You have a computer. Look it up.

That would take all the fun out of it.

http://nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1576

Sounds to me like they should have a solid case from this.

It appears that this was not a "hate crime" in the sense that Ravi did not appear to hate gay people.

However, the taping of the sexual encounter is definitely malicious in the sense that it was done to provoke some kind of response.

There has to be some kind of consequence here as a young man has died on account of this.

Disagree with onejulia - there has been no proof of cause and effect. In other words, no suicide note explaining why he jumped. The state is trying to say cause and effect, but it just doesn't stick. If you play a joke on someone, and 5 days later they jump, should you be prosecuted just because some third party didn't like the joke may not have had relevance? Maybe you said someone's hair was too long, and they later jumped, but no one knows why? Well, onejulia said his hair was too long a few days ago, it must be because of that????

Your point is well taken however, in light of the recent cases involving bullying, and this does seem akin to that, I think a jury can be swayed to see this video was done with malicious intent.

The sexual encounter was never "taped", it was viewed via live stream by only Ravi and his friend. It was never recorded and broadcast for public consumption. For all we know, since none of us were present for this encounter, Ravi could have had other motives for activating his webcam. Perhaps he was nervous about his roommate bringing a complete stranger into their room and was worried about his things or worried about his roomate's safety, or perhaps it was just the general curiosity of an 18-year old kid. Either way, I think it's a stretch to label his actions malicious; there certainly doesn't seem to be any malice between the two roommates following the first video feed according to what has been released to the public.

True, a young man is now dead, the result of suicide. But we don't know why he took his own life. It could be for reasons completely unrelated to what happened or it could be directly related to the shame and embarrassment that Tyler may have felt from this situation. The simple thing is that Ravi happened to see what was going on in the room and saw it because he turned on his webcam. I don't really see where the prosecution's case is here, but, then again, I'm not a lawyer. I just think it's a bit much to say that a young man has died on account of this, "this" being the simple act of turning on a webcam, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Ravi did this to "expose Tyler's sexual orientation". Tyler was already "out" before this all happened.

My question is: if Tyler were not a homosexual, would this have become such a huge media story, given what we know of the situation? Or would it have just viewed as a silly prank that one roommate played on the other? My guess is it would have resulted in the latter.

What I understand from news coverage is that the text Ravi sent to Tyler seemed innocent and understanding of Tyler's sexuality, and it was also noted in the text that Tyler was "hiding" his sexual orientation, so I don't believe he was fully "out".

In any case, there is really no way to be sure of the motivations of Ravi. If Tyler was "shy" about his orientation, the public display of the encounter could have been overwhelming, even if it was only to one or two people.

I am not a lawyer. Just stating my opinion.

Your point is well taken however, in light of the recent cases involving bullying, and this does seem akin to that, I think a jury can be swayed to see this video was done with malicious intent.

If you are correct, then this is quite scary. The jury is supposed to be impartial. It shouldn't be swayed simply because of the recent hardon the media has had for bullying cases.

It's a shame that Tyler committed suicide, but that is not even on the table here. The only thing that the jury should consider is whether or not the video taping itself was a crime.

Yep, and you could be absolutely right that Tyler was embarrassed enough by having two people see him. I just can't fathom why he would bring an older "guest" to his freshman college dorm if he were concerned about people finding out about his sexual orientation. That's the one point where I'm skeptical that Tyler wanted to keep it a secret and why I don't buy into the prosecution saying that Ravi was attempting to "expose his sexuality".

At the end of the day, on forums like these, it's the ability for each of us to express our opinions that get all of us thinking about all sides of an argument. I wish it were so in all areas of our public discourse!

So wait a friggen second. A 9 year old accidentally shoots another kid and we're all over him like he should have known better, and an 18 year old leads to his room-mate's suicide and "Boys will be boys"???

What the living %)@%!? Is 80% of MSNBC's comment base paid corporate trolls or something!?

Not sure how a 9 year-old in possession of a known weapon who actively pulls a trigger (whether accidentally or with purpose) to shoot another child is relevant to a person committing suicide for reasons unknown (since there was no note) or how it can be said with absolute certainty that this "led to his room-mate's (sic) suicide". Perhaps if Ravi had physically pushed Tyler from the bridge, I'd be able to make some sort of a connection, but for now it's not really making sense to me.

And, as Sog pointed out, the actual suicide is not even on the table.

So wait a friggen second. A 9 year old accidentally shoots another kid and we're all over him like he should have known better, and an 18 year old leads to his room-mate's suicide and "Boys will be boys"???

No one pushed Tyler off of a bridge. He jumped off. This situation is wholely different from a gun being irresponsibly brought into a classroom and it nearly killing a completely innocent classmate.

"18 year old acting his age?" That's a mentality that perpetuates this kind of activity. In every school locker room kids are subjected to "violent" humilitation every day and it's never addressed because adults think it's just "kids being kids" or an "act of passage." I say NO!

@W&MTG, how do you know that ONLY Ravi and Molly saw the "live stream". He did after all tweet to others that it was going to be live, so who know who else may have "tuned into" the live stream. That is the thing about live streaming video from one computer to another. Remember he had the cam on his computer in the room linked into a computer in Molly's room and he could have also made it live onto the internet. If he had "no problem" with his roommate being gay, then why did he find it so necessary to invade Tyler's privacy by setting up the camera to view any activity in the room from another location? Was he just trying to get his own "sexual kicks"? Even so, that is malicious when done without the approval of the person(s) being monitored, and that is where the maliciousness come into play. Also note that the prosecutor in the opening remarks made NO attempt to mention Tyler's subsequent suicide or to link the video acts to the suicide. He is being charged with privacy issues, plain and simple. Please read the link I posted above for the "bias" portion of the charges.

BTW, sog, "media hardon"???? I guess you have never been the subject of bullying (or maybe you have been the bully and don't want to admit it to anyone). I have been bullied as a child and early adulthood. Anything that torments a person (including this exposure of the video having been made...and yes a live stream is a video being made) can lead that person to an act of suicide.

"18 year old acting his age" excuse me we have eighteen year olds fighting for this country. They are mature and responsible. Can we expect any less from an 18 year old college student living the good life here in the states. Throw him in jail for a couple of years and send him back to India. It will be one less tech I will have to deal with when I have computer problems.

