly right but I don’t think so, at least not for the majority of those who want him deported.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @Alexi3: Well I could be wrong, and you could be perfectly right, but I don’t think so. It’s not sadness. They just have so much hate and resentment bottled up that they can’t contain themselves sometimes. I’ve seen it with this story and so many stories before (particularly ones that involve colored people). Obviously OUR legal system didn’t see a need for Ravi to be deported, and if you agree with that, then you can stop defending these bigots.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • krandall
      krandall

      Who cares about his sexual orientation. I’ve known for years in a way that can’t be denied, but I’m more concerned about outing him from the cult he belongs to. The poor guy traded his identity first for a science fiction religion and then for his career (if you can call it that.)

      All he really needs is a good analyst.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @samwise: No he did not apologize.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Kevin: Let’s NOT “get over it.” What we need to “get over” are KAPOS like you.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Janelle: What do you mean by “caught up in homosexuality”?
      We’re not “caught” in who we are. Nor do we wish to “escape” into what we’re not.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alistercarmel
      alistercarmel

      A bunch of idiots. Leave him to get his life back. He did not kill. And Yes I am Gay and Indian and a Pharm D! Now get your lazy asses back to work. Why dont all of you write to the Politicians who are spreading the hate. The overweight bully Governor refuse to acknowledge Gay people. Get real people.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Kevin: “They just have so much hate and resentment bottled up that they can’t contain themselves sometimes. I’ve seen it with this story and so many stories before (particularly ones that involve colored people).”

      Where to be gin? Hatred and resentment are directed at the lgbt community and it’s OUR fault?

      And I love the “colored people” bit. There are zillions of LGBT “colored people.” ME for instance!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samwise
      samwise

      @Kevin: Well, Kevin, the actions we’re taking now, don’t seem to be working because the shit is still happening.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Dean
      Captain Dean

      I say a year in jail tops. (Perhaps six months.) Five years is excessive given that he’s a first-time offender and so young. Also, prison seems especially cruel for someone so young. He should be punished, but not destroyed/scarred to the point where he cannot be rehabilitated.

      Does anyone know exactly what his conviction means with respect to loss of rights in New Jersey? I looked up felony convictions in NJ, but it’s very nuanced and I couldn’t quite find what would happen to someone’s civil rights in Ravi’s situation.

      I’m hoping it’s: (1) permanent disenfranchisement, (2) bar to legal and medical licensure, (3) loss of right to bear arms. I say this because he has not once shown remorse – if he had, I would say let him practice law or medicine and be a part of the civic process, but it shows remarkable callousness that he was never once contrite, as far as I know.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • What the f**k
      What the f**k

      I think most people feel that they’re looking at “a next best thing “situation when deportation gets mentioned.They see 15 counts…. 20 days to serve….another gay man dead …..the accused now appealing his convictions. They wan’t to hit him where it will hurt him….I can’t argue with that!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Dean
      Captain Dean

      @Janelle: What does it even mean to be caught up in our homosexuality? If by that you mean sick and tired of being denied equality before the law and being treated as second-class citizens, then yes! If by caught up you mean continually angry and sad that so many of the politicians who decry bullying are themselves bullies beating us up under the color of law, then yes – I am very caught up in my homosexuality.

      Shame on you. What lies and distortions do you refer to? The reason this case is important is not because bullying is new. You’re right – it wouldn’t be all over Queerty/Advocate/TNCRM if it had been a woman, but I suspect most straight women would not have felt as Tyler did: compelled to hide and lie about who he was because of the mountain of lies and distortions clerical bullies perpetrate daily in the name of god and against people whose lives they know nothing about. This case is important precisely because it represents such a watershed moment: LGBT people finally have a legal mechanism to vindicate their rights in NJ and tell a national audience that homophobia is not something a decent society stands for. We have spoken up and said enough to all the shit that we have to put up with – some of us much more so than others.

      Janelle, you are a bitch and I’m afraid you’re banned from future Pan Am flights. You can try TWA.

      xoxo Captain Dean

      Jun 12, 2012 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • randalaw
      randalaw

      Just when I thought it would be safe to read LGBT news again, this twit’s face reappears. I am almost as weary of him as I was of Sarah Palin a few years ago. I will be so glad when we put this A-H behind us and forget that he ever existed.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BryanC
      BryanC

      @Kevin: I had to look up the meaning of the word “KAPOS” that another poster typed to you, and when I did, I thought it was most appropriate. You are the gay version of a Kapo, IF you are even actually gay. You are turning the outrage gay people feel toward a homophobe “bigotry” and that is shameful of you. Very shapeful. I noticed also, that you had nothing to say to Janelle after her anti-Gay tirade.

