PDA

View Full Version : Dharun Ravi found guilty in Rutgers webcam spying trial



GordonGecko
March 16th, 2012, 12:24 PM
NEW BRUNSWICK (http://www.nj.com/new-brunswick/) — Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty today on most counts in connection with using a webcam to spy on his roommate’s liaison with another man, in a high profile case that sparked awareness of cyber-bullying and harassment of gay teenagers.Ravi, 20, was found guilty of bias, invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension and witness tampering for spying on his former Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, with the jury concluding that he targeted Clementi, because of his sexual orientation.Sitting passively at the defense table, his parents seated in the second row behind him, Ravi showed no emotion as the verdict was read.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/dharun_ravi_found_guilty_in_ru.html

mariab
March 16th, 2012, 01:05 PM
I have been watching this trial as much as I can. This morning, they broke into regular programming and read multiple counts guilty or not guilty, and the foreperson answered for the jury. It made sense and I think the verdicts were just. Some of the counts seemed repetitive and sounded like they had the same language as a previous count, which I thought at first was each juror polling, but that wasn't it. I'm sure media outlets will list each count and their verdict as the day goes on.

Sentencing May 21st. I don't think he should be deported or do ten years, but he has to answer for this. As far as invasion of privacy, it doesn't matter if it was someone gay or the college slut doing the football team. It also doesn't matter that it was a dorm room. Tyler asked for it between 9-1230, the other guy said yes. The jury found there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy on Tyler's behalf.

Not all of the bias intimidation counts came up guilty, I'm pretty sure. I think the jury was trying to say that the other guy would not have filmed it & tweeted/texted about it if Tyler was with a girl. Either way, I agree with the jury.

GordonGecko
March 16th, 2012, 01:26 PM
I don't agree with the Hate crime conviction. Yes, Ravi invaded his privacy but he doesn't hate gays. He didn't kill the guy either, let's not forget Clementi commited suicide and this may just have been one factor of many in his action.

I can see this going to the Supreme Court and getting a ruling on the constitutionality of hate crimes

mariab
March 16th, 2012, 08:36 PM
Pretty sure the exact language of 'Hate Crime' wasn't mentioned. As far as bias intimidation there were some tweets that would support that charge. I'm sure they're posted somewhere. I haven't yet found a complete list of counts and charges (didn't know they were separate) and the jury's decision on each. Also, they did not charge him with Tyler's suicide. That would have been almost impossible to convict. Not because they couldn't link it directly to what Ravi did, but because Ravi couldn't possibly have known that Tyler would take his own life. The below article goes into it a bit.

Ravi found guilty on 24 of 35 charges in webcam case (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120316/NJNEWS/303160025/Ravi-found-guilty-24-35-charges-webcam-case?odyssey=mod|mostview)

12:44 PM, Mar. 16, 2012







This article is from a couple weeks ago but is more detailed on Ravi's actions, including some of his tweets/texts. It is a two-page article.

Witness in Rutgers webcam spying trial tells of talk about 'viewing party' (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120305/NJNEWS/303050019/Witness-Rutgers-webcam-spying-trial-tells-talk-about-viewing-party-)

10:59 PM, Mar. 5, 2012

stache
March 17th, 2012, 08:14 AM
Throw the book at this creep.

ZippyTheChimp
March 17th, 2012, 09:17 AM
Yes, Ravi invaded his privacy but he doesn't hate gays.I think his attitude toward gays is unknown, but a hate-crime is about motivation; it's more accurately called a bias-crime. Hate-crime gives the impression of physical assault.


He didn't kill the guy either,He wasn't charged in the death.


I can see this going to the Supreme Court and getting a ruling on the constitutionality of hate crimesThe issue has gone before the Supreme Court several times.

There are two notable decisions: R.A.V. vs City of St Paul (1992), and Wisconsin vs Mitchell (1993).
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp

Challenges based on Constitution Fifth Amendment "due process" clause: In this case, the crime was committed by a student at a university campus. There are laws that cover the responsibility of the institution to inform students of policy. Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990); Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997).

lofter1
March 17th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Would Ravi have done the same thing if his roommate had been straight and had a girl over for fun?

stache
March 17th, 2012, 06:33 PM
Well, he sounds kind of pervy so I'm going to venture a yes.

lofter1
March 17th, 2012, 07:24 PM
So if he would -- and had that been the case on trial -- would that mean that Ravi should have been found guilty (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120316/NJNEWS/303160025/Ravi-found-guilty-24-35-charges-webcam-case?odyssey=mod|mostview) of these same charges?

