Tyler Clementi’s Roommate Pleads Not Guilty to Hate Crime

[Willie Boy]

Won't be a popular thing to say here, but I don't think the "hate crime" charge was just. All of these others were, but not that one.

No it isn't popular. But I agree with it.

I've seen this opinion here before, and it isn't popular.

Why do you think the charge was unjust?

Why is the hate crime charge unjust? Because this wasn't a hate crime. This was just a stupid college prank that was in very poor taste (as many of them tend to be).

The problem is some people are just more sensitive than others to having their secrets shared openly. Should someone be punished for being stupid enough to share another's secret? Yes. Should that punishment be harder because the victim had a higher sensitivity than others? No. The hate crime rules should only be invoked in cases when the crime was committed with the intent to cause actual harm, not just mere embarrassment. Otherwise every crime against anyone would end up qualifying as a hate crime, even a simple traffic accident.

 

[fetaby]

it's not a matter of "excusing" his actions, but intent matters. it's something the jury will need to take into account when they decide the verdict.

if I stab a guy in the face and later discover that he was gay, it wouldn't be a hate crime... if I spot a guy coming out of a gay bar and stab him in the face because I hate gay people, that would be a hate crime.

The intent was to provide lolz to his friends. Because it's funny to see two gay men have sex.... I know it's hard to equate hate into this, but keep in mind they're laughing at you, and not with you.

No it isn't popular. But I agree with it.



Why is the hate crime charge unjust? Because this wasn't a hate crime. This was just a stupid college prank that was in very poor taste (as many of them tend to be).

The problem is some people are just more sensitive than others to having their secrets shared openly. Should someone be punished for being stupid enough to share another's secret? Yes. Should that punishment be harder because the victim had a higher sensitivity than others? No. The hate crime rules should only be invoked in cases when the crime was committed with the intent to cause actual harm, not just mere embarrassment. Otherwise every crime against anyone would end up qualifying as a hate crime, even a simple traffic accident.

Victim blaming? I see. But that doesn't change the fact that if Tyler hadn't killed himself this still would have been a hate crime. If Tyler was alive, the actions of Ravi remain the same. He publicized the illegal broadcast of his roommate for lolz. He wanted to prosper from hate. I said it before, yes it isn't a knife to the face. The hate is more subtle, enough that many people are missing it.

But I see where all this is going, before long I suspect not only would there have not been a crime at all but it will all be Tyler's fault for being gay and icky in the first place...

Oh wait, that's already been put out there...

This was just a stupid college prank that was in very poor taste (as many of them tend to be).

 

[fetaby]

it didn't seem like it was specifically motivated by homosexuality to me, and that Ravi probably would have done it anyways if Tyler was hooking up with a chick.

but that's the purpose of the trail. I'm sure the jury will have far more information than you and I about his motives.



that's a good point... to the best of my knowledge, Ravi is only being charged with illegally recording sexual acts, not manslaughter.

Ravi's lawyer, Altman, said he's starting to make his way through the evidence prosecutors have provided him, including 88 computer disks of material, 1,600 pages of documents and a list of 125 possible witnesses.

It's possible Ravi would have done the same thing if Tyler was with a woman. I think it's easy enough to see (for those willing to look or read) why Ravi was doing what he was doing. He wanted attention, from his circle of friends. And he was willing to use homosexuality to get that attention, and he was willing to do illegal activities to get that attention...

It's not talked about here a lot, I think many are trying to let the past be the past on this. But think about this....

He was wanting to do a second broadcast, to repeat the attention he received from the first. Including comments such as,

"how did you manage to go back in there?" "are you ok?"

Even if the first incident didn't have the intent of a hate crime, the conspired second incident surely did. And conspiracy to commit a crime, is indeed a crime.

 

[Willie Boy]

Victim blaming? I see. But that doesn't change the fact that if Tyler hadn't killed himself this still would have been a hate crime. If Tyler was alive, the actions of Ravi remain the same. He publicized the illegal broadcast of his roommate for lolz. He wanted to prosper from hate. I said it before, yes it isn't a knife to the face. The hate is more subtle, enough that many people are missing it.

But I see where all this is going, before long I suspect not only would there have not been a crime at all but it will all be Tyler's fault for being gay and icky in the first place...