      @alistercarmel: His life back? Can his victim get HIS life back? You dismiss what he did because “he did not kill”. Look, you don’t have to blindly defend every person who shares your nationality. All gays are your peers, regardless of nationality, race or creed. Stand with us.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Janelle
      Janelle

      @Captain Dean: I use the term caught up in homosexuality because “gay” was the word decided by the agenda to make homosexuality sound less neurotic. Michelle Bachman uses the word sad instead of gay. People get caught up in this kind of behavior for a variety of reasons – sexual abuse, etc. I don’t know but a good psychoanalyst can help you recover your repressed heterosexuality. The boy who killed himself was mentally ill. Rational people do not kill themselves as their are so many other ways to deal with problems. I know that being caught up in homosexuality is comorbid.
      I looked up bitch in the dictionary and it says bad tempered or malicious – not that bad.Thank you.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @samwise: Boohoo.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @David Ehrenstein: Yep, it is your fault if you think it’s appropriate to fight hate with hate. Then you become just like any other bigot out there. Also, I’ve heard many guys say they would never date a Jew. It doesn’t matter that they’re gay because they’re still bigots for obviously thinking Jews are beneath them or aren’t as attractive to be with. Many gay bigots DO exist. You can also see in the other thread about the little black boy that was killed. This just makes gay people look quite pathetic. How can you people beg for equality and be bigots at the same time?

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @BryanC: I don’t know what a kappo is, and I also don’t care to know because I assume it’s something petty and derogatory; that just proves my whole point since I never called David out of his name yet he feels the need to do so towards me. If you agree with that behavior, you are just as ignorant and immature as he. That’s just what I mean by saying some of you guys are filled with so much anger and hate you can’t even be civilized in debate!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 9:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Myers
      David Myers

      @Janelle: How dare you claim we would not be upset if he had taped and broadcast a sexual act with a woman. It would still be a crime, although the male would probably be celebrated for “scoring”. You are clearly not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation. Go away.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Myers
      David Myers

      @What the f**k: Its time for a civil law suit against him by the parents of the victim. Monetary damages are indicated and desired!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Myers
      David Myers

      @Janelle: Begone ignorant troll . . . you have no power here!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      This arrogant punk hasn’t shown any genuine remorse through this entire episode. His only concern has been getting away with his deeds which, even setting aside the catalyst they became for helping lead a troubled young man to kill himself, was an egregious violation of another person’s privacy. Yes, and then there is the tampering with evidence and the clear indication that it was bias intimidation (motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim).

      Even though he was given a slap on the wrist, this wasn’t good enough for him. He and his lawyers have decided to appeal, adding more insult to injury. I hope the prosecution appeals the sentence, he ends up with 1-5 years and afterward is deported. We have enough natural-born bigots in this country. We don’t need to be importing more from elsewhere.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Myers
      David Myers

      @Kevin: We are not “begging” for equality under the law. We are demanding it! Yes, some gay people are racist and some gay men are misogynistic and that is extemely disappointing to me. I fight these bigots in my own community as well. I fought in the civil rights movement and I am white. I fought for the women’s rights movement and I am male. I fought in the anti-war movement and the anti-draft movement. I have spent a good part of my life fighting for GLBTQ rights and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life, and I will always oppose racism and bigotry by all – gay or straight. I’m 65 years old now and I hope to live to see a day when the bigots of all stripes are too afraid to show their true colors and too defeated to mouth their sick obsenities and longer. Good ridence to them all.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @Kevin: What is interesting, Kevin, is how folks who already hold prejudices against a group of people can use whatever convenient excuse — in this case claiming “hatred and prejudice” because of the outrage a community feels at one who committed a crime against another from their community because of that person’s sexuality and then goes on to exhibit no genuine remorse for that crime — as a justification for stereotyping and generalizing that group, or as you put it “opposing” them.

      It’s the same kind of deflection that bigots from the “opposition” employ all the time. Homosexuals are upset about the efforts of Black churches to enact anti-gay legislation, therefore, we must be racist. Right… And anti-Mormon and anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish and anti-immigrant and so forth. It’s a pathetic attempt to twist the victim into the villain. It’s also not working. Just among those who already had a great deal of prejudice against us to begin with.

      So you oppose us? Wonderful. I have no doubt whatsoever, like others who invent rationalizations why we should be “opposed”, that you already had your mind made up on “opposing” the homosexual community and our struggle for dignity, equality, long before you read this article. Indeed, long before this incident even took place.

      “What if it had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed American kid that committed these crimes; would that make it any better?”

      Nope, in fact, it wouldn’t make it any different at all. He’d still be a remorseless, self-centered, homophobic bully who deserves a prison sentence. And if he were, say, from Norway, they should still deport his ass.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PupDog
      PupDog

      @samwise:
      Amen to that.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @Janelle: Make no mistake, had Tyler Clementi been female and all else had been the same, there would have been a massive outrage in this country, Ravi would have few defenders (even you would likely have a change of heart), he would NOT have been given a slap on the wrist, and yes, there would be calls for his deportation. Most importantly, though, had Tyler been a female, the videotaping wouldn’t have happened in the first place…

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samwise
      samwise

      @David Ehrenstein: Actually, he did. But it was a tepid one that belongs squarely up ass.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samwise
      samwise

      @DragonScorpion: Hallelujah!

