Suicide of college student after sex tape revealed

[MikeG]

Student suicide in taped sex: Bias charges?

This has been in the news recently. All sorts of discussion on charging the people who hid the camera with more serious crimes.

I was wondering what people thought about what charges they should face.

Personally, I think they should face the illegal recording charges. The emotionally troubled person who committed suicide was certainly a victim of being taped illegally but I don't think we can hold the other two students criminally responsible for his death. I would hold them civilly liable though.

I don't think this rises to a 'hate crime', either. They were taping him for the voyeur/oddity factor from what I can gather. More of a prank. I think they would have "pointed and laughted" at anyone who displayed an affinity for anything not mainstream as that's what teenagers spend their whole existence doing. If the roomate was straight and had a fetish. Or if the roomate was skinny and his girfriend was heavy, etc, etc. Teenagers are just wired to conform and join and exclude and rebel.

That said, I think they should face the full penalties under law that can be levied for illegally taping someone and invading privacy.

[retdetsgt]

That said, I think they should face the full penalties under law that can be levied for illegally taping someone and invading privacy.

Actually, it can be defined as a hate crime if it can be proven that it was done solely because he was gay. And that may not be hard to convince a jury of it. Hate crimes are add ons to other charges generally.

As far as charging them with his death, I don't think that would fly. I agree, the taping should be charged though, that was stupid and malicious beyond a normal prank.

[Joeyd6]

I am minutes from where this happned and the main stream media is not conveying some details I think all should know:
1) Guy asked his roomate to use the room until midnight for company. Roommate agrees, has no idea who is coming over, and sets up web cam so he can log back in.

2) Roomate leaves, goes to friends room (the female) and logs on via SKYPE and looks what his roomate is doing.

3) He, the girl and a few others end up watching two people KISSING, and they broadcastit via iCHAT. NO SEX! KISSING FOLKS! This is 9/21/2010.

4) Original roomate finds out and goes to a website and posts about the situation...thinking about revenge (pouring pink paint on roomies stuff, etc...) but decides to do nothing.

5) Asks for the room again on 9/22/2010. Roomate says OK and AS SOON AS THE COUPLE ENTER THE ROOM, THE WEB CAM IS OBSERVED FACING THE BED AND ACTIVATED. Checks online and sees the roomate has posted anyone who wants to watch should chat with him that night for a second show.

6) Couple IMMEDIATELY go to a Resident Assistant (RA) and report the incident, which is requested in writing. Male sends e-mail to R/A, and Resident Director and RD's boss. Hours later he jumps.

Was there a crime. Sure was...a violation of privacy laws in NJ for transmitting the images...felonies. Was it based on the fact the couple was gay? So far there is not a single thing to indicate the guy/girl did this becuase the roomate was gay. Only ones saying different are a bunch of special interest groups. To me, this sounds like typical college nonsense that spiraled out of control. Anyone ever see American Pie? Hate crime there because

Should they be charged...yes. Hate crime? No. Subject to a civil law suit....for his death...I am not so sure but that is not for me to decide. There are many gays at Rutgers. There are many organizations and there is no gay bashing. It is anything but at gay friendly environment Rugters (I can't speak for other universities).


We don't know why he jumped off the bridge. Was it the incident forced him "out?" Was it the fact he reported a crime to his R/A and the police were notified and now it would be reported in the school and local newspaper on the crime blotter his family (who did not know he was gay would read)? Was he having other issues? We will never know. I think it is important though that the only thing seen was KISSING and it was days before the tragedy. Whole situation is said, but I just don't see how this is a "hate" crime.

[retdetsgt]

As far as it being a hate crime, whether it was kissing, sex or playing gin rummy, it doesn't matter. I worked hate crimes my last three years and taught the subject in the academy. Since the crime is unlawful recording, what has to be proven is that the recording and broadcasting was done solely because the kid was gay. They have to convince a jury that if it had been interaction between a male and a female, the roommate wouldn't have committed the crime of recording, etc. That will probably take other evidence such as comments made to the victim before and/or afterwards. So the bottom line here is, he committed a felony in NJ by recording and broadcasting. The reason he did the recording, not what the actors did, is what makes it a hate crime or not.

