http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/05/24/roommate-of-gay-suicide-student-pleads-not-guilty-to-intimidation/
A story from several months ago - a roommate of a gay teen posts a video of him fucking a guy on youtube. The gay teen offs himself. Gays everywhere cry "murder".
I think this is excessive.
Your thoughts?
:lol:
Oh yeah, that happened at Rutgers. I think the chick in the case pled guilty to some lesser charge and ended up with like community service. Agree that this is nowhere close to an act of murder.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I want homophobes to get their comeuppance.
On the other, do we really want to advertise that "saying mean things about us" is our kryptonite. :ph34r:
10 years in prison? For filming somebody? Holy shit.
Is there some sort of precedent for that draconian a sentence for being an asshole?
On the one hand, you want the scumbag to suffer. Humiliating someone so publicly and destroying them by violating their privacy should be a serious crime.
However, it's not, the law hasn't caught up yet to the vast potential for personal destruction over the Internet, so going after him for murder is excessive.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2011, 02:50:32 PM
10 years in prison? For filming somebody? Holy shit.
Is there some sort of precedent for that draconian a sentence for being an asshole?
Hitler was an asshole too. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:51:31 PM
Hitler was an asshole too. :rolleyes:
And he only got one year in prison.
How is this any different from gay rights activists "outing" someone as gay? The motivation might differ, but how does the effect on the outed person differ?
How do you even know he was a homophobe?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2011, 02:55:37 PM
How do you even know he was a homophobe?
It says so in the article.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
How is this any different from gay rights activists "outing" someone as gay? The motivation might differ, but how does the effect on the outed person differ?
Gay rights activists probably don't out someone by posting videos of them having sex.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
How is this any different from gay rights activists "outing" someone as gay? The motivation might differ, but how does the effect on the outed person differ?
Well, motivation is one of the key factors when we determine someone's guilt and the punishment so I don't see how it is irrelevant.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
How is this any different from gay rights activists "outing" someone as gay? The motivation might differ, but how does the effect on the outed person differ?
Well, motivation is one of the key factors when we determine someone's guilt and the punishment so I don't see how it is irrelevant.
Did the people who posted the video intend for the guy to die? 'Cause if that was the motivation, their plan was really stupid and they were real lucky that it worked.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
How is this any different from gay rights activists "outing" someone as gay? The motivation might differ, but how does the effect on the outed person differ?
Well, motivation is one of the key factors when we determine someone's guilt and the punishment so I don't see how it is irrelevant.
:wacko:
No, not at all. "Motive" plays some small role in sentencing, but none at all in determining guilt. As long as you mean to do what you are doing, it matters not one bit why you are doing it.
Quotea. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or
This seems to be the most serious charge. Sounds like the perpetrator might be guilty of that.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Did the people who posted the video intend for the guy to die? 'Cause if that was the motivation, their plan was really stupid and they were real lucky that it worked.
Probably not, but certainly the motivation was to be harmful.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2011, 02:55:37 PM
How do you even know he was a homophobe?
It says so in the article.
QuoteIt is alleged that online messages posted by Mr Ravi suggested he was not happy about having a gay roommate.
Not really definitive since we don't have the messages.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2011, 02:55:37 PM
How do you even know he was a homophobe?
It says so in the article.
Not really. They only say: "it is alleged that online messages posted by Mr Ravi suggested he was not happy about having a gay roommate."
It's a suspicion, not a fact.
I laughed.
Technology has pretty much killed any hope a person has of privacy, sadly.
Seriously though. Not guilty.
Ticker tape parade
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 05:01:21 PM
Seriously though. Not guilty.
Of murder, absolutely.
But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of. Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.
I sentence him to make embarrassing sex tapes with ugly women where he gets made fun of afterwards.
Certainly not murder.
Did the guy secretly film it or just come across the gay guy's film and decide to upload it?
The former could still be pretty serious...
Can somebody please tape Martinus?
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 05:01:21 PM
Seriously though. Not guilty.
Of murder, absolutely.
But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of. Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.
Could you charge voyeurism without having the law struck down by the Charter? And in this case, obstruction of justice would be the sort of ideological, bullshit charge that they would lay on him for thought-crime.
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
Certainly not murder.
Did the guy secretly film it or just come across the gay guy's film and decide to upload it?
The former could still be pretty serious...
If I recall he put a webcam in there and then streamed it live to some friends. Why, I have no idea.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Did the people who posted the video intend for the guy to die? 'Cause if that was the motivation, their plan was really stupid and they were real lucky that it worked.
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2011, 06:26:52 PM
Can somebody please tape Martinus?
You'd like that wouldn't you? :perv:
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 06:42:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 05:01:21 PM
Seriously though. Not guilty.
