It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rutgers verdict: Dharun Ravi guilty of hate crimes, other charges

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Rutgers verdict: Dharun Ravi guilty of hate crimes, other charges


www.latimes.com

A jury in New Jersey on Friday convicted Dharun Ravi, a former Rutgers student, of hate crimes, invasion of privacy and other charges related to his spying on his gay college roommate, Tyler Clementi, who later committed suicide.

Ravi, 20, sat silently and with no visible expression on his face as the verdict was read.

He faced a total of 15 counts in the case, which made national news in September 2010 after Clementi, who was 18, hurled himself from the George Washington Bridge in the New York City area after learning that Ravi had set up a secret webcam and captured him in an intimate



(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ajc.com
abcnews.go.com
topics.nytimes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NJ student secretly taped having sex kills himself
Rutgers Dorms Going Co-Ed After Gay Student's Suicide (I'm confused, are you?)
edit on 3/16/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I was very interested to find out what would happen with this case. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the original story where the Rutgers student commit suicide after being recorded and broadcast while spending personal time with someone.

It looks like they've done all but throw the book at Ravi for this. I personally feel like this is good justice, but it's an emotional case and a severe circumstance.

Do I feel like this was a "hate" crime? I'm not sure. I"d have to be inside his head to know what he was thinking. That being said, it's not uncommon for college age kids to make fun of others for things they do not understand.

Interesting to note was his defense:


Ravi had pleaded innocent to all charges, including bias intimidation – a hate crime – and said he only set up the webcam because he wanted to keep an eye on his property while he was out of the room. Ravi was not charged in connection with the suicide. The question of determining hate was key for the jury. Ravi could face up to 10 years in prison.


How do you feel about this?

Do you think this is a hate crime? Or, just normal behavior for a college age kid trying to get a laugh and some attention?

I can probably name at least 5 people I know who would have done the same thing if given the chance...all for a laugh.


www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3/16/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I personally don't believe in the whole hate crime concept. A crime is a crime, no one should be more protected under law than anyone else. That is how I feel about that.

As for this particular case, it was wrong, and an invasion of privacy to broadcast someone like that over the internet without their consent.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Here is video from the courtroom:




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I agree with poster above about hate crimes. Would this trial be in the national spotlight if Mr. Clementi had been straight, and had been having relations with a female? Probably not. Would there even have been a trial if those were the circumstances? I have my serious doubts. But does that make what Mr. Ravi did any less an invasion of privacy? Certainly not.

All and all, I believe justice was served.


Edit: Oh man, serious typos today. Sorry.
edit on 16-3-2012 by ProjectBlue because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I thought there was a woman, maybe his girlfriend, involved also. I would think if he was filming, that maybe he's gay too. It's a weird and sad story.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I personally don't believe in the whole hate crime concept. A crime is a crime, no one should be more protected under law than anyone else. That is how I feel about that.

As for this particular case, it was wrong, and an invasion of privacy to broadcast someone like that over the internet without their consent.


Definately. The legal system needs to put its foot down on guys like this. People are paranoid enough because of gov't intrusion into our lives and people like this make it worse. Besides, you gotta be a raunchy, perverted SOB to go out of your way to tape or even watch other people's private moments (ie. sex, picking their nose, in the bathroom) - gross!



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


I don't believe in "hate crimes" either. A crime is a crime is a crime, there doesn't need to be any special circumstance. I think his defense was shoddy, because if he broadcast the footage, then it was more than just a security camera. I don't think it should matter one way or another if the guy was gay or not. If he had secretly filmed his roommate having heterosexual sex would it have made the crime any less? The "gay" part and the "hate" part is just stupid, but it does sound like he committed a crime, and he should pay for what he did.
edit on 16-3-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I personally don't believe in the whole hate crime concept. A crime is a crime, no one should be more protected under law than anyone else. That is how I feel about that.


I've gone back and forth on the Hate crime for many years. Its more of a deterrent (which has worked) - - then anything else. Very few cases have ever gone to trial as a hate crime.

But then a case like this comes along. I feel this justifies the additional need for Hate Crime - - which allows stiffer sentencing.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Why should invading a gay person's privacy, hold a stiffer penalty than invading a straight person's privacy? I doubt I would be any less embarrassed than a gay person, if one of my videos were broadcasted on the internet.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Annee
 

Why should invading a gay person's privacy, hold a stiffer penalty than invading a straight person's privacy? I doubt I would be any less embarrassed than a gay person, if one of my videos were broadcasted on the internet.


Uh gee - - - because they are a hated minority.