      Jun 12, 2012 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JayKay
      JayKay

      You leftists are a funny bunch.

      Dharun Ravi does nothing wrong, doesn’t kill anyone, still gets sentenced to a month in jail and you’re whining because the sentence wasn’t harsher.

      Meanwhile, some black transgender murders a man in cold blood, claims self defense, gets off with a slap on the wrist sentence, and you people were mad he was convicted at all.

      Liberal logic is an oxymoron.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Dean
      Captain Dean

      @Janelle: That was an unresponsive reply. Please try again for $200.

      The consensus among legitimate mental health professionals (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Medical Association) beg to differ with conversion therapy and hold the view that homosexuality is a natural variance in our species. Try wiki – it’s great! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#United_States_2

      Bitch perhaps was inapt, and ungentlemanly – ignorant is more fitting. Really, to presume to tell people whose lives you know nothing about that their sexual orientation is a choice or is really a result of repressed heterosexuality is worse than wrong – it is nonsensical. Have you ever hung out with a gay couple? Or been in a close friendship with a gay person? It would seem unlikely that you have, or at least that you didn’t observe a representative sample if you really believe that we are such bad people. We’re really not that different from heteros, except that we crave the romantic company of people of the same sex. And no, it’s not repressed heterosexuality or some evil conspiracy. We just want to live, love, and be treated with the same respect and dignity as our hetero counterparts.

      Read Merchant of Venice – Act III, scene i. (Though really the whole play is really brilliant.)

      I welcome counterarguments that are (1) logical, (2) responsive, and (3) not based in religious superstition.

      xoxo Captain Dean

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Dean
      Captain Dean

      @JayKay: Your premises are false:

      (1) Ravi did something wrong – a jury of his peers and the criminal justice system of NJ beg to differ with you. To say nothing of the fact that he invaded someone else’s privacy. The normative question of whether it was wrong is immaterial: he was guilty as a matter of law.

      (2) Without any facts in the second case you refer to, your statement is meaningless. Moreover, I’m fairly certain that your characterization doesn’t hold true for the majority of the LGBT community.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Dean
      Captain Dean

      Here’s Conservative logic:

      Premise: Small government

      Conclusions:

      (1) Legal bar to prevent same-sex couples from marrying

      (2) Christian theology under the name “Creation Science” taught in public schools

      (3) Banning of ethnic studies programs (in AZ)

      (4) The empowering of state police officers to compel private citizens to produce proof of citizenship (in AZ)

      The word oxymoronic comes to mind. In any case, it’s irrelevant: the point here is whether Ravi’s sentence was just and, more generally, whether LGBT Americans should be entitled to equal protection under the law.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl 1
      Carl 1

      @Janelle: Sexual abuse? Seriously? You buy into that disproven nonsense? People are gay, bi, straight or transgender because that is how they were born.

      Jun 12, 2012 at 11:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aki
      aki

      @Alexi3:

      But he’s not responsible for all the suicides and should not be punished for them . But that’s what a lot of people do , placing their pain and anger on a convenient target.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 12:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The truth
      The truth

      When a straight perv filmed an ESPN reporter in her hotel bathroom three times, she was mildly embarrassed and he got 27 months in prison and a place on the sex offender’s registry.

      This non-citizen douchebag humiliated TWO people, filming them not naked in their bathrooms but having sex, and one of them killed themselves as a result, and he gets 20 days and gets to remain legally resident in the USA.

      If this isn’t evidence of what a fucked up place America is, I cannot think of a better example.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 9:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just Shut Up Already
      Just Shut Up Already

      @The truth: So why don’t you move and make this country a little better? And you can’t blame suicide on anyone but the person who commits the act. In fact, suicide used to be a felony in the US and is still considered such in other countries even today. What shall Clementi be charged with for murdering himself?

      Jun 13, 2012 at 9:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Janelle: “Homosexuality” (a term invented bya a hungarian journalist — not a medical authority) was declassified as a “neurosis quite a number of years ago dear. Do try to keep up.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 9:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Kevin: Thisa is not a zero sum game, KAPO. When hatred is unleashed against the LGBT community fighting back is not hatred.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 9:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Carl 1: Janelle is a Fundie troll.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 9:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      Alright, let’s try this again as I forgot that Queerty likes to censor comments for no legitimate reason.

      @Kevin: What I find interesting is how folks who already hold prejudices against a group of people will use whatever convenient excuse they can think of — in this case claiming “hatred and prejudice” when a community shows outrage at someone who committed a crime against another from their community because they were a part of that community and then goes on to exhibit no genuine remorse for committing crime — to justify stereotyping and generalizing that group, or as you put it “opposing” them.