Count 2: Third-degree bias intimidation in regard to invasion of privacy charge by way of observation.
Guilty because Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation.

Count 4: Second-degree bias intimidation in regard to invasion of privacy charge by way of disclosure.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

Count 6: Fourth-degree bias intimidation in regard to attempted invasion of privacy charge by way of observation.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

Count 8: Second-degree bias intimidation in regard to attempted invasion of privacy by way of disclosure.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

mariab
March 17th, 2012, 08:21 PM
This is the most detailed article I could find with regard to each count & subsequent charge & its verdict. Many counts/charges seem repetitive & are slightly confusing.


Dharun Ravi verdict: Breakdown of charges

Friday March 16, 2012, 1:13 PM
STAFF REPORT
The Record

Full story: Ravi guilty of most serious charges in Rutgers webcam spying case (http://www.northjersey.com/topstories/ridgewood/031512_Verdict_imminent_in_Rutgers_webcam_spying_c ase.html?page=all)A charge-by-charge breakdown of the Dharun Ravi invasion of privacy and bias intimidation case and verdict.


Count 1 Invasion of privacy

With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
With regard to M.B.: guilty
Count 2 Bias intimidation, five separate counts

Invasion purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: not guilty
Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
Knowing conduct would cause Tyler Clementi to feel intimidated: not guilty
Knowing conduct would cause M.B. to feel intimidated: not guilty
Reasonable belief of intimidation: guilty
Count 3 Invasion of privacy

With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
With regard to M.B.: guilty
Count 4 Bias intimidation

Invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: not guilty
Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
Count 5 Attempted invasion of privacy, two parts

In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
In regards to M.B. guilty
Count 6 Bias intimidation

With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
With regard to M.B.: not guilty
Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
Count 7 Attempted invasion of privacy

In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
In regards to M.B.: guilty
Count 8 Bias with regard to attempted invasion of privacy

In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
In regards to M.B.: not guilty
Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
Count 9 Tampering with physical evidence: Guilty
Count 10 Tampering physical evidence: Guilty
Count 11 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 12 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 13 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 14 Witness tampering: Guilty
Count 15 Tampering physical evidence: Guilty
http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/crime_courts_news/Dharun_Ravi_case_Breakdown_of_charges.html

Ninjahedge
March 19th, 2012, 08:51 AM
It is difficult to say, but I think this guy is more a general ass than a targeted prick.

ZippyTheChimp
March 19th, 2012, 10:12 AM
What does that mean?

Ninjahedge
March 19th, 2012, 11:34 AM
It means he did not choose to be an ass to him because of race, creed, gender or orientation.

IOW, he did not "target" him out.

stache
March 19th, 2012, 04:48 PM
Answering lofter, I think he would have only been guilty of invasion of privacy with a str8 couple, possibly intimidation of a female if he wanted to brand her as a slut.

eddhead
March 20th, 2012, 04:21 PM
It means he did not choose to be an ass to him because of race, creed, gender or orientation.

IOW, he did not "target" him out.

I don't agree. I think he was clearly targeted because of his orientation.

ZippyTheChimp
March 20th, 2012, 04:41 PM
The problem with the way the court case unfolded is that the defense took the attitude that there wasn't any sort of crime, a "youth defense" where a kid acted dumbly. Maybe more accurate is that there was a crime with unintended consequences.

Still, the prosecution offered a plea bargain, by which the defendant would have received no (or very little) prison time, and no threat of deportation.

It's up to the sentencing judge now to find the appropriate measure.

GordonGecko
March 20th, 2012, 04:51 PM
He also should have taken the stand. That always backfires on a defendant and makes them look guilty as sin

Ninjahedge
March 20th, 2012, 05:19 PM
I don't agree. I think he was clearly targeted because of his orientation.

I think he targeted him because he was different.