Oh wait, that's already been put out there...

Are you trying to be a troll, or is it that you just don't understand what you read?

Not once did I blame the victim. I merely stated that this wasn't a hate crime. There is a major difference. And when you quoted what I said about this being a stupid college prank you conveniently (hopefully for your own merely misguided purposes) forgot that I started my post by saying that punishment was required, but only for the actual crime committed.

Please take the time from now on to make sure you are understanding what you read before you attempt to respond. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an overreacting troll. If it is your intention to be a troll, I'll just ignore you and let the Mods deal with you.

As for this:

The intent was to provide lolz to his friends. Because it's funny to see two people have sex.... I know it's hard to equate hate into this, but keep in mind they're laughing at you, and not with you.

Yes, their intent was to have fun over the embarrassment of another. That is hardly a "HATE" crime. That is the point we are trying to make. Yes, the asshole deserves to be punished, but only for what he did - not because we hate him. The desire of the gay community to exact extra punishment to him just to watch him suffer is more of a hate crime than his actions. Just a little something to think about. I adjusted the quote to help clear things up. Tyler wasn't really targeted so much because he was gay, but because he was accessible (he was the roommate), it isn't like he broke into "the gay's" room to mess with him, he messed with his roommate. Normally, when one person commits such hazing the recipient is then expected to "get even" by reciprocating. Granted, this ended in a tragedy. But again, this was not Dharun Ravi's intent, it was an unexpected turn and a waste of human life.

Just to clarify: He did invade his roommate's privacy on more than one occasion, he did out his roommate over the internet, he was heavily inconsiderate to the sensibilities of his roommate. BUT.... He did not commit an actual hate crime. He did not attack or kill Tyler at all, least of all with direct malice. His actions, criminal as they were, were perpetrated with the intent of entertaining himself and others, not hatred.

 

[fetaby]

Are you trying to be a troll, or is it that you just don't understand what you read? It was your choice to enter into this conversation. I asked why people thought this wasn't a hate crime, to which you're duty of the conversation is to provide an answer. So far you've done a piss poor job of that. But thanks for giving me the troll suit, green is my favorite color...

Not once did I blame the victim. I merely stated that this wasn't a hate crime. There is a major difference. And when you quoted what I said about this being a stupid college prank you conveniently (for your own hopefully just misguided purposes) forgot that I started my post by saying that punishment was required, but only for the actual crime committed.
I quoted your entire post, and an excerpt. Care to explain how that is convenient? I'm attempting to have a discussion with you, to understand why you think this isn't a hate crime.
Please take the time from now on to make sure you are understanding what you read before you attempt to respond. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an overreacting troll. If it is your intention to be a troll, I'll just ignore you and let the Mods deal with you.
Do as you will. I'm not capable of twisting your arm and making you post.
As for this:

Yes, their intent was to have fun over the embarrassment of another. That is hardly a "HATE" crime. That is the point we are trying to make. Yes, the asshole deserves to be punished, but only for what he did - not because we hate him. The desire of the gay community to exact extra punishment to him just to watch him suffer is more of a hate crime than his actions. Just a little something to think about.

Just to clarify: He did invade his roommate's privacy on more than one occasion, he did out his roommate over the internet, he was heavily inconsiderate to the sensibilities of his roommate. BUT.... He did not commit an actual hate crime. He did not attack or kill Tyler at all, least of all with direct malice. His actions, criminal as they were, were perpetrated with the intent of entertaining himself and others, not hatred.

And if you'd bother to pull your emotions away from this you'd understand that the hate crime charge isn't being applied to this case as an after effect of Tyler killing himself. The charge is directly related to his ILLEGAL use of electronic devices to invade the privacy.

His actions, criminal as they were, were perpetrated with the intent of entertaining himself and others, not hatred.

Ah, so it's okay to be homophobic as long as you do so with a smile on your face...

You can't say this isn't a hate crime when you do not understand what crimes were charged, what a hate crime is or is not.

Hate can be expressed in more ways than violence and anger. It's not always the dark and twisted emotion it's portrayed to be. Think on this, there has to be a pleasurable effect within hate to keep people wanting to do it. It is possible to harbor this hate and not be a psychopathic serial killer.

He did not attack or kill Tyler at all, least of all with direct malice.