      It’s the same kind of deflection that bigots from the “opposition” employ all the time. If homosexuals are upset about the efforts of Black churches to vote in anti-gay legislation, we must therefore be racist. And, to hear the “opposition” tell it, anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-immigrant as well. It’s a pathetic attempt to twist the victim into the villain. It’s irrational. It’s also not working except among those who already held prejudice against us to begin with.

      Are there racists and bigots among us? Absolutely. We are, afterall, like any other group, diverse not monolithic. But it is in no way racist to condemn this punk nor anti-immigrant to suggest he be deported for his crime. For me and most of us, if he were “blond-haired, blue-eyed” and from Norway he would deserve the very same — prison & deportation.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • What the f**k
      What the f**k

      @David Myers: Agreed.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @David Ehrenstein: Fighting hatred with more hatred will always be hatred. Attacking this kid for being from another country is no different from the hatred Ravi had for gay men. You are all one in the same now. Congrats for helping to keep hate alive.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • What the f**k
      What the f**k

      @JayKay: Logic says you are a moron!

      Jun 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Queerty asked, “We’re curious what the team will concoct to show how bias intimidation is “unconstitutional.””

      Well, there are reasonable grounds for that – the New Jersey law (this is not typical of hate-crime laws in general) allow one to be convicted for actions that might be interpreted by the victim as being the results of bias, even if there was no actual bias on the part of person accused. One can argue that this makes the law unconstitutionally vague, and Ravi was apparently convicted of bias based on what the victim was assumed to have thought, at least for some of the charges.

      See http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-03/news/31539375_1_tyler-clementi-dharun-ravi-bias-intimidation/2 for an indication of the issues that will be raised in the appeal: “The issue raised in Altman’s motion focused on what one legal expert has called the “murky and confusing” part of the law that allows a jury to determine guilt based on a victim’s believed perception of events rather than the facts in evidence.”

      Jun 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Drake
      Drake

      @B:

      Have you ever met Dharun Ravi? Are you affiliated with him in any way, directly or indirectly?

      Jun 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 57 · Drake wrote, “@B: Have you ever met Dharun Ravi? Are you affiliated with him in any way, directly or indirectly?”

      Let me reply to your question by asking a question (this wise crack was original due to Barney Frank when asked a ridiculous question by a constituent): what planet do you spend most of your time on?

      Now, read what I wrote – I answered the question a Queerty writer asked, giving a citation and quote from a news source. In case you don’t know, there is a well-established legal principle of declaring a law unconstitutional because it is vague. The reason is that vague laws have a history of being used to persecute people the authorities don’t like as it is easy to apply such laws selectively. Historically such laws have been used to harass “undesirables”, the the criteria for being “undesirable” including a lack of income, being of the “wrong” race, or having the “wrong” sexual orientation. Given that, why on earth would you be surprised that Ravi’s lawyer will try such an argument? It’s a reasonable thing to try. Being reasonable does not mean he will win. Being reasonable means that the judge won’t figuratively roll his eyes and laugh at it. It’s the sort of argument any competent attorney might use. Even the judge who sentenced Ravi told the jury that the law was “muddled”. The judge wouldn’t have said that if the law wasn’t poorly worded at best.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 3 · samwise wrote, “Wait a minute. Didn’t the guy apologize for his crime? If you appeal, you must think you’re innocent, and if you’re innocent, you don’t apologize.”

      He apologized for what he did. He, or rather his attorney, is not disputing what he did, but rather whether what he did was a crime.

      It is pretty easy to generate examples of things you may do that are wrong and not a crime, as well as things that are a crime but not wrong.

      Examples: Adultery is generally considered wrong but not a crime, at least not today and in most if not all states. Smoking pot is not considered wrong by many but is a crime.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 48 · “The truth” wrpte. “This non-citizen douchebag humiliated TWO people, filming them not naked in their bathrooms but having sex, and one of them killed themselves as a result, and he gets 20 days and gets to remain legally resident in the USA.”

      This reminds me of the Russian joke that “there is no news in the Truth and no truth in the News.” (In the former Soviet Union, the official newspapers were Izvestia, which means “news” in Russian and Pravda, which means “truth”.)

      In fact, there was no filming – no permanent copy – just streaming, the equivalent to looking through a keyhole, and what was actually viewed consisted of some kissing, which most people would not consider to be sex. Also, while the judge recommended that Ravi not be deported, the federal government makes that decision and is not bound by what the judge recommends. If they want to, they can deport him.

      Guys, you don’t have to like Ravi, but if you want to have a rational discussion, it’s important to get the facts right.