As someone who got abused daily w/o having this "characteristic", I can safely say that people "hate" anything that is different than they are, for whatever reason that may be.

Maybe I would rather think of him as a generic ass than someone special....

eddhead
March 20th, 2012, 06:21 PM
The problem with the way the court case unfolded is that the defense took the attitude that there wasn't any sort of crime, a "youth defense" where a kid acted dumbly. Maybe more accurate is that there was a crime with unintended consequences.

Still, the prosecution offered a plea bargain, by which the defendant would have received no (or very little) prison time, and no threat of deportation.

It's up to the sentencing judge now to find the appropriate measure.

Agree that the defendant's posture was really arrogant. I can't imagine why they would not have taken the plea agreement.

mariab
March 20th, 2012, 09:18 PM
He may not hate gays or want to do harm to them, but this didn't help the bias intimidation part of his defense:


She testified that the exchange continued with Huang messaging Ravi and telling him to be careful of M.B. winding up in his bed. Ravi replied that he set his computer to alert him when people were in his room and texted, “Yeah, keep the gays away.”

I've read about different people over the years being called homophobe for far less.



And he specifically targeted him for the purpose of spreading the news:


Huang testified about Ravi encouraging her to spy on Clementi and his guest known as M.B. on the night of Sept. 21.
“Do it for real, I have it pointed at his bed and the monitor is off so he can’t see you,” Huang said about a message Ravi send her about Sept. 19.
Huang said the next message from Ravi read, “Be careful it could get nasty.”




This pretty much seals the douchebag tag on this guy for me:


Huang said Dharun Ravi sent her a text message on Sept. 23, 2010, after he learned Clementi had taken his own life that read: “He was quiet all the time and had no friends, so I guess it makes sense.”

GordonGecko
May 21st, 2012, 01:10 PM
30 day jail sentence, judge went easy on him

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/nyregion/rutgers-spying-defendant-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/nyregion/rutgers-spying-defendant-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail.html?pagewanted=2)

stache
May 21st, 2012, 01:57 PM
Wow.

Ninjahedge
May 21st, 2012, 02:04 PM
Meh.

You have to look at this one way though.

This was a case of fatal douche-baggery.

It was mean, thoughtless and cruel... but he NEVER intended to kill the kid. He wasn't even using anything "lethal" on him....

30 seems light, but how does that stack up with everything else? Also, will he be deported?

mariab
May 21st, 2012, 03:59 PM
No deportation, which is appropriate. I would have liked to have seen about 6 mos, because everything can't be swept under the umbrella of 'prank', but I also believe he did not intend to want Tyler to harm himself or be humiliated to such an extent that it would affect the rest of his life. He got 3 years probation too. This will also be a part of his permanent record.

As far as his attitude toward the whole thing, no remorse at all.


"I heard this jury say, 'guilty' 288 times -- 24 questions, 12 jurors. That's the multiplication," Berman said. "I haven’t heard you apologize once."

Prosecution will appeal.

Ninjahedge
May 21st, 2012, 04:16 PM
I am not condoning him or his actions (or lack thereof), but there may be some other factors in the lack of apology.

1. Continued denial.
2. Scapegoat (what he did was bad, but was it as bad as the national attention he got for it?)
3. Culture (is he not familiar with apologizing? Would this be something he would feel he had to apologize FOR?)

Again, I am not forgiving him his act, but the whole thing sucks in too many ways for all who even touched this defective monkey's paw.

stache
May 21st, 2012, 05:54 PM
'Permanent record'?

mariab
May 21st, 2012, 07:36 PM
Actually I was wrong. On the news a little while ago, in sentencing, the judge said to him, paraphrasing, In time, you can expunge this conviction, but you cannot expunge the pain you have caused.
Likely at the end of his probationary period, or a period as determined by the court, his record will be wiped clean. As far as deportation, it is not the judge's call (not sure whose it is) but he recommended against it.

National attention couldn't be helped, court of public opinion & all that. Some stories just take off while others stay local for various reasons.

Even if Tyler had not killed himself, in any culture there has to be some sort of self-reproach, however small, with an acknowledgement that your actions caused at least humiliation.
The judge pointedly said he never viewed this case as a hate crime case because he doesn't believe Ravi hated Tyler, and didn't have reason to. If anything he's guilty of 'colossal insensitivity.' Even after Ravi found out Tyler had killed himself, it didn't seem to faze him & he chalked it up to him not having any friends.

stache
May 21st, 2012, 08:30 PM
Total cop out.

