Tyler Clementi’s Roommate Pleads Not Guilty to Hate Crime

[doetim]

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.

There is a flaw in your argument I think. Hazing is pulling a guy's shorts down in front of people. In this case we have a straight guy broadcasting a gay guy having sex with another guy. I'm pretty darn sure if Clementi was straight and was making out with a girl his roommate would not have done what he did. The gay issue in this incident has a LOT of dynamics to it way beyond frat boys hazing each other. I think the hate crime charge will be easy to prove in this case!

 

[braex27]

An example should be made of Clementi - this sort of bullying and invasion has no place in this world. It's disgusting and it cost and young man his life!

 

[Nocturnal]

I almost passed out! I was thinking Tyler Oakley when I read this!

"Brian Moylan —Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers Freshmen who is accused of a hate crime and 14 other charges in connection to Tyler Clementi's suicide, plead not guilty in court today."

Love Oakley! Whew!

 

[Willie Boy]

There is a flaw in your argument I think. Hazing is pulling a guy's shorts down in front of people. In this case we have a straight guy broadcasting a gay guy having sex with another guy. I'm pretty darn sure if Clementi was straight and was making out with a girl his roommate would not have done what he did. The gay issue in this incident has a LOT of dynamics to it way beyond frat boys hazing each other. I think the hate crime charge will be easy to prove in this case!

As a gay guy you may think that, but that is not necessarily the case. There are far too many gays wanting revenge just because Ravi is straight. Would you all still be wanting the "hate crime" attachment if Ravi were also gay, or if Ravi were the gay guy while Clementi were straight?

I am looking at this objectively, not with.... hate filled, gay tinted glasses.

 

[fetaby]

As a gay guy you may think that, but that is not necessarily the case. There are far too many gays wanting revenge just because Ravi is straight. Would you all still be wanting the "hate crime" attachment if Ravi were also gay, or if Ravi were the gay guy while Clementi were straight?

I am looking at this objectively, not with.... hate filled, gay tinted glasses.

Not because he is straight, because he used homophobia as a weapon...

The law should not be about revenge it should be about justice... as such tacking on this hate crime charge is about justice.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if we want the charge applied or not, doesn't change what happened. And what happened is indeed a hate crime. So your hypotheticals aren't necessary, but I'll run through them anyway...

If Ravi were gay would he have friends that supported the homophobic attention he wanted? No. Would he need to broadcast Tyler to receive that attention? No, he'd just take the abuse himself.

If Ravi were gay, and Tyler was straight it would still be a hate crime. Ravi's friends would likely be gay as well, and what would ensue would be the typical woman bashing, breeder confusion that you see all over this board on a daily basis.

Ravi served that boy up on a plate to be humiliated and ridiculed by his friends. They all wanted to get a nice view of the freak show that is gay sex. Tyler was objectified on the basis of his sexual orientation. It is a hate crime.

There are far too many gays wanting revenge

And there you have it, the gays are the bad guy... again....

 

[Willie Boy]

Really?

Where is that the case?

Just read through this thread and you'll see the makings of a lynch mob.

I want justice done here under the court of law. Jurisprudence will prevail it is my hope.

Why do you consider the idea of removing the hate crime charge to be contrary to that?

This is not a case where some gay guys want revenge. It's not about revenge. It's about justice.

Now gay people are the bad guys for wanting justice?

This was a hate crime, and the evidence points towards the fact that it is, and I hope the jury accepts the argument because there is more than enough evidence to substantiate hate crime charges.

Justice is wanting him punished for the crimes he committed, not wanting him to face extra punishment because one hates him. Why is it that anything a straight guy does to a gay is automatically insisted to have been hate related?

I've said all along Ravi needs to pay for what he's done. But it wasn't a hate crime. I'm just pointing out that there is a very vociferous group within the gay community that is insisting because he is straight it is a hate crime. How does that make gays the bad guys?

If this becomes a gay vs straight trial there will be nearly no chance of it being just. The defense will insist that no gays be on the jury because they will not give Ravi a fair chance, convicting him just because he is straight. And since the defendant is guaranteed a trial by his peers, the defense will succeed. Do we want to limit the jury selection in such a manner? We need to keep the hate crime charge off it so as not to polarize the case. Keep it about what he has done and not about revenge (yes, revenge). Remember, Ravi did not intend to cause Tyler to commit suicide, that was just a very tragic circumstance based on many things, part of which is Tyler's family's views on sexuality. We can't blame Ravi for all of that.