There's a lot of misconception about what constitutes a hate crime. If I'm shooting dice with a black guy, I catch him cheating and then paste him one in the face and call him a racial slur, that's not a hate crime. I did it because he was cheating, not because of his race. On the other hand, if it can be proven that the primary reason a crime was committed against someone is because of their race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation, that's a hate crime. That's why hate crimes are usually add ons although Oregon has a misdemeanor hate crime element that can stand alone.

But I can't see how the death is going to be material to any of it. The kid made a decision to commit suicide, no one pushed him.

[shark2k]

Joey,

I think this comment that the male allegedly made on Twitter might not be good for him in deciding if it was a hate crime: "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." Source: Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Student's suicide linked to webcast of sexual encounter - CNN.com Blogs I also read that in other articles. He also allegedly tweeted this: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."

I have to believe if his roommate was with a female he probably wouldn't have done this, only because of the attitude I get from the alleged tweet. I will say none of that proves he did what he did because his roommate was gay, but if that is brought to a jury , you never know what they will think.

Just my $0.02.

-Shark2k

[retdetsgt]

We'll have to wait and see.

Prosecutors Weigh Bias Crime Charges After N.J. Teen's Suicide

PISCATAWAY, N.J. – As prosecutors consider filing bias-crime charges against two college freshmen accused of streaming online video of a classmate's sexual encounter with another man, a huge divide has emerged between those who support the suspects and those who want to see them punished.

The saga that unfolded this week at Rutgers University has become a flashpoint for debate after the revelation that 18-year-old Tyler Clementi had jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 22.

Leading up to the suicide, a post appeared on a website catering to gay men seeking advice on what to do after learning that a roommate secretly filmed a liaison. While it's impossible to be certain that that post and subsequent ones were made by Clementi, they mirror the same timeline as the alleged filming and reflect the anguish someone in that situation might have felt.

Clementi's roommate, Dharun Ravi, of Plainsboro, N.J., and another student, and Molly Wei, of Princeton, N.J., both 18, are charged with invasion of privacy, with the most serious charges carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison.

But Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce J. Kaplan said Thursday that more charges were possible under New Jersey's hate-crimes law.

"We will be making every effort to assess whether bias played a role in the incident, and, if so, we will bring appropriate charges," he said in a statement.

The legal question has to do with the motive.

A person can be found guilty of a bias crime in New Jersey if the jury agrees that he or she committed a crime because of a belief that the victim is a member of a protected group, such as a racial minority or gay.

Ravi's lawyer has not responded to requests for comment. Messages left with an attorney believed to be representing Wei were not returned.

High school friends of the suspects, both 2010 graduates of West Windsor-Plainsboro High, say the suspects have no problem with gay people.

"He had gay friends," Derek Yan, 16, told The Associated Press. Yan said that he chatted online with Ravi, an Ultimate Frisbee player, about college life in recent weeks. "He said he was lucky to have a good roommate," Yan said. "He said his roommate was cool."

Numerous websites popped up in defense of the suspects, with some proclaiming their innocence or calling their alleged actions a prank. Countless other sites, however, were dedicated to bashing the suspects or calling for stiffer charges, including manslaughter.

The comments on the pages are emotional and sometimes vitriolic. Some postings call the suspects "sickos" and "cold-blooded killers" while others display homophobia and racism (both suspects are minorities), even thanking the suspects for their possible role in a gay man's death.

Luanne Peterpaul, who has worked as a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer and serves as the vice chairwoman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said bias crimes can be hard to prove.

She said prosecutors should look at evidence including the Twitter messages Ravi may have used to alert friends to the alleged video. She said that there might be clues as to his intent.

Peterpaul said she believes that filming a man and a woman engaged in sex in a dorm room would not have had the same results.