ZippyTheChimp
May 21st, 2012, 09:56 PM
Scapegoat (what he did was bad, but was it as bad as the national attention he got for it?)It's an issue of national concern.

mariab
May 21st, 2012, 11:44 PM
^You can bet it will be a long time, if ever, that anyone in this country pulls that kind of 'prank' again after hearing the verdict and sentencing.



Total cop out. Exactly, PLUS he tried to cover it up, which means he knew he did something wrong, legally anyway. The taped interview with police is chilling. The detective is telling him it appears at that point, that Tyler has likely committed suicide. Ravi stares at him without moving. I'm under the impression he's frozen with fear/shame/guilt. The detective finishes what he has to say. Ravi starts talking. Well obviously, it was meant as a joke and something else I don't remember. Wow. He answered the cop as if he had just been accused of shaving his eyebrows off. The cop didn't give him any out though and was tough on him.

Ninjahedge
May 22nd, 2012, 09:02 AM
It's an issue of national concern.

Is it really?

Is it a news flash that "peers" can be a-holes?

ZippyTheChimp
May 22nd, 2012, 09:12 AM
Yes, really. Not necessarily this case, but what it represents. The fact that Ravi got caught up in it and got "famous" is too freaking bad. Maybe being generally regarded as an asshole was proper punishment. The fact that there was a wide range of opinion and a wide range between verdict and sentence shows that there isn't a national consensus on how much of a problem - or how much a crime - this stuff is.

Ninjahedge
May 22nd, 2012, 10:31 AM
The problem I bring up zip is not a validation of the action, but a statement that this is something that has been around, in various forms, for quite a while.

It sucks in more ways than one, but has been ACCEPTED by society. Although pop culture plays it and many people frown, the geek/pariah still gets his humility handed to him (or her) on a daily basis.

So why s his case so much worse? Because his actions predicated a suicide? Personal experience: public humiliation isn't the only way to get that. :(

I think the focus is wrongly placed. I do not disagree that what this kid did was wrong, but we seem to be skipping around what should be done to discourage this kind of behavior. All we have told many that still do this is to not post this stuff on YouTube... but it certainly has not stopped.

:(

stache
May 22nd, 2012, 11:24 AM
This will be a long uphill battle. Public lynching was an acceptable social convention in this country for a long time. Progress marches along.

Ninjahedge
May 22nd, 2012, 01:38 PM
It's been 30 years and it is still OK to beat up the geeks in High School..... :(

ZippyTheChimp
May 22nd, 2012, 01:44 PM
It sucks in more ways than one, but has been ACCEPTED by society.Obviously it hasn't.


So why s his case so much worse? Because his actions predicated a suicide?Who said the case is worse? He wasn't charged with any sort of homicide. The media interest is there because there was a death, but the issue is the same without it.


I think the focus is wrongly placed. I do not disagree that what this kid did was wrong, but we seem to be skipping around what should be done to discourage this kind of behavior.If - as you stated - this has been accepted by society, what do you suggest should be done?

Other than a through a case involving a fatality, how do you raise public awareness and official action.

Example: Greenwich and Reade St is a T-intersection. There's a playground and several schools nearby. For ages, neighborhood people have been battling with the DOT to install a traffic signal. The DOT resisted, stating there was no justification for it. Finally, they agreed to do a study, which went on for months. During that time, a preschool child was hit by a taxi.

End of study. End of argument. Traffic signal quickly installed.

stache
May 22nd, 2012, 02:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

mariab
May 23rd, 2012, 12:22 PM
This gets more ridiculous. I just saw on the news, but I can't find it online, that Ravi has earned 10 days off his sentence for "good behavior". What good behavior? What has he done to earn that, by not getting in trouble since this whole thing started? He hasn't even been incarcerated, he's been out on bail pending an appeal. Six months would have been adequate, one year would have been ideal. What happened here is lindsay lohan coddling california bullsh*t. He accepts absolutely no responsibility, not even a little bit, for what he's done.