Rutgers freshman suicide after roommate broadcast gay sexual encounter online?

[jAZ]

Wow. Prank gone waaay wrong.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...gers_post.html

Rutgers freshman is presumed dead in suicide after roommate broadcast gay sexual encounter online

Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 5:42 PM
Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger



PISCATAWAY — A Rutgers University freshman appears to have killed himself by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate broadcast live images of the 18-year-old having a sexual encounter with another man on the internet, according to campus and law enforcement sources.

Tyler Clementi, 18, of Ridgewood, is presumed dead after his car, cell phone and computer were found near the George Washington Bridge last week, law enforcement sources said. His wallet was found on the walkway adjacent to the New York-bound lanes. In a statement released this afternoon, Clementi’s family confirmed the suicide and said his body has not been found.

Dharun Ravi, 18, of Plainsboro, and Molly Wei, 18, of Princeton, were charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy for setting up a camera in a dorm room on Sept. 19 and using it to view and transmit a live sex scene, said Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan.

Paul Mainardi of Woodbury, the Clementi family's attorney, said Ravi and Clementi were roommates at Rutgers.

Ravi's Twitter feed on that date referred to seeing his roommate have sex with another man in their room on the Piscataway campus, classmates said.

"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," Ravi said on his Twitter page in a Sept. 19 entry posted at 6:17 p.m.

Two days later, Ravi posted another entry directing his nearly 150 Twitter followers to iChat, an internet messaging service with a live video feed.

"Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again," Ravi wrote in the Sept. 21 post.

Ravi's Twitter feed has since been taken down. But the entries survived in a cached version of the page still available through Google's search engine this afternoon.

Prosecutors said Ravi and Wei set up a camera on Sept. 19 and broadcast live images of Clementi having a "sexual encounter." Ravi is also accused of trying unsuccessfully to broadcast a second sex scene Sept. 21.

The Clementi family released a statement this afternoon. "Tyler was a fine young man, and a distinguished musician. The family is heartbroken beyond words. They respectfully request that they be given time to grieve their great loss and that their privacy at this painful time be respected by all," it said.

"The family and their representatives are cooperating fully with the ongoing criminal investigations of two Rutgers University students," the statement said.

Clementi was an accomplished violinist who had received a college scholarship from the Ridgewood Symphony Orchestra for his musicianship and leadership.
The violinist left a lasting impression with some in the Bergen County town, said Hiro Kagei, 17, who played in the orchestra with the teenager. A solo Clementi played in a concert last year "blew the audience away," he said.

"Now that he’ dead, it’s sad to think we won’t hear something like that anymore," Kagei said.

On the Rutgers campus, classmates described Clementi as quiet. At a mandatory dorm meeting called the day he was reported missing, only three students said they had spoken to Clementi since they moved into the dorm last month, according to students who were at the meeting.

Ravi and Wei — who were classmates at West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North before enrolling at Rutgers this fall — did not respond to e-mail requests to comment Tuesday. Steve Altman, Ravi’s attorney, also declined to comment.

Ravi surrendered to Rutgers police Tuesday and was released on $25,000 bail, the prosecutor’s office said. Wei surrendered to the campus police Monday and was released on her own recognizance.

Under New Jersey’s invasion-of-privacy laws, it is a fourth degree crime to collect or view images depicting nudity or sexual contact involving another individual without that person’s consent, the prosecutor said. It is a third degree crime to transmit or distribute the images.

If the students are convicted on a third degree offense they could face up to five years in prison each under state law. Conviction on a fourth-degree crime could lead to probation or up to 18 months in prison.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

that'll be interesting in court. When I lived in the dorm I had no expectation of privacy.

Privacy and being videotaped without your knowledge are two different things. This situation is similar to the guys who plant cameras in women's bathrooms/stalls. You may not expect privacy from your roommate in a dorm. However, I think it's reasonable to expect not getting videotaped by that roommate without your knowledge.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

that'll be interesting in court. When I lived in the dorm I had no expectation of privacy.

Not really.

He had not only a 'reasonable' expectation of privacy, but an expressed actual expectation of privacy as he asked his roommate if he would leave and his roommate told him he would.

I don't think it's a close question in general (afterall, you're essentially saying that facebook is a harbinger of death for privacy laws), but it's certainly not a close question in this case.

Even if a court finds that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a dorm room (and think of the trainwreck that precedent would cause. How many holes would be drilled into the co-eds rooms at that point?), it's not applicable here. 'Reasonable expectations' went out the window once he was given an actual expectation.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Which is why the two kids are charged with a serious crime. It's a reasonable assumption that when I walk into work I won't get stabbed. It ever occurring doesn't negate that fact that it's a reasonable assumption.

no, it's not..disgruntled employess shoot people every year. going postal comes from?

They are charged with a crime because he took his own life...if he just threw a tantrum in the DORM, this wouldn't be an issue, other than possibly being reprimanded by school authorities, unless he pressed charges...and then it wouldn't be as severe

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by stevieray

no, it's not..disgruntled employess shoot people every year. going postal comes from?

They are charged with a crime because he took his own life...if he just threw a tantrum in the DORM, this wouldn't be an issue, other than possibly being reprimanded by school authorities, unless he pressed charges...and then it wouldn't be as severe

Really? Because people murder others I should expect to get murdered? Don't think so. I absolutely have a reasonable expectation to not get murdered at work. Maybe you don't understand the definition of 'reasonable expectation'.