 

[Telstra]

Not guilty

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

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

Actually, the question has been answered more than sufficiently. It's just not the response you want. Finding out ways to humiliate your room mate is part of destressing; you see it on Youtube all the time. It ranges from catching the guy in the shower and taking away anything that can be used as a towel to filming him having sex.

I think you're managing to solidify my position that this was just a prank gone wrong....

And define standard college guy mentality.

Somewhere between studying hard and letting pressure off. Surely you've seen the Boys Gone Wild videos or watched Animal House at some point in your life...? Otherwise, you may need to...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Name who are the people doing this. I didn't. I want him to receive a fair trial with applicable charges being filed.

Sure, if that's what you need to tell yourself....

Because it would not serve appropriate justice as prescribed by the law. I cannot understand those who advocate wanting to drop the hate crime charges. It makes absolutely no sense here.

ON the other hand, there are those of us who cannot understand the hate charges being added.

Oh but it was a hate crime, and until I see some proper justification on why you have this strange denial that it wasn't, I'll simply ignore anything else you say.

Sure, but to be fair your justification pretty much boils down to gay vs. straight without allowing that the behavior is a given.

And then you go around insulting and attacking those who want him charged as a hate crime, saying it's simply revenge and anger. It's not.

Unfortunately, that's how it's coming off.

By the way, what Ravi did was malicious.

There's been no disagreement of that. However, there is a disagreement on whether or not that maliciousness was due to Ravi being a jerk in general, or because he was homophobic. Hate crime charges should not be added just because he was a douche...

RG

 

[freefall]

Actually, the question has been answered more than sufficiently. It's just not the response you want. Finding out ways to humiliate your room mate is part of destressing; you see it on Youtube all the time. It ranges from catching the guy in the shower and taking away anything that can be used as a towel to filming him having sex.

I think you're managing to solidify my position that this was just a prank gone wrong....

If Ravi stopped at the first webcamming, that is a prank gone wrong, because clearly from that point, Ravi did it out of spontaneous mind and the unwanted effect was seen; Clementi acted out all panic and insecure has validated that to the point he searched for active webcam in his room. The problem is he continued. Humiliating? It's more than that. A catch is there, I don't know what: could be due to homophobia, could be due to satisfaction that Ravi knew Clementi's weak point and used it to torture him for his own pleasure, could be because he's jealous of something, could be thousands of other reasons I don't want to know.

And still you're not answering the 'simple' part. Or you saying it is simple when it hasn't caused distress to the victim or drove him/her insane/suicidal? So you can say, "Taping someone having sex OR making cruel untrue rumours is fine and simple as long as the target didn't feel small and wanted to die."?

And since when humiliating can be accepted as destressing just because people do it all the time? Might as well you justify bullying and torturing people out of fun and stress pressure and say, "Hey, I'm bored. Why not?"

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

And since when humiliating can be accepted as destressing just because people do it all the time? Might as well you justify bullying and torturing people out of fun and stress pressure and say, "Hey, I'm bored. Why not?"

Actually I haven't said anything of the sort, and I definitely agree that someone who does this kind of thing solely because they get off on it should definitely get nailed on it. That's not even an issue, however.

The problem is whether or not the "hate crime" extenuating circumstance is justified, something that you have not spoken to. That is, he is already being charged under the applicable laws and will likely go down. The question is whether or not there is enough to justify that or not. I'm just not sure that there is enough...

RG

 

[Críostóir]

It was clearly a hate crime, but the problem is that the hate crime enhancement applies only to certain crimes. This was invasion of privacy as a hate crime, but there's no provision for that in New Jersey law. The crime they did put the enhancement on is dubious in my (non-lawyer) opinion.

And I hope nobody's shocked that Ravi pled Not Guilty. Nobody expected this stupid bigoted motherfucker to tell the truth.

I hope he fucks an armadillo and gets leprosy, starting with his cock.