@anti-trust: The only things I know are the same things that you know about this case: the things that have been put out there by media outlets for us to read. Based on what I've read, it seems that Ravi and Molly are the only people who saw the video feed - there is no mention in any article I've read surrounding this case that a "viewing party" actually happened.

I cannot answer your question about why Ravi found it "necessary to invade Tylery's privacy" since I am not Ravi, but let's bear in mind here that it was also Ravi's room. Wouldn't Ravi have rightful access to it, too, whether physically or by turning on his property in his dorm room? I also put my two cents out there on alternative motives for Ravi turning on his webcam in the first place, so please read that comment I posted above. I am not stating I know all of the facts about this case, I am simply sharing my opinion, as you are too.

And I too have reiterated that the suicide part of this is not even on the table. I was simply responding to another person's comment on the suicide portion of this story.

You know after this happened and the incident with Pheobe Prince up in Mass. I think the media and a lot of people got carried away with the whole bullying thing. Im not saying that bullying isn't a problem, but the real issue here should be and always has been these kids committing suicide. To blame a persons suicide on another simply brushes the issue under the carpet. Bullying has been around since there were schools, but the increase in teen suicide is a recent phenomenon and by looking to bullies to be our boogeyman we are ignoring the real issue. Kids killing THEMSELVES. We coddle kids to much these days and say things like "winning isn't important," or get mad when your child doesn't make a sports team. Life is not fair, life is harsh and cruel, life quite simply is a b*tch! The sooner we allow these kids to face and overcome rejection, ridicule, and unfair situations the better off everyone will be. Stop telling your kids they're great if they really suck cause all you're doing is setting them up for failure later in life!

"Anything that torments a person (including this exposure of the video having been made...and yes a live stream is a video being made) can lead that person to an act of suicide."

@anti-trust: At some point, the individual being bullied has to take responsibility for his or her own welfare. No one "makes" people commit suicide. We are all responsible for our own self-presevation.

Whether other people saw the video stream is irrelevant to the privacy violation charge.

Also, Ravi is charged with witness tampering and obstruction of justice, both charges that will be very easy to prove especially since Molly Wei is testifying against him.

Would this even be going to court if it was a heterosexual? Reverse the situation for a moment. A Guy asks his roommate for the room. He turns on the web cam and see shim making out with a chick. Posts status on Facebook - Bill asked for the room tonight, went to Molly's room and turned on the webcam. Saw him making out with a chick, Yay." Would anyone think he was being malicious? If the rommate then killed himself a few days later would they believe it was because he had been spied on? Is it any different that busting in on purpose to retrieve "a book you forgot" because you want to get a look at who your roomie is hooking up with? What if it was a heterosexual girl and it was posted on Facebook " I just saw Molly making out with some random guy. fanfreakintastic." IDK. Maybe the kid was a little homophobic, maybe not. You can't make it the law that people have to be nice to each other in any case. That's life, people are mean. Kids are meaner. You need to develop the skills to cope. I thought at the time and I still think that what actually happened was far too minor to have caused this kid to kill himself all by iteself. There had to be something else going on too. 18 year old boys can be jerks, not just to gays or other minorities, just mean in general.

This is why parents can't coddle their children and sheild them from everything that might upset them. We have to allow kids to duke it out on the playground and handle their own problems or we raise a generation of kids who throw themselves off the GW bridge the first time they find themselves in conflict with a peer.

I sat and wondered who wins at the end of day should Ravi be found guilty and thrown into jail. What satisfaction will it give anyone yes, I mean anyone rooting for him to be persecuted for Tyler's (RIP) death. We make and mar our own. I sincerely believe that everyone, no matter whom they are gay, straight or religious background must be respected and it's a pity we've lost handsome Tyler to a prank. Without Tyler's demise, these two would have gone to become somebody in our society.

Are we about seeing two young individuals lives ruined because of our penchants for revenge or the so called justice, really, justice. Where's the justice in the society we leave in? Look around you and tell me. I am one of the very few who will not want to know what the law says here regarding a prank gone bad because at the end of day no nobody wins. It's all bitterness from the day Tyler left us and we want to double it......naa, we're better than this. I sure hope we do the right thing here. I also wish Tyler's parents, friends, the very best and that God give them strength to endure his lost. He's loss to us all.

So scary, I don't know who will win.

First off no one forces another to commit sucide. I grew up a nerd in high school talk about harassment. Did I commit sucide, no. For all you peopel know the guy he was making out with could have dumped him the night before for another guy maybe we should try to fry him for dumping him. I also have problems with the fact they share the apartment so I can film and watch my property. If the guy was filming someone in another apartment ok but it is like you keeping camera's on your own home. You see your daughter or son making out and they find out you saw and commit sucide the parents need to go to jail? I don't think so. What would have happen if while he was out nd the two guys had gone thru his property? What if they exposed he had a crush on some girl etc. The thing is when you share a apartment you share and if you want a private affair meet at a hotel. How private is it when you kick your roommate out so you can have boyfriend over. It is like you meet the head cheerleader who is dating the biggest football player oh i'll just take her to my room and kick out my room mate. Yeah right and no one is ever going to find out and you might wish you had jumped when the football player finds out. So the idea that it was not out is crazy.If you want private encounters you go where no one knows you. I still have never seen a case where there is a roommate viewing two straight people and I know this happens. Why not the same outrage same you are going to jail crap.

onejulia, a young man died because he committed suicide due to his own shame about his sexual orientation. If he family was so accepting of his homosexuality then why did he feel the need to kill himself after this incident? Perhaps his family should take a long, hard look at themselves rather than blaming a stupid kid for their own child's actions. People who feel love and accepted by their family, friends and peers would not kill themselves over something like this.

Sorry but his suicide, while tragic, is not a crime.

There was no "taping of a sexual encounter" yet that isn't stopping a bunch of people from repeating this inaccuracy. It is funny how many people talk as if they know the facts when clearly they don't.

This is a political witch hunt by a DA looking to make a name for himself. They have to bend and stretch the law to apply to this case which probably wouldn't even be a case if it were not for the homosexual aspect of it.

