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.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm with you, Hootie. This is a lot like the "mean girls" incident a while back that led to a cute girl deciding to commit suicide. I think that some of the bleeding hearts around here connect with these weak suicidal types so they lash out at the tormentors with a vengeance. The tormentors are wrong, but jail time is an inappropriate over-reaction to this type of bullying.

What's a good punishment?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm with you, Hootie. This is a lot like the "mean girls" incident a while back that led to a cute girl deciding to commit suicide. I think that some of the bleeding hearts around here connect with these weak suicidal types so they lash out at the tormentors with a vengeance. The tormentors are wrong, but jail time is an inappropriate over-reaction to this type of bullying.

So, what's appropriate?

A slap on the wrist?

A promise they'll never do it again?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Don't you think there is a difference between taping someone in their private hotel and taping someone in your own room?

Do you think people should be able to place hidden nanny-spy cameras in their home to make sure the babysitter isn't abusing or ignoring your children?

Imagine a case where a nanny-spy camera catches the nanny inviting some dude off the street into your home for a quick sexual encounter. Are the concerned parents going to go to jail for monitoring her and exposing her malfeasance?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Imagine a case where a nanny-spy camera catches the nanny inviting some dude off the street into your home for a quick sexual encounter. Are the concerned parents going to go to jail for monitoring her and exposing her malfeasance?

There are several points of fact that must be established in order to respond intelligently to your hypothetical.

*Whats this nanny look like?
*Is she wearing a maid's outfit during this encounter?
*Is the guy camera-savvy such that he positions himself so we mainly get to see her money-maker or does most of the video involve viewing his hairy coin purse from behind?

[Jenson71]

Why would a nanny be wearing a maid's outfit? That's a complete uniform violation.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Imagine a case where a nanny-spy camera catches the nanny inviting some dude off the street into your home for a quick sexual encounter. Are the concerned parents going to go to jail for monitoring her and exposing her malfeasance?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine there's a pretty big difference between taping someone who lives in your house, and taping someone who is invited but does not live there. If you're banging in somebody else's house, I would imagine that privacy issues are very different?

[Pants]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Imagine a case where a nanny-spy camera catches the nanny inviting some dude off the street into your home for a quick sexual encounter. Are the concerned parents going to go to jail for monitoring her and exposing her malfeasance?

By definition, the nanny cannot have any privacy when watching someone's kids, because the kids are present with her at all times. She can't lock away the kids to make sure they don't stumble upon a sexual act she's performing because that would mean she's not doing her job.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Why would a nanny be wearing a maid's outfit? That's a complete uniform violation.

You see it your way, I'll see it mine.
Now leave me alone.
GODDAMNIT NOW I HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!

[Pants]

Also, this is nothing like the Facebook/text/school bullying case patteeu is talking about. In this case, there are clear laws already in place to deal with instances identical to this one.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Metrolike

By definition, the nanny cannot have any privacy when watching someone's kid, because the kids are present with her at all times. She can't lock away the kids to make sure they don't stumble upon a sexual act she's performing because that would mean she's not doing her job.

Eh, the ability to do or not do something sexual in nature...or doing or not doing a job doesn't have a bearing.

That nanny would at the time have permission to be in a private residence. Therefore establishing her own privacy. Not being the home owner gives her limits on things she can and can't do but it doesnt necessarily strip her of the ability to be in a position of having an expectation of privacy.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Imagine a case where a nanny-spy camera catches the nanny inviting some dude off the street into your home for a quick sexual encounter. Are the concerned parents going to go to jail for monitoring her and exposing her malfeasance?

Not the same. Are you broadcasting the Nanny in the sexual act across the internet for everyone to see?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

What's a good punishment?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So, what's appropriate?

A slap on the wrist?

A promise they'll never do it again?

I wouldn't have any problem with the school kicking him out or even with a criminal conviction that didn't include jail time or a life crushing fine.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine there's a pretty big difference between taping someone who lives in your house, and taping someone who is invited but does not live there. If you're banging in somebody else's house, I would imagine that privacy issues are very different?

There is. Of course there is and even the folks that keep putting forward these assinine, inapplicable hypotheticals know this.

It comes down to the expectation of privacy. The nanny has no expectation of privacy in your home. "But what if your yard-work ****s your dog in his doghouse and you happen to leave your cell-phone on your deck with the camcorder running and catch it...what, then hotshot?" Blah blah blah. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then there is no privacy to be invaded. End of story.

This kid, on the other hand, had an expectation of privacy in his domicile. We have some people trying to say that nobody has an expectation of privacy in a dorm room and they CONTINUE to ignore the ramifications of that precedent.

Yes, any court in the country is going to say you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own dormroom. If you didn't, a cop wouldn't need any kind of warrant to search it because it's the reasonable expectation of privacy that gives rise to 4th amendment protections. There is ample precedent allowing for an expectation of privacy in a communal living environment as it applies to Constitutional law.

But even if you don't - who gives a shit?A His roommate told him he would leave the room. Reasonable expectations don't matter when you have actual, but again, they keep ignoring this.

I don't see the point in hypotheticals here when there are obvious, stipulated facts to work within.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Metrolike

By definition, the nanny cannot have any privacy when watching someone's kids, because the kids are present with her at all times. She can't lock away the kids to make sure they don't stumble upon a sexual act she's performing because that would mean she's not doing her job.

Weak. The kids are taking a nap in the other room, which she can monitor via a webcam. Are you telling me that it's OK to monitor the nanny's bathroom visits because she's on the job?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

There is. Of course there is and even the folks that keep putting forward these assinine, inapplicable hypotheticals know this.

It comes down to the expectation of privacy. The nanny has no expectation of privacy in your home. "But what if your yard-work ****s your dog in his doghouse and you happen to leave your cell-phone on your deck with the camcorder running and catch it...what, then hotshot?" Blah blah blah. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then there is no privacy to be invaded. End of story.

This kid, on the other hand, had an expectation of privacy in his domicile. We have some people trying to say that nobody has an expectation of privacy in a dorm room and they CONTINUE to ignore the ramifications of that precedent.

Yes, any court in the country is going to say you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own dormroom. If you didn't, a cop wouldn't need any kind of warrant to search it because it's the reasonable expectation of privacy that gives rise to 4th amendment protections. There is ample precedent allowing for an expectation of privacy in a communal living environment as it applies to Constitutional law.

But even if you don't - who gives a shit?A His roommate told him he would leave the room. Reasonable expectations don't matter when you have actual, but again, they keep ignoring this.

I don't see the point in hypotheticals here when there are obvious, stipulated facts to work within.

Just putting this out there...were you caught in a compromising position with a member of the same sex at any point in your life?