 

[freefall]

The problem is whether or not the "hate crime" extenuating circumstance is justified, something that you have not spoken to. That is, he is already being charged under the applicable laws and will likely go down. The question is whether or not there is enough to justify that or not. I'm just not sure that there is enough...

RG

If it were for pure satisfaction or to see him suffer, then it's an act of bully. I don't know what sentence will be taken from this, but it is still a crime. BUT if Ravi was found out to be bashing him because of the gayness, then yes, it's a hate crime.

The problem is Ravi had skewed the evidences to avoid lawsuit all this time and it is not impossible he had lied too. He had erased twitter status and several text messages which might lead to the true intention of the so-called pranks. Thus the important thing which haven't been explained by anyone, even the news: what is the true motive?

 

[Willie Boy]

But the thing to remember is that he most likely erased that stuff to avoid being caught, not to hide his motive.

Just because he was a major asshole and took what was intended as a simple hazing prank too far does not mean it was done with hate.

Yes Tyler's death is a tragedy. And yes, Tyler might not have committed suicide if he had not have been outted as he was, but that can't all be laid at Tyler's feet. The parents (and society as a whole) share a bit of the blame for that.

That said, there is a good chance for a wrongful death lawsuit, but should the parents be allowed to cash in on their son's death, especially considering their fundamental beliefs had a hand in his decision? Maybe the funds should go to a non-profit agency that deals with suicide awareness in the hopes of preventing future losses of life....

That would be a far better solution than any hateful attempts to exact a pound of flesh for something that was a stupid mistake carried too far from the beginning.

 

[Críostóir]

But the thing to remember is that he most likely erased that stuff to avoid being caught, not to hide his motive.

No way. He'd streamed the video live on the internet. He'd tweeted about it. He knew he was going to get caught.

No, he was a homophobe and he humiliated Tyler for that reason. And the jury will find that or not according to their own homophobia or lack of same, not because of the facts, which are clear.

 

[Kulindahr]

How did this event become "cruel" yet not a hate crime?

Good question.

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.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is generally not a crime for misdemeanors, but always for felonies.

That aside, yes: the conspiracy to invade privacy and humiliate a second time is an entirely different matter. That is the crux.

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.

But do we really expect many of them to understand that they aren't being loving?

^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.

If Tyler had been straight, it would be internet porn....

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

Most of the college guys I knew didn't have that mentality. Hazing was wrapping people in saran wrap, putting koolaid in shower heads, changing someone's alarm to the wrong time, switching a car for an identical but trashed one, filling a closet with popcorn. The people who humiliated others were not considered kool -- not in the frats, not in the co-ops, not in the dorms. The ones who thought something like this was a "prank" were the rednecks who weren't there to learn, just to have fun, use taxpayers' money to party, and hope that their piece of paper with a university's name on it would get them a higher income than without.

The only variance from that was Christian groups and Muslim groups who made an exception for gays, whom they loved to hate.

 

[justaguy]

Kuli. You always put up good arguments.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli. You always put up good arguments.

Comes from spending time relaxing in Fun & Games.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Most of the college guys I knew didn't have that mentality. Hazing was wrapping people in saran wrap, putting koolaid in shower heads, changing someone's alarm to the wrong time, switching a car for an identical but trashed one, filling a closet with popcorn. The people who humiliated others were not considered kool -- not in the frats, not in the co-ops, not in the dorms. The ones who thought something like this was a "prank" were the rednecks who weren't there to learn, just to have fun, use taxpayers' money to party, and hope that their piece of paper with a university's name on it would get them a higher income than without.

You had me right up until...rednecks. In general, I always seemed to notice it was the rich kids that did the more heinous stuff, as they felt that they could get away with it. Not only did they feel that they had the least worry about if they got caught, but they figured the poor boys wouldn't complain for fear of the situation coming back to bite them. Everyone else pulled pranks, but the guys there on a scholarship tended towards clever and the middle class towards huge set-ups. It was those who did it as an exercise in power you had to watch out for....

The only variance from that was Christian groups and Muslim groups who made an exception for gays, whom they loved to hate.

No offense, but if you really wanted to see victims, it was usually the more Puritanical. But then everyone had their own perspective on who was victimized more....

RG

 

[rareboy]

I'll be happy if this just ruins Tyler's room-mate's life.

Is that too much to ask?