In the end the taxpayers will probably lose the most. What's the freaking point? Justice? Justice for a guy who couldn't cope with his sexuality jumping off a bridge? That is what everyone should do that isn't cut out for this world.

It is possible for a person to find an interest or get a thrill off of watching two people being intimate no matter what sex they are. That's why we have a thing called porn. He obviously didn't have any desire to publish the acts since he had not recorded them, just enjoyed watching and probably fantasized it bein ghim instead.

Just another case of prescutorial overreach. And gee, its an election year, surprise, surprise.

There was no sign of repeated bullying of Clementi by Ravi. There was no purposeful sharing of the video to hordes of people, many who knew Clementi with the sole purpose (proven mind you!) that Ravi intended to humiliate Clementi by doing so. So I fail to see how Ravi's actions are "malicious". I have been asked to leave my dorm room for hours at a time so a room-mate could spend time with a lover. It is VERY annoying and disrespectful. And particularly in this situation where Clementi was still not open about his orientation, he should have gotten a hotel room.

Repeated ongoing abuse, humiliation, name-calling etc. constitutes bullying. The repeated censure of that behavior and its continuance even after that constitutes "maliciousness". That did not exist here. I am sure the family is saddened at the loss of a loved one, but some people just really need to grow a thicker skin. And none of us can actually be held accountable for a suicide unless we gave that person the means to do so by providing the gun, drugs, rope etc.

The jerk was being a smartazz..throw him in prison to teach other jerks in college..even smartazz's have to pay the price.

A lot of the comments I've read suggest that he has been charged with causing Tyler's suicide. That's not the case. He has been charged with invasion of privacy, witness and evidence tampering and bias intimidation (

intimidating an individual because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation). Based on what we have read, and the fact that Molly Wei is a witness who is cooperating with the DA, the case against him seems pretty strong.

Too bad the video voyeurism statutes are a subset of criminal trespass. They require that the video be outside the residence looking in. NJ actually has a case stating that filming people with out their knowledge/consent in your own residence is not video voyeurism. If the statute was a little bit broader, they could have charged him under that and been done with it.

Marie, he is not being held accountable for the suicide. They can't even bring up Tyler's death in the courtroom. He is being charged with invasion of privacy, among other things.

This is for W&MTribeGal...I read one post of yours and have seen enough. You bring up the recent incident of the 9 year old boy who accidentally shot his class mate and start making insinuations ABOUT AN ARTICLE YOU COULD NOT HAVE EVEN READ! The little boy in question AT NO POINT "pulled the trigger". He did not even have the gun IN HIS HAND. The gun was in his back pack and when he dropped the bag in his desk it fired. Read FURTHER in to the article and you'll see he did not (as I have no doubt you assumed) bring the gun to school because of ANYTHING that happened IN school. This was not a case of him being afraid or angry at other students. IT WAS A DAMN ACCIDENT, albeit one that could have been avoided has his crack head moms pathetic man-of-the-week had not left a loaded, chambered gun laying around cocked and with the safety off. This child had lost everything he had cared about and was running away. His intent for the gun? To PROTECT himself. He had ZERO firearms training so was not even aware the gun was in battery and ready to fire. Was he right in taking the weapon? NO. Did he INTEND to shoot anyone, let alone his class mate? HELL no.

Please stick to commenting on stories in their own forum that you've actually READ. If this boy ever read YOUR comment you would likely be responsible for driving HIM to suicide with your false statement.

I guess you people have no problem with invasion of privacy, at the very least. Or is it just because the victim was gay that it shouldn't matter? I'm sorry, but all of this outrage over the charges and so-called prosecutorial overreach or whatever you want to call it... Look at the charges. Charge #1: Invasion of Privacy. Charge #2: Witness and Evidence Tampering. Let's leave the other one mentioned out at the moment, as it is clearly the most contentious. He set up a camera without the other person's knowledge with the intent of recording what was meant to be a private moment. Yup. That seems like invasion of privacy to me. We don't know what he did to witnesses or evidence from this article, but if he did tamper with either as regards to the other charges, then he deserves to be prosecuted for that and found guilty or not guilty accordingly. On these two charges alone, there is certainly enough to charge him. We have these laws for a reason and if we are not going to bother enforcing them then take them off the books and all peeping toms are free to act at will.

As for wether or not he is at fault for the young man who took his own life -- it is irrelevant! He is not being charged for his roommate's suicide. The prosecutor did not even mention the suicide in opening statements. You can blame the victim for the suicide. You can say bullied young people are at fault for being bullied if you want to and really feel that way. It does not matter! You can say they are only prosecuting him for the charges they are because of the suicide and you may be right -- but it does not change the fact that his actions may very well have broken the law. There is nothing to excuse him for the crimes he committed, if indeed, he is convicted of all or some of the charges against him.

18 is certainly old enough to know better. 18 is old enough to be held responsible for very bad decisions. The suicide has brought far more attention to this case then it ever would have gotten otherwise -- but that does not mean he should be let off the hook for what he did do.

And the day of the "boys will be boys" attitude toward things like this are over. And 18 is no boy, anyway.

Oh...and people don't "make people" commit suicide? Tell that to my first wife. Oh! That's right! You can't! SHE'S DEAD. After 23 years of being bullied she finally started to BELIEVE she was leading a useless life and that everything the pursued was a waste of time, and put the barrel of a Browning 20gauge shotgun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. HER bully? Her own FAMILY.

People also seem to have missed the part of the article that states the roomate of the deceased boy attempted to again to turn on his webcam a couple days later when his roomate was again expecting company..........It wasn't a one time prank....He continued to attempt to view his roomie's private activities, and as others have stated the suicide isn't included in the court case. As for the invasion of privacy,there isnt any doubt that he is guilty of that...........I dont agree with the hate crime charge.....but he definately invaded his privacy once.....and attempted to do so a 2nd time.........not sure about the intimidation charge as i havent read how they justify it..........definately guilty of invasion of privacy and being a d!ck..........but dont think they can charge him for that. His family knew he was gay so cant see that pushing him to suicide....more likely he felt harrassed by his college roomate

Half of you people are missing the point. The criminal charges do not stem from "bullying" or the fact that Clementi suicided. The criminal charges stem from the irrefuteable FACT that two students SPIED on a third.