      Jun 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @B: Ah, I see the Dharun Ravi legal defense counsel has arrived. {A wise crack, as you say, not to be taken too literally.}

      His lawyer may well be “reasonable” in pursuing the constitutionality of this matter, but if Dharun Ravi was genuinely remorseful then he should be telling his lawyer forget it. ‘I’m serving my time and then I want it behind me.’

      Jun 14, 2012 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 61 · DragonScorpion · wrote, [idiotic personal comment deleted] and “His lawyer may well be “reasonable” in pursuing the constitutionality of this matter, but if Dharun Ravi was genuinely remorseful then he should be telling his lawyer forget it. ‘I’m serving my time and then I want it behind me.’”

      In case you don’t know, his 30-day jail sentence was for obstruction of justice, not for invasion of privacy or bias intimidation. He acted like a little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but unfortunately it was the authorities’ cookie jar and they took it a lot more seriously than a parent would.

      And whether you like it or not, he does have a reasonable legal argument – even the person who wrote the bias intimidation law for New Jersey has said they didn’t get it right due to not anticipating current technology. Ravi’s judge didn’t particularly like the law either, calling it “muddled” (and he wasn’t siding with Ravi – he was just frustrated at trying to explain it to the jury).

      Jun 14, 2012 at 2:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @B: How amusing, you seem to think only you are entitled to interject “idiotic personal comments” {re: Barney Frank}.

      No, I suppose I’m not aware that he was given the jail sentence exclusively for “obstruction of justice” as I didn’t even know he was charged with it. My understanding is, Mr. Ravi was tried & convicted on numerous counts, among them, bias intimidation, invasion of privacy, witness tampering & tampering with evidence. His sentence was 30 days, 3 years probation and the typical community service/counseling schtick. Now he’s appealing that.

      Now, tell me again, in relations to my suggestion he should accept his sentence, what relevance did it have to state, “his 30-day jail sentence was for obstruction of justice, not for invasion of privacy or bias intimidation”?

      Speaking of tampering with evidence, I’d hope police officials would take that more seriously than a parent would a child getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar…

      Jun 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 63 · DragonScorpion said, “How amusing, you seem to think only you are entitled to interject “idiotic personal comments” {re: Barney Frank}.” LOL – that was not an “idiotic personal comment” but a question, “What planet do you spend most of your time on” in reply to some character who asked if I had met Ravi or was affiliated with him (which was in fact a personal comment from someone else”.

      Regarding “No, I suppose I’m not aware that he was given the jail sentence exclusively for “obstruction of justice” as I didn’t even know he was charged with it.”, by obstruction of justice, I was referring to the witness/evidence tampering charges, writing colloquially. I had read that Ravi decided to go to jail immediately because of those charges. Today, I found http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentencing_live_co.html which has a count-by-count breakdown. For most of it, he got probation. For the witness/evidence charges he got 30 days on a number of them (counts 12 through 15), with those sentences running concurrently. That apparently is what he is jail for right now.

      In addition, he got 30 days for bias intimidation. That does not seem to be included in the concurrent jail time, so his actual jail time (ignoring time off for good behavior) is 60 days, with at least 30 of those being appealed.

      All the newspaper accounts talked about a 30 day sentence. It seems there are 5 of them, with 4 out of the five being served concurrently. If he actually decided to serve all of the jail time to get it out of the way, he’ll be in jail for 60 days minus time off for good behavior. It also seems that the defense attorney’s request for a stay of the sentence was denied.

      The bias-related jail time was for count 7, “Attempted invasion of privacy Sept. 21, 2010 for tweeting an invitation for people to watch the second visit.” So, he got 30 days for a tweet of an event that never took place (Clementi killed the power while Ravi claims he had had second thoughts and shut down his chat application as well).

      Regarding, your question, “Now, tell me again, in relations to my suggestion he should accept his sentence, what relevance did it have to state, “his 30-day jail sentence was for obstruction of justice, not for invasion of privacy or bias intimidation”?” isn’t the answer obvious? People are mad at him because of what he did to his roommate. The other stuff was kind of silly. His attempt to influence Molly Wei were suggestions, not threats or bribes. His “tampering” consisted of deleting text messages and twitter posts that made him look like a jerk. Twitter posts are on servers, so one would presume there are backups that the police can get but that a university’s administration cannot get. Some people delete text messages regularly, or their phones do that for them, in order to save space or make it easier to find ones you really want to save. It sounds like a silly charge.

      Jun 14, 2012 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @B had previously asked someone: “What planet do you spend most of your time on”

      LOL! Oh yes, unlike mine, certainly there was nothing personal nor snarky intended in the aforementioned remark, neither when Barney Frank used the phrase, and certainly not when you did. How could anyone ever take it otherwise…

      In all practical terms, concurrently is well enough described as the time it actually amounts to, which in this case, is 30 days. Again, a slap on the wrist for his actions, in my estimation.