Juvenile perspectives of the psychology of emotions does not make for a good argument. Nor does extraneous extremes and stretching the reality of what happened.

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1576

Permissive inference concerning selection of targeted person or property. Proof that the target of the underlying offense was selected by the defendant, or by another acting in concert with the defendant, because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity shall give rise to a permissive inference by the trier of fact that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

 

[justaguy]

I'm normally pretty lame on these boards, but I'm going to throw something controversial out there.

From what I understand, Tyler's parents are strictly, if not fundamentalist, Christians, and that Tyler was not out to them. Now, they appear to have taken the moral highground on this issue. But, is it possible that his parents beliefs led to a sense of shame on Tyler's behalf about his homosexuality, and the incident with the webcam might just have been the straw that broke the camels back ? Perhaps this is a lesson for fundamentalist christianity to heed as much as a lesson against peer bullying.

 

[chrisrobin]

I'm normally pretty lame on these boards, but I'm going to throw something controversial out there.

From what I understand, Tyler's parents are strictly, if not fundamentalist, Christians, and that Tyler was not out to them. Now, they appear to have taken the moral highground on this issue. But, is it possible that his parents beliefs led to a sense of shame on Tyler's behalf about his homosexuality, and the incident with the webcam might just have been the straw that broke the camels back ? Perhaps this is a lesson for fundamentalist christianity to heed as much as a lesson against peer bullying.

I think you're absolutely right. There is a book/movie called "Prayers for Bobby". The mother was a fundamentalist Christian and her anti-gay stance directed toward her son forced him to commit suicide. She is now very active helping gay youth to cope with their sexuality. I hope her effort will make a difference. She was not punished in a court of law, but I think her guilt might be sufficient punishment. To bad about son Bobby though.

 

[justaguy]

I think you're absolutely right. There is a book/movie called "Prayers for Bobby". The mother was a fundamentalist Christian and her anti-gay stance directed toward her son forced him to commit suicide. She is now very active helping gay youth to cope with their sexuality. I hope her effort will make a difference. She was not punished in a court of law, but I think her guilt might be sufficient punishment. To bad about son Bobby though.

That's why I said earlier that there may be more to this story than meets the eye. Tyler was broadcast (to how many people we don't know) kissing (not have sex) another guy. And for that he goes and commits suicide. To me it just doesn't seem to fit totally on its own. I don't know. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

 

[Zaphod]

Well then, I hope the jury does the right thing and finds him guilty on ALL charges.

Just so.

Their verdict, whatever it is, will say a lot about where we really are as a country.

 

[Nomenclature]

to charge the roommate with a hate crime, they'd have to conclusively prove that he knew Tyler was gay beforehand

Authorities say the case began in early August, when Ravi learned who he'd be rooming with in his first year at Rutgers.

Soon after that, he posted a message on his Twitter account: "Found out my roommate is gay," and linked to a thread that Clementi is believed to have posted on a gay community chat room.

Then on Sept. 19, according to Twitter archives stored by Google, he tweeted again: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

Well, those posts conclusively prove that he knew he was gay before they moved in together, and he wasn't happy about it. Then, he admits to turning on his webcam and spying on him, with a sarcastic "Yay."

and that the homosexuality was a driving force for his actions.

May be up to debate, but the Twitter posts are pretty damning, to me; he did this because he hated that he was gay, and wanted to humiliate him. It's obvious to me.

 

[vforvendetta]

Hate crime or not...Ravi is human scum and now his interest in humiliating and belittling others will have him put behind bars. I had plenty of experience with bullies in my school years and I simply have no tolerance for them anymore. I'm confident a jury will lock him up for an appropriate amount of time.

 

[Telstra]

I'm normally pretty lame on these boards, but I'm going to throw something controversial out there.

From what I understand, Tyler's parents are strictly, if not fundamentalist, Christians, and that Tyler was not out to them. Now, they appear to have taken the moral highground on this issue. But, is it possible that his parents beliefs led to a sense of shame on Tyler's behalf about his homosexuality, and the incident with the webcam might just have been the straw that broke the camels back ? Perhaps this is a lesson for fundamentalist christianity to heed as much as a lesson against peer bullying.

You are right.
People on here seems to forget about religion/society that caused Tyler to kill himself.

