Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The future of Dharun Ravi, a former Rutgers University student charged with secretly viewing his roommate in a sexual encounter with another man, could rest on how jurors interpret his actions.
In opening arguments Friday at Ravi's trial, a Superior Court jury heard two versions of a case that gay-rights advocates say underscores the problems of harassment and bullying faced by homosexual teenagers. The story attracted international attention after Ravi's roommate, Tyler Clementi, 18, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge days after learning that Ravi had used a laptop webcam to spy on him with a man.
McClure called Ravi's actions "malicious and criminal," and argued that he set out to harass and intimidate Clementi because he was gay.
Ravi, who will turn 20 on Tuesday, is not a bigot and is not homophobic, Altman said.
At the time of the incidents described in the criminal case, he said, his client was "an 18-year-old boy" beginning his first year in college. Ravi "might have been stupid," Altman said, "but he certainly wasn't a criminal."
One thing is for sure, Clementi was deeply ashamed of his homosexuality.
I wonder if he was born with that shame or if he chose it?
It was on par with some of the things we did in college. Nothing was off limits
Ravi is a first class asshole, but I don't think it was criminal beyond invasion of privacy. Ravi will pay for the rest of his life and will be a social outcast
Ohhhh....he was THAT guy?
It was on par with some of the things we did in college. Nothing was off limits
Ravi is a first class asshole, but I don't think it was criminal beyond invasion of privacy. Ravi will pay for the rest of his life and will be a social outcast
Ohhhh....he was THAT guy?
Negs on the way
The future of Dharun Ravi, a former Rutgers University student charged with secretly viewing his roommate in a sexual encounter with another man, could rest on how jurors interpret his actions.
In opening arguments Friday at Ravi's trial, a Superior Court jury heard two versions of a case that gay-rights advocates say underscores the problems of harassment and bullying faced by homosexual teenagers. The story attracted international attention after Ravi's roommate, Tyler Clementi, 18, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge days after learning that Ravi had used a laptop webcam to spy on him with a man.
McClure called Ravi's actions "malicious and criminal," and argued that he set out to harass and intimidate Clementi because he was gay.
Ravi, who will turn 20 on Tuesday, is not a bigot and is not homophobic, Altman said.
At the time of the incidents described in the criminal case, he said, his client was "an 18-year-old boy" beginning his first year in college. Ravi "might have been stupid," Altman said, "but he certainly wasn't a criminal."
Trial begins for former Rutgers student Ravi
Being somewhat familiar with the stupidity of 18 year old boys, I don't believe Ravi should have to spend 10 years in jail. On the other hand, I do believe there should be consequences - even for stupidity.
Comments?
out of my system.
A "hate" crime would have to involve pure hatred. I don't think they will be able to prove that. The boys were friendly.
McClure, however, said Ravi's intent was clear from e-mails and text messages he sent to friends in which he mocked Clementi and invited others to connect to his live iChat Web stream to see for themselves. He tried a second time on Sept. 21 when Clementi again met with M.B., she said, but authorities said Clementi had turned off Ravi's computer.
a. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or
(2) knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or
(3) under circumstances that caused any victim of the underlying offense to be intimidated and the victim, considering the manner in which the offense was committed, reasonably believed either that (a) the offense was committed with a purpose to intimidate the victim or any person or entity in whose welfare the victim is interested because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, or (b) the victim or the victim's property was selected to be the target of the offense because of the victim's race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
New Jersey Statute Directory - NJSA 2C:16-1. Bias intimidation.
It would be pretty hard to get some kind of invasion of privacy complaint because this was HIS dorm room too.
It would be interesting to note if the accused feared contracting the AIDS virus from being forced to share a room with a man who engaged in (random?) homosexual sodomy. What if the administration denied a request for a room change.