Can any of you refute that? I didn't think so. His sexuality is irrelevant. The suicide, while extremely sad, does not play into why the two nasty little SPIES are being charged. They broke the law. Period. If he was hetero I'd be just as outraged. I'm upset the girl, Wei, got out of this. She participated knowingly. I hope they throw the book at Ravi and he rots in jail, and loses the priveledge of an education at a top school. Anyone who sets up a secret camera on their roomate has serious, serious moral issues. I don't care if he's "only 18". Doesn't matter. I don't care if he was "simply curious" or worried (if he was worried he should have gone to the student RA and addressed the issue, not set up a camera like some perverted voyeur). It doesn't matter. He broke federal and state laws. Even if his roomate didn't suicide I'd want him to go to jail.

He broke the law. He broke the law. He broke the law. What's so hard to understand about that, people? I don't care what reason people have for coming to this scummy little spy's defense. "Boys will be boys" doesn't extend to breaking the law. Not to mention that he's a man and not a boy. An ethically challenged one at that. He's not the FBI, he's not Homeland Security or the NSA. He got caught spying and violating another human being's privacy, he deserves jailtime. End of story.

I look forward to seeing this trash go to jail. And mark my words he will do some time because be broke the law. None of you naysayers can show otherwise (whether you want to because you just hate gay people that much I don't know). Maybe he'll serve as an example to other members of the younger generation on what they shouldn't do with technology.

Sadly, Dangerous, this smug looking, likely privileged little rodent won't ever see the inside of a prison cell.

The snooping may have been foolish. That we are here talking about it?

Those of us over 45 are wondering what the surprise is here??!!!

Thank you above for having me birthed before anybody around could show off all my mistakes and gallivanting to the world before I had a chance to mature.

For those of you that keep arguing fault on the suicide, please stop wasting your time on the soap box. There are no murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide or any other charges indicating Ravi was responsible for Clementi's death. So let it go. That's not what the case is about. And for the few that what to use this aas an opportunity to make snarky comments about Clementi's sexual preference please jump off a bridge yourselves and do the world a favor.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: Say there was no gay roommate. Say the 2 roommates were a guy and a girl, and the guy secretly taped his female roommate to watch for his own personal use. Secretly taping someone without their permission is illegal. PERIOD. And if the case didn't involve the suicide of a gay man then everyone would be pissed off and sickened that one roommate would broadcast the private moments of another.

So take your double standards and shove them up your a$$ if you want to spin this any other way. It's not okay to tape someone without their permission. That's it!

@gtouch,

I've been watching the talking heads on In Session and that's their point of view also.

I tend to agree with you. Ravi was offered what sounds like a very good plea deal and turned it down. This tells me that his lawyers are supremely confident that he will not be convicted. If they were to lose at this point and have Ravi face prison time, I would imagine they would be facing a malpractice suit. After all, other than being guaranteed an acquittal by his attorneys, why would Ravi turn down a plea deal that includes no prison time and the state's help to avoid being deported.

While I feel that what Ravi did was reprehensible, I do not see what was criminal about it. While what Ravi did was not a friendly thing to do, I do not see any intimidation, I see a mean, nasty college prank. He did not use the video to threaten Clementi in any way. It was already known by at least some in the dorm that Clementi was gay, so it was not like Ravi as "outing" him. It is not like Clementi was hiding what he was doing since he asked Ravi to let him have the room to himself. If Clementi was embarrassed by a wider audience finding out he was gay, he should not have decided to have sex with his gay lover in his dorm room. It is not like other students were not going to see him going into the room with another man. In the college world, it would be pretty clear why one roommate would ask the other roommate to have the room to himself. That Clementi chose to commit suicide over this incident leads me to believe that he had other serious emotional problems that he was not dealing with very well. A stable, well adjusted person does not kill himself over something like this. I have a feeling that this prosecution is only going forward because of politics as well as pressure from the parents and the gay community.

To a certain degree I blame Rutgers for what happened. They never should have required a straight guy to share a room with someone who is gay. The dorm RA would have had to know that Ravi was unhappy with his roommate situation. If he did not, them he was one piss poor RA who was not doing his job very well. Once it became known that Ravi was not happy about the situation, the university should have immediately taken steps to split them up. This does not excuse Ravi for what he did, but it certainly raises questions about how Rutgers handled the situation right from the start.

Whether convicted of anything or not. Ravi will have to live for the rest of his life knowing he caused the death of another man. Personally, I think he used his webcam to get his jollies. A real low life, in my opinion.

He won't be convicted because of the recent rash of suicides by gay teens.

But he may be convicted for committing crimes that he is being prosecuted for. We can only hope that the feds also bring hate crime charges against him and deport him soon. But, like a poster elsewhere said, he'll probably be considered a hero in India. This WAS a form of bullying simply because he announced on Twitter his actions he was undertaking, and bragged about doing it. It was NOT just a "college prank."

The bias intimidation charge might be difficult to prove, but the privacy violation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges will be very easy to prove - especially since the witness who was tampered with is testifying against him.

Ravi was foolish not to take the plea bargain.

If the roommate was straight but hooking up with a fat chick instead of being gay would this be prosecuted to the extent it is? Probably not. Seems to be that people want equal treatment except when that treatment is not to their benefit. 18 year old guys are equal opportunity JERKS imo.

Actually, I think if he had web-cammed the roommate having sex with "a fat chick" and that gal found out about it, had self-esteem issues already because she was fat or thought the guy had done it in order to broadcast over the internet to humiliate her and then killed herself.....the DA may well have brought charges.

@JS in SD

We had a gay RA when I was in college and no one complained even though we had community bathrooms. It wasn't a big deal. If Ravi felt so up-tight about it, he could have moved, since he would have been the one with the problem. This has nothing to do with Rutgers. Might as well said someone may have been upset to be rooming with an Indian or someone with dark skin. No different.