"It's quite possible that maybe they would have videotaped an opposite-sex couple," she said. "But would there have been such a following?"

The saga took another twist when the website Gawker reported that someone started a discussion on a graphic gay-oriented website after realizing his roommate was "spying" on him with a webcam.

The author described his conflicted feelings after reading his roommate's tweets about the author kissing a guy in their room while he watched from afar. Should he report his roommate or request a room change? Would either help or just make things worse? The author later wrote that he told a resident assistant about the filming — and that he unplugged his roommate's computer and searched the room for hidden cameras before another liaison.

The last known communication from Clementi was on his Facebook page. It said, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."

Friends were shocked that Clementi, a talented violinist who was known as quiet but happy, would have been embroiled in scandal — or would have killed himself.

"I would never expect this to happen to him," said John Shen, a student at the New York Institute of Technology and a high school friend of Clementi's who last saw him about a month ago. "He's such a good kid. I've never seen him angry."


FOXNews.com - Prosecutors Weigh Bias Crime Charges After N.J. Teen's Suicide

[MikeG]

Even the twitter message doesn't do it for me. I think they would have videoed anything. Straight kissing might not have had an audience but if there was any oddity or something they could point at, they would have.

Second, they should also consider where they are when looking at protected groups. The university should have very few protected groups. Prejudice simply isn't tolerated in that community so the damage done by hate crimes isn't significantly more than just the crime itself and there is no deterrent value. It's like crimes against whites in the rest of the country. The bias aspect isn't relevant.

[retdetsgt]

Second, they should also consider where they are when looking at protected groups. The university should have very few protected groups. Prejudice simply isn't tolerated in that community so the damage done by hate crimes isn't significantly more than just the crime itself and there is no deterrent value. It's like crimes against whites in the rest of the country. The bias aspect isn't relevant.

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.

[retdetsgt]

Here's an example I used to give when I taught hate crimes.

When I was in the first grade in W. Texas, my Mom bought me this nice, long wool coat. When I walked into the classroom, some kid announced I was wearing a girl's coat and the fight was on. I had 6 or 7 fights that day.

I got home and told my Mom and even though we didn't have much money, she got me another coat. I wore the new one to school and nothing was mentioned and life went on.

The morale of this is I was picked on and abused because of a coat I was wearing. I got rid of the coat and it stopped. Now, if it were because of my race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation, I couldn't change that and it would go on. And that's what happens to a lot of people in this country. This kid was humiliated for no other reason than he was gay.

The boys will be boys defense has gotten tiresome over the years and doesn't fly anymore.

[BP348]

Personally I don't think it's a hate crime but that being said I think NJ should charge them with everything they can (except hate crime). Once that’s finished I think the family should sue civilly.

I think the roommate went out of his way to publish a live web cam show of his roommate having sex, doesn’t matter if he was gay or not. Does anyone think it was pure coincidence that the web cam was pointed at the roommate’s bed?

[retdetsgt]

I think the roommate went out of his way to publish a live web cam show of his roommate having sex, doesn’t matter if he was gay or not. Does anyone think it was pure coincidence that the web cam was pointed at the roommate’s bed?

That's what they have to show, did it do it primarily because the kid was gay?

From what it sounds like it was intentional. The kid asked to have the room alone and then the roommate and his girl friend ran up and started monitoring it. I don't think there's much doubt on that part. When people ask for privacy, that's generally why.

[Joeyd6]

"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."....................... "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."

I just don't see how the first incident has anything to do with this as having anything to do with sexual orientation. Keep things chronological and don't mix media nonsense (aka - "sexual encounter" which was mere kissing).

The deceased posted on a webiste after the first incident before his death. He admitted nobody in his familiy nor his roomate knew he was gay. Thus the comment made was made after the recording. A statement of fact which indicates to me he had no idea his roomate was gay. The first session on iChat where the kiss was broadcast is the crime. That is it.