As for your second statement, also false. Ever hear of Erin Andrews? The guy who did the peephole video of her got 2.5 years in prison.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by stevieray

They used to looked at prisons like hospitals. The worse it was, the longer you stayed.
I imagine a small number actually learn the lesson, or even want to. it's no secret that it isn't rehabilitve based anymore..prolly why so many end up back in the pokey after being released.

The recidivism rate for murder is by far and away the lowest among all violent crimes (danger: this is 5 year old knowledge, but that certainly used to be the case).

The bottom line is - if you kill someone you're 90% likely to not kill anyone else because the guy you wanted dead is already taken care of.

However, we punish murder far more harshly than things with high recidivism rates like robbery.

We do so not because we think it's more likely to 'fix' them, afterall 9 of 10 of them are unlikely to ever kill again. We do so because it's a heinous act that's more deserving of a harsh punishment.

Prisons aren't really intended to rehabilitate, they're intended to punish. The sentencing guidelines reflect that.

These folks acting in a manner befitting punishment. I don't care if they'll ever do it again, I don't care if they're really really really sorry. The conduct was reprehensible and they deserve some time in the poke for it.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Agreed [this was/is reprehensible.] Denying preventative healthcare to poor people...and businesses making money off people who don't have the self-control to not gamble are "cruel" too.

Should we send out indictments to folks responsible for those types of cruelty too?

Anyone?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Anyone?

Oh, heh...

I see now you thought that was some big "gotcha"

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Really? Because people murder others I should expect to get murdered? Don't think so. I absolutely have a reasonable expectation to not get murdered at work. Maybe you don't understand the definition of 'reasonable expectation'.

As for your second statement, also false. Ever hear of Erin Andrews? The guy who did the peephole video of her got 2.5 years in prison.

not in todays age..remember the person who was stabbed in a wichita convienance store, or the old man who got hit by the car? reasonable expectation would be someone would help them, not walk over them and take pics of them and then walk away....yet it happened.

there are video capabilities on almost every phone..we live in a video age.

if he truly wanted privacy, a dorm room was not the place for it.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The recidivism rate for murder is by far and away the lowest among all violent crimes (danger: this is 5 year old knowledge, but that certainly used to be the case).

The bottom line is - if you kill someone you're 90% likely to not kill anyone else because the guy you wanted dead is already taken care of.

However, we punish murder far more harshly than things with high recidivism rates like robbery.

We do so not because we think it's more likely to 'fix' them, afterall 9 of 10 of them are unlikely to ever kill again. We do so because it's a heinous act that's more deserving of a harsh punishment.

Prisons aren't really intended to rehabilitate, they're intended to punish. The sentencing guidelines reflect that.

These folks acting in a manner befitting punishment. I don't care if they'll ever do it again, I don't care if they're really really really sorry. The conduct was reprehensible and they deserve some time in the poke for it.

i don't punish my children just to punish them, i punish them to teach them a lesson...hopefully they learn from their mistakes. I'm sure this case will be no different.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by stevieray

not in todays age..remember the person who was stabbed in a wichita convienance store, or the old man who got hit by the car? reasonable expectation would be someone would help them, not walk over them and take pics of them and then walk away....yet it happened.

there is video capabilities on almost every phone..we live in a video age.

if he truly wanted privacy, a dorm room is not the place for it.

so blame the victim?

He was behind closed doors, he didn't nothing wrong. The wrongdoers were the 2 making a vidcast out someone's private sex life.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Laz

so blame the victim?

He was behind closed doors, he didn't nothing wrong. The wrongdoers were the 2 making a vidcast out someone's private sex life.

never said that..he made a choice, and so did they..neither was a very wise decision.


...it's like sending nude pics of yourself over your phone...you are basically putting yourself at risk...recently girls have committed suicide after their pics have been exposed.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by stevieray

i don't punish my children just to punish them, i punish them to teach them a lesson... I'm sure this case will be no different.

So a child and a criminal are the same creature?

You punish your children to prevent them from becoming criminals.

The criminal justice system picks up where parents have failed. It's why we don't throw 12 year olds in County.

The situations aren't even remotely analogous.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by stevieray

not in todays age..remember the person who was stabbed in a wichita convienance store, or the old man who got hit by the car? reasonable expectation would be someone would help them, not walk over them and take pics of them and then walk away....yet it happened.

there are video capabilities on almost every phone..we live in a video age.

if he truly wanted privacy, a dorm room was not the place for it.

So every time you step into a convenience store, you expect to be stabbed. Is that correct?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Metrolike

So every time you step into a convenience store, you expect to be stabbed. Is that correct?

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So you subscribe to a protectionist/rehabilitationist view of prisons. That's fine, a lot of people do.

Still others subscribe to a retributivist school. In that school, you go to prison as a punishment for your conduct. Not to protect society, not to 'fix' what caused you to act illegally, but to take a time out for failing to adhere to society's laws.

I'm of the retributivist school. These kids broke the law and that law carries with it jail time. As a consequence, they should go to jail.

If you're protected by society's laws, you're also beholden to them.

Oh God, this takes me back to law school, 1st year criminal:

The four basic philosophical reasons behind criminal jurisprudence:

1) removal
2) retribution
3) rehabilitation
4) deterrence