As to the fat chick question. I'd think anyone would have a valid reason to bring charges if their intimate moments were streamed without their consent. This guy may not have taped his own stream, but if he allowed others to watch it, then he couldn't have guarenteed that no one else would have taped it (even though taping doesn't change the fact that the non-consensual streaming was already violating the couples rights).

@Optomyst - If I say you're comment is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and you sir are an Idiot, and later tonight you jump in front of a bus. Did I really cause your death? Whatever happened to personal responsibilty? If my boss fires me for writing on this message board, I go home swallow a bunch of pills and die, should my boss be arrested? I mean my killing MYSELF was a direct result of his actions, so is he culpable?

Optomyst, you are kidding right? He didn't cause this kid to commit suicide anymore than he caused the sun to rise this morning. Your thinking is exactly what is wrong with this country. No one wants to accept accountability for their own actions anymore.

Tyler Clementi killed himself. You really have no idea if this had anything to do with it either. For all we know, he could have been home sick and didn't like college life. Either way, it's Tyler's fault, not Ravi's.

If Clementi was so screwed up as to commit suicide, how is that Ravi's or anyone else's fault.

If it was Ravi's fault, why is he not charged with some form of homicide, real simple its not his fault.

This whole case is predicated on the "we care about gays so you have to vote for us" premise. In other words, this case is pure BS from the moment it was first put up.

His parents are rich..no rich kids go to prison in the USA..all know that!

Its not just the prison time his lawyers are trying to avoid..its also being deported they need to stop.

Hope they lose..kid deserves to be deported then.

Malicious, or childish act...one time its a childish act...but he did it TWICE both on different days.

Xina, maybe it wouldn't be -- but it should be. Any j@ck@ss who would digitally spy on and broadcast their roommate without his/her knowledge with the sole intention of self gratification through humiliation of said roommate -- be it because they are gay or "hooking up with a fat chick" -- they deserve to have all applicable laws thrown at them. You're right. It should be about equal protection under the law -- and that does not mean less protection of gay people, but maybe better protection of everyone else, too. Do you think it would be any less of a personal invasion, and any less humiliating for the "fat chick" to be made the object of jest and scorn? These kinds of stunts should never be tolerated -- never swept under the rug or minimized as a childish prank. Human rights for all. Make an example of this jerk.

I agree with you analystgirl. I was heartbroken over this bright, talented young man taking his life. Imagine the psychic pain he went through...it is just as real as being physically tortured.

If his roomie were also a chef, they could call the movie "Chef's Boy Party". Furthermore; he will need some sort of lubricant when he gets sent to the pen. They could call it "Ravi's Oleo".

I'm so sorry.

Show where there is evidence he jumped because of the camera incident. There is none. The media and the prosecution is stating so, but with no suicide note, and him not telling anyone why he jumped, all are theories. Evidence is what you need to convict, not a "He was mean to him".

Do you think he jumped becuse his grades were bad? Come on.

"Tortured" is a bit of a strong word for this...

Damn, I'm a liberal and some of you seem so bleeding heart that it confuses even me. Ravi cannot be blamed for Tyler's actions on this. While it wasn't necessarily 'nice/good/right' that he videoed Tyler, it was not anything that should even come close to prosecution for anything to do with Tyler's death. If anything, one needs to look at what was going on with Tyler and his parents (very religious) relationship and that his mom was the last person he talked to (do we know any of that conversation?). Hell, Ravi could have said - I set up the cam in my room cause someone I don't know was coming into my living quarters and I wanted to make sure none of my stuff was stolen. It seems from reading about this (as I live in the area) that if there was any 'bullying' that caused Tyler to kill himself, it came from his mom/parents. The prosecution against Ravi is entirely politically motivated - look at the charges, they have nothing to do with the death. Tyler had already requested a roommate change and had posted about what happened with Ravi on a messageboard and had laughed it off when someone else posted that it could be a hate crime, which seems to show that Tyler knew Ravi didn't do it out of hate.

May have nothing to do with being on cam. He may not have even known. Could be he re-thought 'coming out' two days earlier and ended it, no conection.

Then again, arm chair judging is more fun with as little information as possible.

The prosecution may have a weak case anything relating to the cause of the suicide, but the privacy violations and some of the other charges should be fairly easy to prove. More so with a witness who plead out. Ravi will more than likely be convicted on enough charges to have himself deported back to India after he serves time in the U.S., as I'm doubting any decent diplomat would suggest he serve it in an Indian facility. Either he directed his lawyers to not plea bargain or they're placing to much faith in the jury being anti-gay to convict him of anything. He's not a child and was more than fully aware that his actions were wrong.

Read the article....the prosecution hasnt even brought up the suicide in their court documents.......They dont have a "weak" case on the suicide because they have NO case related to the suicide at all,nor have they tried to file any such case...the witness tampering and intimidation are in regards to the girl who struck a deal with prosecution and the fact that Ravi supposedly threatened her regarding her testimony(read that when case was first filed so dont have a link)The only charges directly relating to the guy who killed himself is the invasion of privacy(which they will convict him on) and the hate crime(i dont think they will be able to convict on a hate crime but thats just my opinion....The intimidation and tampering with evidence is directly related to the girl(Molly) whose computer they viewed Clementi on and the fact that according to Molly, Ravit threatened her in regards to erasing her computer........and none of the charges pertain to Clementi's suicide at all

Why don't they just execute Ravi!! You people are rediculous. While it is sad when any young person kills themself gay or straight, screaming to incarserate and deport Ravi before he's been tried in a court of law is unamerican and tyranical and a much greater crime than Ravi's been charged with. Last time I checked our constitution provides the accused with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers. Sorry emotions and opinions don't mean crap it's the constituion and the laws that people and their actions are best judged by.

Unfortunately it's the emotions of the jurors that do or dont convict..........Jurors are human...humans have emotions and opinions that do factor into their decisions....it's just a fact ridiculous or not.........and people, everyday average people seldom extend presumptions of innocence unfortunately........as sad as it is too say emotions and opinions mean everything........difficult to truly find a totally non biased juror with today's media...if you have heard any details about a case you tend to form an opinion..........it's just how the human mind works

To Sichuan:

For your information, "untouchables" and other backward classes in India have benefits, including affirmative action quotas, "set-asides", etc. It is not illegal to be a homosexual in India. Get your facts right.

