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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Maximum penalty, no.

So a slap in the wrist is enough penalty for 1) installing a hidden camera for the very blatant purpose of spying on the roommate, and knowing that there will be a little something extra on the side; 2) publicly broadcasting that video with the sole intent of humiliation?

I don't know the law very well, but I'd have to imagine that there is plenty of precedent for cases identical to this (minus the suicide)?

Do you really think getting kicked out of school is a slap on the wrist? Boy, slaps on the wrist have sure gotten a lot harsher since the days when a slap on the wrist was literally a slap on the wrist.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I had a Mormon roomate one year. I possessed the good judgement to take my trysts elsewhere. Just sayin'.

Translation = I jerked it in the shower.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by FAX

I knew a Mormon girl once (a couple of them, actually) ... they screwed like rabbits.

I mean exactly like rabbits ... with a carrot.

FAX

Indeed.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Brock

Besides being a lying, phony, disingenuous rat?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Do you really think getting kicked out of school is a slap on the wrist? Boy, slaps on the wrist have sure gotten a lot harsher since the days when a slap on the wrist was literally a slap on the wrist.

Yeah.

The poor bastard will have to go to Seton Hall.

The message you're sending is that, if you're young, intelligent, at least semi-affluent and 'immature', then we're just not going to enforce the law as to you. Throwing the kid out of school is a University decision. Community service is something you get when you're trying to get a speeding ticket listed as a non-moving violation.

What you're proposing doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.

He violated a state law, plain as day, and in a very serious manner. That state law proscribes jail time.

Even if you don't agree with me that the full 5 years is appropriate, I have no idea how you can say he should essentially go unpunished by the state.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah.

The poor bastard will have to go to Seton Hall.

The message you're sending is that, if you're young, intelligent, at least semi-affluent and 'immature', then we're just not going to enforce the law as to you. Throwing the kid out of school is a University decision. Community service is something you get when you're trying to get a speeding ticket listed as a non-moving violation.

What you're proposing doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.

He violated a state law, plain as day, and in a very serious manner. That state law proscribes jail time.

Even if you don't agree with me that the full 5 years is appropriate, I have no idea how you can say he should essentially go unpunished by the state.

Stop. You likely have a first time offender, with a 4th degree crime. 99% of the time it's just intervention.

The victim stated in the online chat room that he was certain the roommate saw nothing except kissing. It looks like the 3rd degree crime is tossed since there was no image of exposed private parts, no image of sexual penetration or contact.



1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
b. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah.

The poor bastard will have to go to Seton Hall.

The message you're sending is that, if you're young, intelligent, at least semi-affluent and 'immature', then we're just not going to enforce the law as to you. Throwing the kid out of school is a University decision. Community service is something you get when you're trying to get a speeding ticket listed as a non-moving violation.

If you end up with community service for a speeding ticket your lawyer got owned bad.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

What you're proposing doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.

He violated a state law, plain as day, and in a very serious manner. That state law proscribes jail time.

Even if you don't agree with me that the full 5 years is appropriate, I have no idea how you can say he should essentially go unpunished by the state.

In addition to getting kicked out of school, a serious punishment whether you acknowledge it or not, I've said that a criminal conviction and/or community service would be acceptable. This is considerably different than "essentially... unpunished".

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you end up with community service for a speeding ticket your lawyer got owned bad.



In addition to getting kicked out of school, a serious punishment whether you acknowledge it or not, I've said that a criminal conviction and/or community service would be acceptable. This is considerably different than "essentially... unpunished".

Getting kicked out of school isn't a state issue. It's irrelevant to the criminal prosecution. Should the state lighten the punishment if his parents promise to take his car away and ground him for a couple of months?

You seem to favor conviction on a misdemeanor rather than a felony, a misdemeanor doesn't even go on most resumes.

It's nothing. The state is essentially giving the kid a pass by making him plant a few trees and pick up garbage for a few weeks.

It's a double standard you're applying to young, intelligent kids precisely because they're young and intelligent. That's not how the justice system should work. If we're going to de-humanize the victim by ignoring the suicide and thus ignoring his sensitivities, isn't it fair to de-humanize the perpetrators by ignoring their age and future?

If you want to do this as clinically and technically as possible, these kids' futures are irrelevant, as was the victim's suicide. If you want to consider the ramifications of the punishment on the criminals, then you also have to consider the ramifications of their conduct on the victim (thus the suicide should come back into play).

Otherwise you're just all over the map on the factor you consider important in this matter.

(And as for the community service on a speeding ticket - the prosecutor in Columbia is a dick. He insists on community service for any SIS).

[ClevelandBronco]

For anyone that's interested, here's the video of the homosexual act:

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Getting kicked out of school isn't a state issue. It's irrelevant to the criminal prosecution. Should the state lighten the punishment if his parents promise to take his car away and ground him for a couple of months?

Technically speaking, it actually is a state issue since Rutgers is a state school.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You seem to favor conviction on a misdemeanor rather than a felony, a misdemeanor doesn't even go on most resumes.