Of murder, absolutely.
But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of. Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.
Could you charge voyeurism without having the law struck down by the Charter? And in this case, obstruction of justice would be the sort of ideological, bullshit charge that they would lay on him for thought-crime.
I just saw a charge of voyeurism for surreptitious videotaping the other day. Nothing wrong with the charge. And obstruction of justice by urging witnesses to lie is also perfectly valid.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2011, 02:49:59 PM
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I want homophobes to get their comeuppance.
On the other, do we really want to advertise that "saying mean things about us" is our kryptonite. :ph34r:
I resent your implication that all gays are a homogeneous group bearing the same characteristics of personality. Quit stereotyping. :mad:
I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.
The witness could obviously be charged with perjury but I have a problem with putting an extra charge on the accused.
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 06:42:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2011, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 05:01:21 PM
Seriously though. Not guilty.
Of murder, absolutely.
But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of. Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.
Could you charge voyeurism without having the law struck down by the Charter? And in this case, obstruction of justice would be the sort of ideological, bullshit charge that they would lay on him for thought-crime.
I have to agree. It seems like a way to artificially inflate the charge.
This is especially silly with systems like the Anglosaxon one where you just pile up these charges on top of the other (in European systems, otoh, you usually just get charged with the most serious crime, if you commit a number of crimes that are in close casual relation to each other).
Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2011, 01:26:14 AM
Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?
Absolutely.
It's not unheard of for someone to commit perjury, or obstruction of justice, when the underlying offence is extremely minor (say, speeding). In those cases the perjury or obstruction charge is orders of magnitude more serious than the underlying charge.
To treat it otherwise would make it "okay" to lie or obstruct justice when the underlying charge isn't very serious.
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2011, 01:20:39 AM
I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.
:wacko:
the line between prepping a witness and tampering with a witness is pretty damn clear.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 24, 2011, 03:37:47 PM
Quotea. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or
This seems to be the most serious charge. Sounds like the perpetrator might be guilty of that.
But was it an attempt to intimidate? Seems more like an attempt to embarass.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2011, 01:32:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2011, 01:26:14 AM
Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?
Absolutely.
It's not unheard of for someone to commit perjury, or obstruction of justice, when the underlying offence is extremely minor (say, speeding). In those cases the perjury or obstruction charge is orders of magnitude more serious than the underlying charge.
To treat it otherwise would make it "okay" to lie or obstruct justice when the underlying charge isn't very serious.
See, this is where I have a problem with that. As far as I am concerned, if someone is wrongly accused then the entire proceedings are "wrong" from a philosophical perspective - and upon being found not guilty should be considered non-existent. So if you lied during these proceedings (say, you are accused of murdering X; you are innocent; you also had an affair with X; you say that you didn't have an affair with X) you should not be accused of perjury.
Incidentally, I think we already discussed it before, but under Polish law, the accussed cannot be charged for lying during the trial - as this is considered a part of his right of defense (otoh, a witness can be charged for perjury).
Quote from: dps on May 25, 2011, 03:15:20 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 24, 2011, 03:37:47 PM
Quotea. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or
This seems to be the most serious charge. Sounds like the perpetrator might be guilty of that.
But was it an attempt to intimidate? Seems more like an attempt to embarass.
Yeah. I have a problem with crimes defined in that way to be honest (similar to hate speech).
I think "taping someone without their permission" (outside of public place) should be a criminal offense (and a qualified one if the taping is during an intimate or embarassing act; and further qualified if the tape is subsequently published).
Oh btw, I'm suprised noone has yet said that it's just like me to "defend a gay-death-causing homophobe" - since every time before I complained about some law being too harsh, I was accused of bias. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2011, 01:20:39 AM
I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.
The witness could obviously be charged with perjury but I have a problem with putting an extra charge on the accused.
Obsctruction of justice is a very fucked up crime.
I read a story recently of a guy's bad experience with the Japanese police. They seemed to arrest him and dragged him into the station to question him about some robberies in the area (he was foreign, had to be him), when he asked if he was arrested...they said no, its a voluntary investigation or somesuch. 'So I'm free to leave whenever I want?' 'yup'. So off he goes....only to be arrested as soon as he steps out of the door for obstruction of justice. :bleeding:
The Japanese value order, and so it's a bit tougher then petty criminals in other countries are used to.
Quote from: Siege on May 24, 2011, 06:26:52 PM
Can somebody please tape Martinus?
Want some erotic M/M feet videos eh?
Surely you can find a few of those in the military.
Anyway, had to dig for this thread, but:
QuoteDharun Ravi sentenced to 30 days in jail for Rutgers Tyler Clementi spycam case
CBS/AP) NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - A judge sentenced former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi today to 30 days in jail for using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man.