      B wrote, “So, he got 30 days for a tweet of an event that never took place”

      Riiight. Because planning to commit a crime (which suggests the deliberance of the first incident & certainly confirms motivation and bias) which was only thwarted by the actions of the victim isn’t at all sufficient to convict someone. Oh, except for in most cases. Thanks for the link, though. Yay for Wikipedia!

      “His “tampering” consisted of deleting text messages and twitter posts that made him look like a jerk.” ~ B

      Or, you know, deleting evidence of motivation. But who cares, we gotta get this guy off, right?

      “Twitter posts are on servers, so one would presume there are backups that the police can get but that a university’s administration cannot get.” ~ B

      Oh, and of course Mr. Ravi presumed this, too… He wasn’t trying to pull a fast one on the cops, not at all, just trying to get passed a university inquiry, that’s all. Pretty slick with the smoke & mirrors, there, B. ‘No, I swear judge, I didn’t delete those drug-dealer contacts from my phone to escape prosecution, I just didn’t want my mom to find out that I know a couple of drug dealers’.

      Sorry. Not buying it. I’m also not buying that his phone just happened to delete the most damning set of texts. Good luck getting a judge to. Apparently this one didn’t. Or perhaps no one even had the gall to try that defense? Maybe Ravi should have hired you…

      Jun 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No. 65 · DragonScorpion : in case you don’t know, asking someone “what planet do you spend most of your time on,” which is idiomatic for saying that what someone is saying is so far in left field that it might as well be from another planet, is an apt description of someone who asked if I knew Ravi when they don’t even know where I live. Meanwhile, your comment suggesting I was Ravi’s defense council really was an idiotic statement given that I simply pointed out what had been reported in mainstream news sources.

      Then you say “In all practical terms, concurrently is well enough described as the time it actually amounts to, which in this case, is 30 days.” The problem is that the judge’s sentence, reported in a New Jersey newspaper (The Star Ledger), not wikipedia as you suggest (when you wrote, “Yay for Wikipedia!”), clearly states that counts 12 to 15 consist of 30 days served concurrently, but there is one more charge that also gets 30 days, and that is not included in the concurrently served sentences. So, barring evidence to the contrary, it looks like he gets 60 days total. If you think otherwise, then provide a link to a credible source to back it up. The one I provided seems to contain a transcript of what the judge actually said or did.

      Then you wrote, “Riiight. Because planning to commit a crime (which suggests the deliberance of the first incident & certainly confirms motivation and bias) which was only thwarted by the actions of the victim isn’t at all sufficient to convict someone.”
      But what I wrote was, “he got 30 days for a tweet of an event that never took place (Clementi killed the power while Ravi claims he had had second thoughts and shut down his chat application as well)” and that is precisely what happened – Count 7 was the only bias one that resulted in any jail time and it was in fact for an event that had not taken place, and it was for sending tweets, not invading privacy. This isn’t a value judgment on my part, but rather a summary of what actually happened. It may be possible to tell if Ravi’s claim about shutting down the chat session is true, but I did not see any evidence one way or the other in the news articles about the trial, something I find rather odd.

      Then you wrote, “Oh, and of course Mr. Ravi presumed this, too… He wasn’t trying to pull a fast one on the cops, not at all, just trying to get passed a university inquiry, that’s all”. Well, that was quite likely his motivation – he didn’t want to be kicked out of school. He most likely panicked and didn’t think about the tweets being any sort of evidence. His friend Molly Wei spilled the beans to the police and at some point she said that she didn’t know at the time that she was doing anything illegal (remember that ‘illegal’ is not the same as ‘wrong’), only finding out after she told the police what happened.

      You go on to say, “I’m also not buying that his phone just happened to delete the most damning set of texts,” when nobody said his phone did that. I pointed out that deleting texts is not unusual. Also, if you read http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/rutgers_webcam_trial_ravi_dele.html you’ll learn that the deleted messages were provided by Verizon, as the company’s servers still had a record of them. It is not clear as to when he deleted the messages – whether it was after he might have thought the police were interested in him or merely after he realized that he could be in trouble with the administration. As to whether text messages are “damning”, interpreting them out of context can make them appear quite different than what is intended, and you don’t get subtleties such as tone of voice. Ravi’s “keep the gays away” text message, for example, was apparently a reference to his computer and in response to someone kidding him about having someone hop into bed with him. You can read it as bias or as mere teenage banter.
      Also, after the suicide, maybe Ravi felt bad and didn’t want to see any messages that reminded him of how crass he had been. Finally, if he was trying to hide something from the police, wouldn’t it have been safer to simply arrange for the phone to be lost or stolen?

      Jun 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @B: wrote, “in case you don’t know, asking someone “what planet do you spend most of your time on,” which is idiomatic for saying that what someone is saying is so far in left field that it might as well be from another planet, is an apt description of someone who asked if I knew Ravi when they don’t even know where I live.”

