Anonymous wrote:What country is Ravi from?

India??

What country is Ravi from?

Anonymous wrote:Do you think his being a foreign and a minority played a part in the jury's findings? Would he have been off the hook if the victim were another minority or foreign?

I think bullying and hate crimes are the buzz words today and I think they were looking to make an example of somebody.

Fwiw, knowing this is the climate--I sure as hell would have taken the plea deal!

Do you think his being a foreign and a minority played a part in the jury's findings? Would he have been off the hook if the victim were another minority or foreign?

This kind of shit went on in my dorms in the early 90s--only we had less technology.

Insensitive-yes. Childish/immature-yes. Hate crime-no.

If anyone lived in a big college dorm--that wasn't Johns Hopkins or MIT-- I am surprised they think this is criminal.

I remember spying and gossiping...practical jokes. Drunk 18 year olds aren't that mature.

I'm surprised anyone who read the new yorker article is glad he was found guilty. This case is like Roshomon...

In my opinion, he was a jerk - but since when does that cause someone to go to jail? Thinking back to freshman year, if my roommate had brought over a 30 year old (man or woman) she met on the internet (back when 30 seemed sooooo old) I'm sure we all would have been talking about it. would I have spied - no - but I can see how someone who is a jerk would do so. again, not saying what he did wasn't wrong - but illegal???

Anonymous wrote:Weird. I thought that the kid who committed suicide was closeted or something based on earlier news coverage It's a sad situation all around. Up to 10 years in prison is pretty intense for acting like an insensitive idiot at 18.

I guess the lesson here is that if you're going to be an insensitive idiot, make sure you don't break the law the way Ravi did.

Weird. I thought that the kid who committed suicide was closeted or something based on earlier news coverage It's a sad situation all around. Up to 10 years in prison is pretty intense for acting like an insensitive idiot at 18.

Anonymous wrote:I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Invasion of privacy was trying to broadcast the 'nooki-nooki'. Ravi should have told Clementi in his face that he objected to him 'doing whoopie' in the shared space.

Nooki-nooki, doing whoopie.. PP, are you in the 9th grade, or something?

I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that I see this as a hate crime, but invasion of privacy, yes. He would have filmed his friend having sex with a girl too, he was just nosy and immature.

I don't think he would have. He constantly tweeted about sexual orientation! Of course it falls under hate crime because he had issue with his roommate being gay.

Anonymous wrote:A message has been sent to these kids who think they are smarter than everyone else when armed with technology.

And I believe it's a good thing. Hopefully, next time these kids will think twice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the facts of this case, but I agree generally with the notion that we should not be putting "jerks" on trial or criminalizing their conduct. This seems like a very sad case, and the American "blame" culture going awry. A very unhappy kid took his own life, and we have to blame someone. And it may be true that he was treated cruelly and bullied by the defendant. But that doesn't mean we should put him on trial.

I think it is a dangerous precedent.

How can you comment on whether this is an appropriate prosecution when you admittedly don't know all of the facts of the case and, most likely, you don't know the law either? Your point may be reasonable, but you have no idea whether or not this case is a good example of what you're talking about.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. How many other people have even been prosecuted for a violation of this webcam spying law in the past? If spying is illegal in NJ, the prosecutor's office should be going after every kid who videos another person and puts it on facebook without permission. Not just when the outcome is so sad. Otherwise we're criminalizing the result... not the conduct.

Yes, they should. At the very least they need to start doing it systematically for every kid who does this with the intent to bully. All the zit-faced jerks who use FB, Twitter, texting etc. to bully should now be afraid...very afraid....

A message has been sent to these kids who think they are smarter than everyone else when armed with technology.

Anonymous wrote:Invasion of privacy? Yes.
Hate crime? No.

Very unfortunate all around. Ravi is probably wishing he'd taken that plea deal. Now he'll go to jail AND be deported.

He could still have been deported with the plea deal.