It's nothing. The state is essentially giving the kid a pass by making him plant a few trees and pick up garbage for a few weeks.

It's a double standard you're applying to young, intelligent kids precisely because they're young and intelligent. That's not how the justice system should work. If we're going to de-humanize the victim by ignoring the suicide and thus ignoring his sensitivities, isn't it fair to de-humanize the perpetrators by ignoring their age and future?

If you want to do this as clinically and technically as possible, these kids' futures are irrelevant, as was the victim's suicide. If you want to consider the ramifications of the punishment on the criminals, then you also have to consider the ramifications of their conduct on the victim (thus the suicide should come back into play).

Otherwise you're just all over the map on the factor you consider important in this matter.

(And as for the community service on a speeding ticket - the prosecutor in Columbia is a dick. He insists on community service for any SIS).

I don't think it's at all inconsistent for me to take into consideration the future of the defendants even though I don't want to consider the lack of future for the suicide. The reason the kid died is because he chose to die not because they pushed him off the bridge. His death wasn't foreseeable, IMO. If it had been (for example if they had tortured him with high voltage and it resulted in heart failure), I'd take that into account as well.

I'm OK with a felony conviction, I'm just not OK with sentencing this guy to prison. Something like probation, suspended sentence, or community service would be OK with me. If the prosecutor were to decide that getting kicked out of school is punishment enough though, I'd be OK with that too.

Wow, that Columbia prosecutor sounds pretty harsh.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Technically speaking, it actually is a state issue since Rutgers is a state school.



I don't think it's at all inconsistent for me to take into consideration the future of the defendants even though I don't want to consider the lack of future for the suicide. The reason the kid died is because he chose to die not because they pushed him off the bridge. His death wasn't foreseeable, IMO. If it had been (for example if they had tortured him with high voltage and it resulted in heart failure), I'd take that into account as well.

I'm OK with a felony conviction, I'm just not OK with sentencing this guy to prison. Something like probation, suspended sentence, or community service would be OK with me. If the prosecutor were to decide that getting kicked out of school is punishment enough though, I'd be OK with that too.

Wow, that Columbia prosecutor sounds pretty harsh.

I don't understand why you continue to talk about the kid's death and the who, what, when, where or why. His death has nothing to do with the crime that was committed and whether or not the crime contributed to his death or not is irrelevant. Why are you taking any of it into consideration? They're not charged with murder.

[Zaiko]

Or manslaughter.. Yet people insist talking about the kid who died, only because the national media is.

What they were charged with does not require that the kid did anything more or less than go home and cry himself to sleep.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Technically speaking, it actually is a state issue since Rutgers is a state school.



I don't think it's at all inconsistent for me to take into consideration the future of the defendants even though I don't want to consider the lack of future for the suicide. The reason the kid died is because he chose to die not because they pushed him off the bridge. His death wasn't foreseeable, IMO. If it had been (for example if they had tortured him with high voltage and it resulted in heart failure), I'd take that into account as well.

I'm OK with a felony conviction, I'm just not OK with sentencing this guy to prison. Something like probation, suspended sentence, or community service would be OK with me. If the prosecutor were to decide that getting kicked out of school is punishment enough though, I'd be OK with that too.

Wow, that Columbia prosecutor sounds pretty harsh.

The court doesn't have jurisdiction to throw the kid out of school. That's a university issue, state school or no.

Death wasn't foreseeable, but wouldn't clinical depression be? And clinical depression surely isn't something to disregard.

You continue to trivialize what they did to this kid and the raw malice behind it. They weren't trying to be funny, they never thought he was going to laugh this off. They were trying to cause this kid at least some degree of emotional or psychological harm. Mission accomplished.

So if you're going to use a purely emotion barometer like "look at how much this would damage these intelligent young people's future", I don't see how you can disregard the inverse of that emotional barometer "look at the damage their malicous behavior caused". It's pure emotion one way or the other so why is one worth considering and the other not?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

I don't understand why you continue to talk about the kid's death and the who, what, when, where or why. His death has nothing to do with the crime that was committed and whether or not the crime contributed to his death or not is irrelevant. Why are you taking any of it into consideration? They're not charged with murder.

In this case, I'm talking about it because I'm responding to a post that brought it back up.

The "they're not charged with murder" angle really misses the point though. If the people calling for 5 years in jail are doing so in part because the kid committed suicide (as DJ's Nuts has agreed he's doing), then discussion of the relevance of the kid's death is appropriate even without a charge of murder. In fact, I'm the one arguing that the kid's ultimate decision to commit suicide shouldn't have anything to do with the punishment these kids face.

[Zaiko]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So if you're going to use a purely emotion barometer like "look at how much this would damage these intelligent young people's future", I don't see how you can disregard the inverse of that emotional barometer "look at the damage their malicous behavior caused". It's pure emotion one way or the other so why is one worth considering and the other not?

Homophobia is how