Some people on here just want to punish the tiny fish but ignore the much bigger fish which is religion and society as a whole.

I have heard enough and i vote NOT guilty !!!

 

[mydrew1]

What rubbish. We have no reason to beleive a heterosexual sex act would have been broadcast. He himself highlighted that Clem. was having sex "with a dude".

 

[doetim]

Won't be a popular thing to say here, but I don't think the "hate crime" charge was just. All of these others were, but not that one.

Forget if it's a popular thing or not. Here's my logic on it.

If the roommate (Davi or Ravi, whatever his name is) likes gay people, totally gay friendly, and let's say one of his good friends is gay. Let's just for the argument say that all the above was true. Would he have filmed Clementi and broadcasted to everyone saying things like "hey my roommate is having sex with a guy, let's watch, blah, blah, blah...". I don't think a gay-friendly person would have done that to their a gay roommate. He did this to humiliate his roommate and you don't humiliate people you like, you HUMILIATE PEOPLE YOU HATE! So with that logic it is a hate crime.

Pretty simple right?

 

[Willie Boy]

Forget if it's a popular thing or not. Here's my logic on it.

If the roommate (Davi or Ravi, whatever his name is) likes gay people, totally gay friendly, and let's say one of his good friends is gay. Let's just for the argument say that all the above was true. Would he have filmed Clementi and broadcasted to everyone saying things like "hey my roommate is having sex with a guy, let's watch, blah, blah, blah...". I don't think a gay-friendly person would have done that to their a gay roommate. He did this to humiliate his roommate and you don't humiliate people you like, you HUMILIATE PEOPLE YOU HATE! So with that logic it is a hate crime.

Pretty simple right?

Actually no. In the real world you humiliate anyone. Especially in college. Its a guy thing, guys have this way of bonding over humiliation and hazing. It can often be taken to far, but that doesn't necessarily make it a hate crime. It is still wrong, but not a hate crime.

Some people are more sensitive than other, and sometimes what is meant as a simple prank can easily be taken way out of context, but that does not magically infuse hate into the intent. Those who like to pull pranks do need to be more considerate of those who are more sensitive, this is true. But this tragedy should not be sullied by a malice that wasn't there at the beginning.

That is what is simple.

 

[freefall]

^Define a simple prank.

Because webcamming someone having sexual encounters, then attempting a second recording with expectations of the exact same thing...to me, even if Tyler's straight, it's really far from simple pranks.

 

[fetaby]

Actually no. In the real world you humiliate anyone. Especially in college. Its a guy thing, guys have this way of bonding over humiliation and hazing. It can often be taken to far, but that doesn't necessarily make it a hate crime. It is still wrong, but not a hate crime.

Some people are more sensitive than other, and sometimes what is meant as a simple prank can easily be taken way out of context, but that does not magically infuse hate into the intent. Those who like to pull pranks do need to be more considerate of those who are more sensitive, this is true. But this tragedy should not be sullied by a malice that wasn't there at the beginning.

That is what is simple.

For that matter, hazing is also illegal.

Anyway, humiliation doesn't just happen. It's not rain falling from the sky. It depends upon an agreement between the humiliator and the humiliated that something is humiliating. People can feel humiliated by something, yet no one else takes notice. People can try to humiliate someone but it doesn't work because that person sees no shame.

Humiliation can not exist without a foundation of shame.

But this tragedy should not be sullied by a malice that wasn't there at the beginning.

Schadenfreude... PLEASURE derived from the misfortune of others... is not a punishable crime. Creating that misfortune is...



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

Edit for trolling:

When you say it's a guy thing... are you implying that Tyler not being able to handle the situation means he wasn't a guy?

 

[Willie Boy]

^Define a simple prank.

Because webcamming someone having sexual encounters, then attempting a second recording with expectations of the exact same thing...to me, even if Tyler's straight, it's really far from simple pranks.

You don't have the standard college guy mentality. What, are you actually there to learn?

 

[fetaby]

You don't have the standard college guy mentality. What, are you actually there to learn?

Well somebody around here has to....

 

[freefall]

I see you're not answering the real question. Quit playing red herring.

Is it because you haven't experienced the pranks, be it simple or 'simple'? Or is it because you started pranks when you're in college, if you have been to one?

And define standard college guy mentality.