While there was a second attempt to record, it was halted by the deceased before it began. Did the recording make the kid kill himself? No. Was it the straw that broke the poor kids back because he was now forced out? Maybe.

Even the deceased stated on a website (day after the indcident/day before his death) that while he was "pissed" at his roomate, and he wanted "revenge" on him but knew he would be bad at getting it, but did not want a new roomate beucase although an "a-hole" on occassion, the roomate was a pretty "decent guy."

The two "perps" comitted a felony by wacthing/broadcasting. Charge them and convict them on that. RU should boot them on standards of conduct and not give them a chance to withdraw. But murder charges? No way. Hate crime? They did not even know he was gay when they did the first recording. And the feds just chimed in here....they will not investi8gate or pursue such for any reason as there is no violation of federal law or civil rights.

I think the really sad part is everyone focusing on these two kids as the casue. Nobody kills themself over a small incident a few days later. What we should be talking about is why this kid felt suicide was his only option. Why this kid hid being gay from his family and peers. He lived in NJ, just outside NY City, and went to school at a state liberal college which accepts and welcomes gays. I don't mean to be a jerk, but what kind of kid can't be open and honest with their own parents? To me, that falls on them. We are all a product of our parents. Its sad this kid felt his only choice was being gay or dead.

[retdetsgt]

The two "perps" comitted a felony by wacthing/broadcasting. Charge them and convict them on that. RU should boot them on standards of conduct and not give them a chance to withdraw. But murder charges? No way. Hate crime? They did not even know he was gay when they did the first recording.

I agree on the murder, no way in hell can you convict them over a decision the victim made.

If they didn't know he was gay, then the recording would not be a hate crime. Broadcasting it, however is a different story. If it's proven that his being gay was the reason for broadcasting it (and the act of broadcasting it is a crime) then it's a hate crime by definition.

[shark2k]

Joey,

I agree with your opinion about them being charged with murder, I didn't think there would be anyway for that to be connected to them.

I'm still on the fence with the hate crime aspect though only because, and I realize this might be difficult to find out 100% (though that might not matter) is if he put the video online (or via iChat) because the roommate was partaking in homosexual activity or if he would have done that even if the roommate was involved in heterosexual activity. I just thought of something writing this also. You mentioned that comment was made after he recorded him (which I believe you). I remember also reading (and you can let me know if this is true or not if you know) that the deceased's roommate uploaded the video to a website (though it is entirely possible that the media was just talking about the iChat streaming). Wouldn't it be considered a hate crime if the reason he streamed/uploaded the video was only because the roommate was gay and if it had been a heterosexual encounter he might not have? I don't know if he actually uploaded the first video to the internet, that is what I am basing my thought process on, if you know anything about that I'd appreciate if you let me know if I am incorrect. If he did upload the first video though, wouldn't that make what I typed two sentences ago correct?

I do agree with what you said about RU giving them the boot before they get a chance to withdraw.

-Shark2k

[Joeyd6]

I just thought of something writing this also. You mentioned that comment was made after he recorded him (which I believe you).

-I got that from the local newspaper whihc printed screen shots (with date and time) of posts made by the deceased on the website he posted on under an alis about this entire incident.

I remember also reading (and you can let me know if this is true or not if you know) that the deceased's roommate uploaded the video to a website (though it is entirely possible that the media was just talking about the iChat streaming). Wouldn't it be considered a hate crime if the reason he streamed/uploaded the video was only because the roommate was gay and if it had been a heterosexual encounter he might not have?

Local media here is stating it was the iChat, and he "uploaded it so others could view." Assuming that is correct I can't pull the hate card. But if was recorded and uploaded after the fact, well then I will have reconsider and go along the route of hate crime.
I don't know if he actually uploaded the first video to the internet, that is what I am basing my thought process on, if you know anything about that I'd appreciate if you let me know if I am incorrect. If he did upload the first video though, wouldn't that make what I typed two sentences ago correct?

I do agree with what you said about RU giving them the boot before they get a chance to withdraw.

-Shark2k[/QUOTE]