"It is not illegal to be a homosexual in India. Get your facts right."

Those are your words, not mine. I suggest you refrain from putting words into the mouths of other people. In addition, why don't you move to India and experience firsthand the benefits granted the untouchable class of Indians.

Only a monster would tout this information for a public "viewing party". Only a monster would even think of spying on them in the first place. First of all...WHY would you want to spy on two gay dudes in the first fraking place. I have an openly gay friend, and ill tell you what, that is absofreekingluty the LAST thing i would ever want to see, much less spy on. His intent was malicious, he broke laws, and yes though it was indirectly, was a major factor in another human beings death. I wont shed one tear for this douche-bag. Bubba in cell block D awaits...have a fun trip.

Boy that Bubba is one prolific a$$ monger. I see his name pop up in all kinds of posts.

On a more serious note, this is tragic all around. Though his actions are definitely douchy and he definitely sought to humiliate the guy, I doubt Ravi expected the dude to kill himself. I am 99.9% sure that had he had a crystal ball, we would not have made the video public (or shot it in the first place).

You know who I do blame for this poor boy's death, is the societal conditions that created the angst. stress, and psychological pressure that led him to see no other way out for being outed.

I have two sons of college age, and it would absolutely break my heart if they sought suicide before they had the sense to confront me about being gay. To the best of my knowledge they are both straight, but I have shown them thru deed and example that in our family we do not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, color, or sexual preference (I do admit I am a little prejudiced about religious zealots of any stripe); and I'd be damned if I would let either of them kill themselves before I had the chance to tell them that I love them and accept them no matter who they are.

why would u want to waste our tax money sending him to PRISON. thats a retarded statement. Yea what he did was wrong but to waste tax payer money on this whole thing is a waste of time and money.

The biggest problem that I see here from you guys, was that the video was never publically shared. Only the twitter comment that he saw his roommate kissing another man. In previous articles that was just published several days ago, it lays out the exact evidence that the state has on Ravi, and it's pretty weak. They even have evidence that Clementi didn't really care too much that Ravi saw him making out with another man, and even went on to have another encounter with the same man. But that time remembered to make sure that the computer was off.

What you may not be aware of - because it would appear MSN is deliberately excluding this information - is the fact Ravi contacted his friends to have them delete texts and tweets he'd sent regarding this whole thing; that's why he's facing witness and evidence tampering charges. One of the reasons they haven't charged him with involuntary manslaughter is because they can't prove he was responsible for Clementi's suicide, but they have him on those two charges alone, thanks to Molly Wei accepting the plea deal. He may not have recorded anything, but he did stream the images for others to see; he was already aware of Clementi's sexual orientation as Clementi had advised him, so that goes to bias - he can claim he's not homophobic all he wants but his actions can be interpreted by a first year lawyer as saying otherwise. "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Tyler Clementi did inform the accused he was gay and, upon advising the accused he would have a guest in the room, the accused deliberately set out to humilate and punish Mr. Clementi for being gay. The accused claims not to be homophobic, but would he have done the same thing if Mr. Clementi had been straight and brought a girl back to the room for a sexual encounter? I doubt it."

I'm not a lawyer, but even I can make the case after a one year law class that I took as an elective in high school.

The fact Clementi checked to make sure the computer was off, which it wasn't, by the way - yes, Ravi DID, in fact, try to pull the same stunt again, that's been reported elsewhere - proves he knew he was being targeted. Once can be explained away with all those pathetic excuses Ravi has now tried to make, but the second attempt is the nail in the coffin that seals it.

And just for the record - why'd he want to watch anyway? Frikking pervert!

Killerdrgn - The biggest problem that I see here from you guys, was that the video was never publically shared.

That's irrelevant to the charges of privacy violation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Actually he sounds just like the monster i knew in college. Guy used his knowledge in computer security to access our mutal friend's laptop and copied some pictures that he had taken of him (the friend) and his gf, because they annoyed him 1 time. Was going to use them just in case, had a server slated for it and everything. When I turned him in, he blew up like nobodies business, best I can tell, him and Revi are probably two peas in a pod, god knows they are too much the same.

Ravi isnt charged with any crime relating to Clementi's suicide............The suicide,by order of the judge,can't even be mentioned in the court proceedings(not that it really matters since the media coverage has pretty much made it impossible to find a juror that doesn't know of Clementi's suicide..........however Ravi isnt implicated or accused of having anything to do with Clementi's suicide

@Freedom...................part of the intimidation and witness tampering also relates to Molly.............Ravi supposedly threatened her about erasing her computer............wasn't sure of the details but what you stated about texts and IM's would certainly fall into that catagory..........If he did threaten her I'm betting that was a deciding factor for testifying for the prosecution.........Ravi also attempted to do the same thing to Clementi with regards to the webcam again a few days later..........It wasn't a one time prank..........and Its probable that he tipped off people,if not to the first time,about the second attempt to stream video of Clementi and his date..............the invasion of privacy and tampering I'd think were a lock for the prosecution................and who knows what he said in those text and IMs............if he used certain wording it could pave the way for the hate crime charge

I tend to agree with the money better spent issue but sometimes you have to spend money on one case to establish a precedent. And also, if there is no conviction, on what grounds would the federal government deport him?

I tend to agree with the money better spent issue but sometimes you have to spend money on one case to establish a precedent. And also, if there is no conviction, on what grounds would the federal government deport him?

The deportation question is a good one. Not sure how to work that one out. Is Ravi a naturalized citizen or just here on a visa? If they did deport him they should drop him on the other side of the US/Mexico border. Juarez perhaps. No need to pay for all that travel back to India.

As far as setting a precedent I think that we run the risk of beginning to blame other people for someone's personal choices. Ex boyfriends and girlfriends getting charged when their partners kill them selves because they are so sad, parents getting charged because their kids killed themselves ect. This whole story is sad and stupid. It is 2012, being gay should not be a reason to kill yourself at this point. Clearly this young man had some emotional issues that were going on long before Ravi committed this mean spirited act. Sounds like the poor kid who killed himself was a bomb waiting to self destruct.

What if he did this to the guy and it was a girl he was making out with?

What would the punishment be then?

