Suicide of college student after sex tape revealed

[Penta]

My view, from watching probably the same local MSM as Joey here in NJ:

Throw the book at these two on invasion of privacy, and let RU rip them to shreds. However, I think that's where it ends.

I don't think hate-crimes additions can be justified; it's been a few months since I skimmed NJ's hate-crimes statute, and my memory is fuzzy, but I remember when reading it that it seemed written so that there had to be a "but for" aspect to the crime - the crime wouldn't happen but for the victim being of a protected class. I honestly think these idiots heard "want privacy" and thought "video it", and would have thought so regardless of the victim's sexual orientation or what they were doing (or who they were doing it with).

Along the same lines - No, there's no way they can justify any variety of homicide charge. The cause/effect relationship is too remote even for the eggshell test to apply.

[retdetsgt]

but I remember when reading it that it seemed written so that there had to be a "but for" aspect to the crime - the crime wouldn't happen but for the victim being of a protected class.

It's that way everywhere. And that's what remains to be proven. If the kids shot their mouth off and it can be proven that they did it because he was gay, it's a hate crime. That's what I keep sayin'.

We just have the news accounts, hard telling what the investigation will come up with. We have no idea what they told other people or the police.

As I said, I used to work hate crimes, sometimes you can prove it, sometimes you can't. But I wouldn't base any investigation on what the media reports.

[MikeG]

Interesting philosophy, but it's irrelevant. The law is the law and it's quite clear. If they did it because he was homosexual, it's a hate crime. What he did or didn't do in the video has nothing to do with it. Neither is the fact it was at a university or a stock yard.

And whites can and have been victims of bias crimes. I've made the arrests and gotten the convictions.

Yeah I know. It's frustrating to know what the law should be. j/k

I always think of hate crime for having the ability to intimidate the community that was targeted. Both the perpetrator having the intent to and also the community has to be able to be intimidated. I know it's not the way it's written but it bugs me when when a politically-powerful community that is in no way about to be intimidated wants to flex it's muscle and get their names in the paper and drive up donations.

It's one thing when the crime grips and intimdates the community and makes those who are the same persuasion fearful. It's quite another when the community is quite comfortable and unable to be intimidated.

So it bugs me when the hypothetically politically connected 18 y/o white son burns a cross into the grass of the new resident black family in Aspen, CO and doesn't get charged with a hate crime. But the same thing happens in Harlem and they do get charged. It seems that the Colorado case there is a very high likelihood that the few black residents would feel intimidated and fearful by the crime. But rather unlikely that people in Harlem would be. Both would be understandably angry but anger and fear are different. Same is true in the Rutgers case. The gay community may feel angry but I doubt they are fearful. the crime didn't extend fear beyond the initial victim.

Just my 0.02 and I know it's not the law.