      And a snarky personal comment. I’m not necessarily suggesting there is anything wrong with that, mind you, just don’t act as though you’re above it when you yourself do the same.

      And yes, the Star Ledger. I know, I saw it when you posted it the first time. There are several references from the Star Ledger and many others in the Wiki article, as well. Not that you would dare use such a resource, I’m sure. ;)

      “In addition, he got 30 days for bias intimidation. That does not seem to be included in the concurrent jail time, so his actual jail time (ignoring time off for good behavior) is 60 days, with at least 30 of those being appealed.” ~ B

      No, his lawyer asked for a stay of the sentence pending the appeal, the state did not object. The judge stated, “I have disenchanted both sides, it is what it is”. He said he would not be granting a stay, other than the 10 days before Ravi must report to county jail. And apparently the counts 12-15 are to run concurrently with count 7.

      You asked for credible links about the sentence being 30 days, I have several, Queerty doesn’t seem to like that, I’ll try two

      http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentenced_to_jail.html
      http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/dharun_ravi/index.html
      And, from the one you provided

      “Former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi was sentenced this afternoon to 30 days in the Middlesex County jail in North Brunswick.”

      Let me know if you need any more. Of course, I’m sure they’re all wrong. Everyone reporting the story had all the details yet somehow turned 60 days into 30. Stupid liberal media and their gay agenda, probably. Who knows? I guess we’ll all know just how long his sentence actually turned out to be when his time is actually served, eh?

      Jun 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DragonScorpion
      DragonScorpion

      @B: wrote “But what I wrote was, “he got 30 days for a tweet of an event that never took place (Clementi killed the power while Ravi claims he had had second thoughts and shut down his chat application as well)””

      Yes, I know what you wrote. I read it the first time. Which is why I pointed out that planning to commit a crime, in this case invasion of privacy, which is what videoing someone engaged in a reasonably determined intimate liason would be {4th degree, as I recall, 3rd degree if shared with others, which was also the original plan according to the altered tweet}, is still attempting to commit a crime. It makes no difference that the victim, Clementi, cut power to the computer. An attempt is still an attempt, and whether you like it or not, he was found guilty of it.

      You think it’s silly that Ravi got time for arranging to invade Clementi’s privacy even though it didn’t happen? Fine. I think it’s more than justified. You think it’s silly to convict him on tampering with evidence to delete messages and modify tweets. Fine. I think his deleting them was an actual attempt to erase the evidence of his would-be crime, invasion of privacy, and his likely motivation for doing it, bias intimidation.

      You claim, “Well, that was quite likely his motivation – he didn’t want to be kicked out of school. He most likely panicked and didn’t think about the tweets being any sort of evidence.”

      Yes, it’s all too convenient. He simply “panicked”, and therefore the cops should have just overlooked his attempt to cover up what could be used as evidence of comitting the first incident, making plans for a second incident, and suggestions as to motive. Again, good luck getting a judge to buy that one. Apparently when you delete evidence the cops take it seriously. And, as I said earlier and I’ll say again, they certainly should.

      To my comment, “I’m also not buying that his phone just happened to delete the most damning set of texts,” you replied, “when nobody said his phone did that. I pointed out that deleting texts is not unusual.”

      Well, nobody except you, “Some people delete text messages regularly, or their phones do that for them, in order to save space or make it easier to find ones you really want to save.”

      Hmmm….

      Maybe Ravi did delete the messages because he didn’t want to be reminded of Clementi’s suicide. Not impossible. And maybe it would have been safer to have destroyed the phone. Maybe he figured that might be more suspicious. Or perhaps he just, as you said, “panicked” and didn’t think of a more definite solution.

      As to your last question. Just because he didn’t take the most drastic action in destroying said evidence, that does not mean his attempt to delete it was purely innocent or accidental. An example, if some accused embezzler were found to have deleted damning financial files on a computer, I don’t think his lawyer would get far with the defense, ‘your honor, my client could have destroyed the entire computer, but he didn’t.’ The feeble defenses you keep offering seem to me very unconvincing. Apparently, the defense that was employed, didn’t convince the judge or jury much, either…

      Anyway, you certainly go out of your way to invent 101 possible explanations that would exonerate Ravi from all the charges and any suggestions of his being prejudiced against homosexuals. You see, that’s why my previous figuritive description of you being part of the defense team seems ever more apt with each lengthy, detailed offering of various explanations, rationalizations, defenses and critiques.

      Jun 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 67 · DragonScorpion wrote, “And a snarky personal comment. I’m not necessarily suggesting there is anything wrong with that, mind you, just don’t act as though you’re above it when you yourself do the same.” But, I was replying to a guy who made a personal comment about me, suggesting that I knew Ravi (quite unlikely for anyone regularly posting comments on Queerty), so it was an appropriate response.