I say that equal treatment is in order. Lots of straight guys are called gay all the time, exgirl friends use he's gay as a STANDARD slander on ex boy friends and rejected women 97% of the time accuse every man that does not make a play for them as gay.

Now those women should also be prosecuted for slander and being liars.

Again equal treatment!

You would be right Jay is the case was about suicide, but Ravi is not being prosecuted for Clementi's suicide. Nobody will ever know for sure what triggered his fateful decision and I find it unlikely that Ravi's action is the only reason. That's why prosecution is not going there. Ravi is being prosecuted for invasion of privacy etc., his motivation being that Clementi was gay and he wanted to embarrass him. The fact itself (invasion of privacy) is well established and there seems to be ample evidence of what his motivation was. The only question is whether or not that constitutes a crime based on the law in NJ. It seems very clear that it would have never done the same thing if his roommate had been heterosexual.

And so what you are saying is that you don't believe people can be driven to suicide? Nonsense.

I think that the suicide is the only reason that they went after Ravi for the other charges. If there was a note that implicated Ravi I am sure they would have gone after him for the suicide as well. That would be about as much of a witch hunt as this is.

They shared the room so I do not understand how Ravi was invading anyones privacy. If it had been a surveillance camera instead of a web cam would that have been an invasion? The dissemination of the footage was the wrong and possibly illegal part. I do not think it was 10 years worth of wrong however. Certainly not worth tax payer money that could be used to prosecute more dangerous criminals or for education on tolerance etc.

I just think that this is a perfect example of wasting money and time when there are far more important issues for our legal system.

A separate question. Do you think that a woman should be forced to share a dorm room with a man or vice versa?

@ Optomyst. Yes that is exactly what I am saying when ADULTS are concerned. A bullied child, perhaps but not an adult. Adults are responsible for their own actions.

In addition to that there is no proof that this incident and the suicide are connected. It is more likely that his Mother's rejection of his lifestyle deepened his already acute depression which led to HIS CHOICE to jump off a bridge. Maybe they should charge her too huh?

Suicides are always sad and troubling but blaming them on anyone else is not healthy or realistic. That kind of "blame everybody else" mind state is part of the mentality that leads to suicide. Suicide, above all other things is selfish and a sign of a character flaw. (unless you are already at deaths door or about to be captured by the taliban or sacrificing your life for your country etc.)

Any death is a tragedy and we try to make sense of it. What is happening in this case however is a bit misguided. I guess the courts will figure it out.

WTH were they thinking

They were thinking they don't have a good case that is why if you look at the plea deal they offered Ravi it looks too good also. The state didn't want to take this case to trial they don't think they will win and many legal scholars also think that. Apparently the way the laws are written that they are using don't really fit this case very well. It is disgusting what Ravi did but it may not turn out to be illegal or criminal.

They are prosecuting him that is what the story is about..........the question is can they convict him.

Not necessarily so. You forgot "not guilty unless...", and chances are very high that there will be no conviction at all. As for the civil suit, in case of acquittal or even mistrial Ravi can go after quite a bunch, including Clementi family, for slander and malicious prosecution.

I always find it interesting when people with no apparent legal knowledge make definitive statements about the law. You might want to look at the criminal statute in New Jersey which defines criminal invasion of privacy. The statute is clearly on point and the facts support that Ravi violated it. The fact that the "room also belonged to Ravi too (sic)" is irrelevant. Since obviously you do not know where to look you can start with the statute.

New Jersey Criminal Statutes, 2C:14-9. Invasion of Privacy, Degree of Crime, Defenses, Privileges.

wowinca

The fact that the "room also belonged to Ravi too (sic)" is irrelevant.

Like it or not a jury will find the fact that the room also belonged to Ravi.

Milo-2 - Like it or not a jury will find the fact that the room also belonged to Ravi.

And the jury will learn that's irrelevant to the law.

Milo, the charges of privacy violation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are all slam-dunks. The only question is whether the bias intimidation charge will stick.

I agree with mercenary76 - no real case. The creep was sharing pictures of his own residence.

No such thing as an 18 year old boy either. He's old enough to vote, go to war, be responsible for his decisions and is no longer a minor. No law against being immature.

Same goes for his roommate.

My college girlfriend's roommate kicked me out at the top of her lungs. Even though we were only snoozing, the dorm room was her home, she was right and we were wrong, day or night. Personal preferences do not change the imposition.

milo-2

Not only do you apparently have little (if any) knowledge of the law, but obviously you have not served on a jury. The jury will be instructed by the judge on the law and as Skrekk states above will be told what is relevant and what is not. Again I suggest you look at the statute. Who knows you may learn something.

skrekk

Milo-2 - Like it or not a jury will find the fact that the room also belonged to Ravi.

And the jury will learn that's irrelevant to the law.

Milo, the charges of privacy violation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are all slam-dunks. The only question is whether the bias intimidation charge will stick.

wowinca

milo-2

Not only do you apparently have little (if any) knowledge of the law, but obviously you have not served on a jury. The jury will be instructed by the judge on the law and as Skrekk states above will be told what is relevant and what is not. Again I suggest you look at the statute. Who knows you may learn something.

Skrekk, Juries have been know to ignore a judges instructions. My bet is numerous members of the jury will base their decision on the fact that Ravi shared the room with Tyler.

Wowinca, The jury members can choose to believe otherwise. The jury can find him not guilty. By the way I have been on numerous juries ranging from domestic violence, to robbery and murder. Thanks for the lesson.