You might be just as embarrassed - - - but doubt it would affect your life in the same way.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Why is this even newsworthy??? Seriously... They interrupted "the price is right" on the only time I watched it in about 5 years for this nonsense...

If you're coming with breaking news, let it be something that's actually important (has an impact) to millions at least.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakjive
It looks like they've done all but throw the book at Ravi for this. I personally feel like this is good justice, but it's an emotional case and a severe circumstance.

What if he wasn't gay?

This is a non-violent crime, he should just pay a small fine and that's it



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I agree with most posters that a "hate" crime is a redundancy. A crime should be a crime. No need to dig that deep into it. That is lawyer BS and they are part of the problem.

As far as Im concerned, the defendant was guilty of nothing more than being a major jerk. He knows the kid died in part because of something he did. But the defendant did not push the young man caught on tape. It should be enough just to let the defendant live with the facts of the situation. Keep the legal system out of this - its waste everyone's time.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Why is this even newsworthy??? Seriously... They interrupted "the price is right" on the only time I watched it in about 5 years for this nonsense...

If you're coming with breaking news, let it be something that's actually important (has an impact) to millions at least.


Im telling you - the public at large is fascinated with sexual deviancy whether they like to admit it or not. Nowadays, on a slow news day we get "Teacher busted for touching students or Someone's sex tape was released without their consent".

People get off on the sex stories and then love to talk about how bad the people involved are. Its very creepy.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


It's like this. Any adult in this country can reasonably assume, given the fact they live in our society, that being a homosexual comes with certain discrimination and ridicule. It happens, we all know it happens, and we know that being labeled such can lead to negative response from groups of people. If a person knowingly uses sexual orientation to add to the damage done, which he did in this case, that shows that he not only intended to invade this persons privacy, embarrass, and intimidate the person but also wished to cause additional damage by exploiting his sexual orientation.

The guy knew this person would face added damage as a result of his sexual orientation and as such should face added repercussions.

If I pushed you to the ground, that would be battery. If I pushed you to the ground in front of a moving car, even if you didn't get hit and suffered equivalent damage as the first scenario, I could very well be found guilty of attempted murder. Intent does play a part when crimes are committed. The intent to do EXTRA harm from an illegal act always tends to carry stiffer consequence. In this scenario, sexual orientation was used as a means to do extra harm.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


Homosexuals having sex is not sexual deviancy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I really dislike hate crime laws. I'm glad this kid is getting in trouble, his idiotic actions resulted in someone taking their own life but getting in more trouble because one group is more special than another is ridiculous. What if the gay guy had been black? Double hate crime?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


I could catch lots of flack for "selling out" and doing a white girl myself. I don't expect any extra protection for it. And how do you judge intent? Is that not thought crime, and totally up for interpretation and conjecture?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by TKDRL
 


It's like this. Any adult in this country can reasonably assume, given the fact they live in our society, that being a homosexual comes with certain discrimination and ridicule. It happens, we all know it happens, and we know that being labeled such can lead to negative response from groups of people. If a person knowingly uses sexual orientation to add to the damage done, which he did in this case, that shows that he not only intended to invade this persons privacy, embarrass, and intimidate the person but also wished to cause additional damage by exploiting his sexual orientation.

The guy knew this person would face added damage as a result of his sexual orientation and as such should face added repercussions.

If I pushed you to the ground, that would be battery. If I pushed you to the ground in front of a moving car, even if you didn't get hit and suffered equivalent damage as the first scenario, I could very well be found guilty of attempted murder. Intent does play a part when crimes are committed. The intent to do EXTRA harm from an illegal act always tends to carry stiffer consequence. In this scenario, sexual orientation was used as a means to do extra harm.


Why would the defendant assume he would face added damage as a result of his sexual orientation? I wouldnt have thought the law would go this deep into it the psychology aspect of things in order to make up some sort of criminal element to this situation . Thats not the purpose of the law.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 



Homosexuals having sex is not sexual deviancy.


Actually I would disagree a little bit with this. Anybody having sex purely for enjoyment is a form of sexual deviancy. It isn't procreation, so it is just sexual deviancy. Nothing wrong with that, it is an awful lot of fun!

In my opinion, all forms of sex, including homosexual sex, are just different levels of perversions. The biological instinct and urge for sex is procreation, so if we are knowingly taking precautions to avoid procreation, yet we are giving into the urges anyway, then we are all deviants! We just have to overlook the negative connotation of "deviant" or "perversion." We all have a healthy dose of perversion in us, nothing to be ashamed of, and it seems much more harmful to bury it than it does to embrace it.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join