      Then you wrote, “And apparently the counts 12-15 are to run concurrently with count 7. You asked for credible links about the sentence being 30 days, I have several, Queerty doesn’t seem to like that, I’ll try two.” Can you read? I provided a link listing 30 day sentences for each of several counts with the judge stating that counts 12 through 15 were to run concurrently, with no such statement about count 7. I asked for a citation for an explicit statement that Count 7 would run concurrently as well. All you provided were links that mentioned a 30 day sentence, but the reporter did not mention that there were five 30 day sentences, four of which have to run concurrently. If someone is letting Ravi off the hook by letting Count 7 run concurrently with Counts 12–15, it is not the judge, at least not in that ruling. So, how did it happen and did it happen? I asked for a link for that and you did not provide it. I don’t need one for the “30 days” and you should know that – I provided a link to an article with a count by count breakdown of the jail time.

      Jun 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 68 · DragonScorpion · wrote, “Yes, I know what you wrote. I read it the first time.”
      You might remember the words and technically have read it, but you most certainly did not understand what you allegedly read.

      For example:

      You wrote “It makes no difference that the victim, Clementi, cut power to the computer.”
      But, what I said is that the tweet was for a non-existent “viewing”, adding as the reason the viewing did not occur was that Clementi cut the power and that Ravi claimed to have shut off the video chat session before Clementi cut the power, presumably due to having second thoughts. Those statements were merely a summary of the facts – what actually happened. Given a conviction, do you think that a 30 day jail sentence might have reflected those facts? Also note the word “claimed” – I presume the jury did not believe Ravi’s claim and I saw no evidence either way regarding its accuracy.

      You wrote, “You think it’s silly that Ravi got time for arranging to invade Clementi’s privacy even though it didn’t happen?” That shows you have poor reading comprehension.
      What I said was “rather silly” was the other stuff – witness tampering, deleting texts, etc. His “witness tampering” seemed to be a telephone call to Molly Wei asking her to not make him look like a real jerk. He did not threaten her or try to bribe her. It was more like a little boy saying, “don’t tell my mom.”

      Then you wrote rather dishonestly, ‘To my comment, “I’m also not buying that his phone just happened to delete the most damning set of texts,” you replied, “when nobody said his phone did that. I pointed out that deleting texts is not unusual.” Well, nobody except you, “Some people delete text messages regularly, or their phones do that for them, in order to save space or make it easier to find ones you really want to save.”’

      The problem is I had made a general comment about phones, pointing out that deleting text messages is not unusual for a variety of reasons and that some phones do/did that automatically. These were general statements, not ones about Ravi per se. The charges about deleting text messages would be a lot more reasonable if the police had told him to preserve whatever messages were on his phone. BTW, the first few phones I had were factory configured to automatically delete text messages after 3 days unless you ‘locked’ or ‘saved’ a specific message. That’s less common today (maybe nobody bothers anymore) because the phones have a lot more memory. I wouldn’t be surprised if some newer phones have an option to automatically delete old messages, with the option turned off by default.

      Then you wrote, “As to your last question. Just because he didn’t take the most drastic action in destroying said evidence, that does not mean his attempt to delete it was purely innocent or accidental.” Again you showed your lack of reading comprehension. I was pointing out that losing cell phone would have been a more reliable way of hiding things from the police because that’s something that happens to people – it is much harder to prove that someone intended to lose it. It suggests that Ravi wasn’t thinking very clearly if his intent was in fact to hide messages from the police. Also, many of us are well aware that when you delete a file, the data does not necessarily go away: a common file system implementation puts the blocks containing the file on a “free list” of some sort for future use and the data is not explicitly erased as that would slow down the file system. I would never try to hide things from the police by deleting text messages on a phone in the usual way because I know that it most likely would not work.

      Finally, you illustrated you lack of reading comprehension by saying, “Anyway, you certainly go out of your way to invent 101 possible explanations that would exonerate Ravi from all the charges and any suggestions of his being prejudiced against homosexuals.” But I’ve never done that. In some previous discussions, I pointed out arguments the defense might use, mostly technical ones, as an indication of the difficulties the prosecutor would face. I also posted corrections to statements that various people made that, according to mainstream news sources, were factually wrong. I don’t find it convincing that Ravi was really homophobic as his behavior could have been due to being an immature jerk at the time. Interestingly, at one point, someone from the town Ravi grew up in posted a comment on one of Queerty’s articles and stated that Ravi had a reputation for jokes (pranks?) that went too far, where only he thought they were funny and nobody else did. That seems sufficient to explain his behavior, so an Occam’s razor argument suggests that one should not add a “homophobia” hypothesis to explain Ravi’s behavior without a really compelling reason.

      It may surprise you, but some of us (it seems like a minority of us) actually want the facts presented accurately. That’s the basis of any rational discussion on the subject.

      Jun 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.