Milo-2 and others--

Yes, as you and others point out the room did belong to Ravi, too. But I sincerely doubt he would have had a little get-together with a friend to watch streaming video of "his" EMPTY room. They were deliberately spying on Clementi and his friend to watch THEM, not the room, and not out of concern for his belongings as someone suggested--if he had been concerned for his belongings he would have spied on Clementi while Clementi was alone in the room. Clementi had asked for some privacy in the room at that specific time, as roommates sometimes do. I am sure he would have granted Ravi privacy at times, also, if he asked for it. It is a courtesy roommates do for one another--usually. This snooping was done solely for sport, Ravi bragged about it on public forums to friends, then attempted to hide his actions and destroy proof of them, and hopefully he will receive appropriate punishment for that. His behavior and that of his female accomplice disgusts me.

filming someone without their permission.particularly in their home is illegal and invasion of privacy..... if as I read somewhere Ravi threatened Molly(intimidation) if she didnt erase her computer(be it video or IMs regarding his intention to stream video of Clementi without his knowledge) that would be tampering with evidence.............and security cameras arent the same cause there usually isnt an attempt to hide the security cameras and most businesses post signs saying that you are being monitored by security cameras... and since the video stream was sent from Ravi's pc to Molly's there is really no way to know who else may have been watching....anyone on Ravi's contact list could have seen that he was streaming and decided to watch as well..............could be why the prosecution charged him with tampering for supposedly asking Molly and a couple others who have came forward to delete any messages he sent then regarding the live video feed

Seriously... he was not just sharing video of his residence. The room mate specifically asked for privacy and Ravi affirmed that privacy was granted. Ravi then violated his verbal agreement to that privacy by streaming video of it. Would you allow a hotel to stream video, of you in the room you rented, because they 'own' the building? No... you expect a level of privacy in that case. The same applies here. Ravi agreed to the privacy when asked by his romm mate and then violated said agreement.

you're F-ed up.

I think you are jealous.

The prosecution isnt attempting to blame the suicide on Ravi or anyone else..........The suicide of Clementi isnt part or even mentioned in Ravi's charges...........These charges have absolutely nothing to do with Clementi's suicide in any way whatsoever..........The charges are in regard to the invasion of privacy for filming Clementi without his knowledge.....intimidation for threatening Molly(supposedly) if she didnt delete whatever he didnt want prosecution to see (video,messages,texts etc) and tampering with evidence by asking Molly and some others to delete any messages they received from him about the viewing party..... The suicide isnt once mentioned and by order of the judge cannot be mentioned during these precedings... There is NO case or charges referencing Clementi's suicide filed against Ravi...It's all covered by the article above......(of course the civil suit Clementi's family will file against Ravi will be a different story) So those who say they doubt the prosecution will convict Ravi for causing Clementi's death,you're right...they will never convict him for the suicide...especially since they are making NO attempt to prosecute him for Clementi's suicide

Your example bears absolutely no resemblance to this case.

This kids innermost secrets were exposed to a society that frowns upon (and even denigrates) anyone with his sexual preferences. This kid's life (albeit by his own doing) was cut short by the insensitive actions of another. As I said in a previous post, I blame an intolerant society more than anyone else for this kid's death.

I don't think Ravi is up on manslaughter charges and if so it won't stick because the death was from suicide.

He is guilty of a hate crime as he wouldn't do this to a straight person. So your analogy should be if you found your wife in bed w/another guy and killed yourself because she then published videos of it mocking you and by doing so had jeopardized your ability to be successful then she would probably be guilty of a hate crime.

There are organizations prejudiced against gays (i.e. the military at the time), a simple fact, so force outing Clementi jeopardized his ability to be successful in our society.

glad you brought that up intelligent donkey:

1] no videos were published.

2] how do you know he won't and hasn't done this before to a straight person?

3] punishment does not change due to someone committing suicide.

my example was very simple. had this guy have not committed suicide, ravi would not be in court facing bogus charges. it is extremely serious and damaging for a person to go on trial due to the willingness of juries to find defendants guilty, of something, simply because they are on trial. ravi has no control over what this young man eventually decided to do with his life.

he committed suicide. it was his choice.

clebro - no videos were published.

Irrelevant to the charges.

I may be wrong but I thought I'd read an article where the videos were published for a short time and then retracted.

You have a point that if Ravi can prove he's a complete jacka*s and would have done this to anyone he could, then he may be able to avoid it being a hate crime but at the expense of any reasonable person ever being his friend.

let's not let facts get in the way of good ol fashioned lynch mob.

@ Doom1

What? What do you mean we should read a publication known for the dying art of actual journalism?

There must be something wrong with me. I can't seem to fathom why people are so angry at this Ravi fellow. It seems as though using your own webcam in your own room = terrorism/worse than stalin.

Further, who the eff is a roommate really? A roommate that a person just met is far more likely to push someone to kill themselves than oh, I don't know, someone they have known their entire life?

Some people here want him to go to jail for 30 years?!?

Let me ask those of you who are so eager to put this guy in jail a question: What if you posted something nasty on a forum and then someone killed themselves because of it? Does that mean you are solely responsible for their death? Would you gladly go to jail for it?

Thank you for seeing the real issue here. What if he had done this to one of our sons or daughters, would we be so willing to give him a slap on the wrist? I know I wouldn't and all I know in my gut is that this little fu**er deserves to find out what its like when someone takes away your right to privacy.

you don't know ravi wouldn't and hasn't done this to a heterosexual person. simply committing a crime against a gay person does not make it a hate crime.

From the Dept. of Justice website: Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.

Ravi committed several hate crimes? Like what? Did Ravi push Tyler off the GW bridge while yelling homophobic slurs at him? Turning on a webcam and telling your friends you caught your roommate making out with a guy isn't a "hate crime". Turning on your webcam and catching your roommate making out with a guy, then proceeding to hurl homophobic slurs at him while beating him to a bloody pulp is a hate crime. And, as clebro pointed out, how do you know he wouldn't have done it to a heterosexual roommate? He was a freshman in college for a total of 3 weeks when this happened.

Ravi committed an invasion of privacy because of Clementi's sexual orientation. Violence was not involved but intolerance and bigotry were as evidenced by Ravi's posts.

Right...but an actual hate crime is normally tied to violence, not just a tweet or a text message. If someone yelled a racial slur at a homosexual walking down the street or made fun of them with his or her group of friends, would you consider that a hate crime? Or people just being people (who are often complete bungholes)?

I guess the bigger question is whether it's OK for people to be complete bungholes. I don't think we want to legislate the "I'm a bunghole" defense into law; then again, looking at our gvt. I'm pro'ly wrong on this.

Hahahaha, kind of like the "Good Samaritan" clause that landed Seinfeld, Elaine, Kramer, and George in jail? The upside is that finding parking at the movie theater wouldn't be such a pain.