Pictures: Rutgers Spycam Trial
Ravi, 20, was also placed on three years' probation
"Our society has every right to expect zero tolerance for intolerance," Judge Glenn Berman said in imposing far less than the maximum, 10 years behind bars.
In addition, Ravi was ordered to get counseling and pay $10,000 toward a program to help victims of hate crimes.
Berman told Ravi to report to the Middlesex County Adult Correctional facility on May 31.
In handing down Monday's sentence, the judge told Ravi that while someone might argue the first spying attempt was a foolish prank, "You cannot make or milk that argument a second time."
The judge also scolded Ravi for deleting scores of text messages and tweets and trying to influence a witness. At the same time, Berman said Ravi has spent the past 20 months in "exile" since his arrest. And the judge also pointed out that Ravi was not charged in Clementi's death.
Ravi did not speak at his sentencing. But his mother, Sabitha Ravi, tearfully told the judge her son "doesn't have any hatred in his heart towards anybody."
Clementi's father, Joe Clementi, told the judge that Ravi deserved to be punished, saying the young man saw his son as undeserving of basic human decency. The elder Clementi said Ravi "still does not get it" and has no remorse.
Clementi's mother told the court that she is still tormented by the death of her son, CBS New York reports.
"He never really knew Tyler," she said of Ravi. "Not the smart, kind, articulate, humble, funny, generous person Tyler was. All he found out was that Tyler was gay."
In his impact statement, Clementi's older brother James told the judge, "I watched as Dharun slept through court as though it was something not worth staying awake for. " James said he "listened while Dharun and his defense attorneys laughed together as though it was a private joke in the courtroom that I and my family were not aware of."
Ravi was convicted in March of 15 criminal counts, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy, for using his webcam to view his 18- year-old roommate Tyler Clementi kissing another man in September 2010. Clementi committed suicide just days after the online peeping and quickly became a symbol of the plight of gay youth in America.
Supporters saw Ravi as a symbol too, of the justice system gone awry in search of someone to blame. Several hundred protesters showed up at the New Jersey State House last Monday to rally in support of Ravi and to call attention to what they see as injustices in New Jersey's hate-crime laws.
Ravi could face deportation to India, where he was born and remains as a citizen, although the judge said he added a notation to his judgement recommending that Ravi not be deported.
Seems like common sense prevailed, at least until the appeals start flying.
I think he should have gotten a stiffer sentence for the obstruction of justice stuff. Six months. I still don't see him being a homophobe though.
As I read back my posts, I realize that I was operating under a misconception (though I think it was the fault of media reporting). The guy was never recorded having sex on video. The guy was only observed kissing another guy on a streaming video.
I actually think that makes a lot of difference, at least from the revulsion standpoint. I think there is a world of difference between invasion of privacy that's recorded permanently, and one that's only recorded in someone's memory. Both are worthy of scorn, of course, but the potential for lasting damage is vastly different.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE :mad:
Tell me if I am wrong on this.
Initially the story was that a closeted gay guy was recorded having sex by his roommate, and when the video was shared the guy killed himself.
It turns out the guy wasn't closeted, and wasn't recorded having sex, and there is no reason to think that caused him to kill himself. He was streamed making out with a guy though.
Did anyone actually think he was closeted? Hard to be closeted if you are bringing guys to your dorm room. :D
Overkill
I don't get it..
He was gay, he was not in the closet, he was filmed making out with another man. Was this gay guy just being dramatic in killing himself? Where is the motivation? Was the guy he made out with so ugly that it killed his reputation?
I doubt any heteros would kill themselves if filmed making out with a female...embarrassing, sure, but one copes with such things in more healthy ways than suicide.
This is a much better story: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/22/anti-paedophile-vigilante-who-murdered-gay-man-jailed-for-18-years/
But honestly - why do gays cater to stereotypes? Gay men are not women. Pink is largely seen as a feminine color. This to me is like having a black news site and calling it friedchickennews.com or burritopress.com
This is a shameful site you should not be supporting, Marcinek.
What have you got against burritopress.com? It's a fine, upstanding news site.
Quote from: Jaron on May 23, 2012, 05:39:39 AM
This is a much better story: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/22/anti-paedophile-vigilante-who-murdered-gay-man-jailed-for-18-years/
But honestly - why do gays cater to stereotypes? (http://gaymenarenotwomen.pinkislargelyseenasafemininecolor.) This to me is like having a black news site and calling it friedchickennews.com or burritopress.com
This is a shameful site you should not be supporting, Marcinek.
Confusion, metal disorder.
That's so METAL!