[DuesTyr]

NEW BRUNSWICK — Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty today on most counts in connection with using a webcam to spy on his roommate’s liaison with another man, in a high profile case that sparked awareness of cyber-bullying and harassment of gay teenagers.Ravi, 20, was found guilty of bias, invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension and witness tampering for spying on his former Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, with the jury concluding that he targeted Clementi, because of his sexual orientation.Sitting passively at the defense table, his parents seated in the second row behind him, Ravi showed no emotion as the verdict was read.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...lty_in_ru.html

[mincbiori]

I have been watching this trial as much as I can. This morning, they broke into regular programming and read multiple counts guilty or not guilty, and the foreperson answered for the jury. It made sense and I think the verdicts were just. Some of the counts seemed repetitive and sounded like they had the same language as a previous count, which I thought at first was each juror polling, but that wasn't it. I'm sure media outlets will list each count and their verdict as the day goes on.

Sentencing May 21st. I don't think he should be deported or do ten years, but he has to answer for this. As far as invasion of privacy, it doesn't matter if it was someone gay or the college slut doing the football team. It also doesn't matter that it was a dorm room. Tyler asked for it between 9-1230, the other guy said yes. The jury found there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy on Tyler's behalf.

Not all of the bias intimidation counts came up guilty, I'm pretty sure. I think the jury was trying to say that the other guy would not have filmed it & tweeted/texted about it if Tyler was with a girl. Either way, I agree with the jury.

[KlaraNovikoffa]

I don't agree with the Hate crime conviction. Yes, Ravi invaded his privacy but he doesn't hate gays. He didn't kill the guy either, let's not forget Clementi commited suicide and this may just have been one factor of many in his action.

I can see this going to the Supreme Court and getting a ruling on the constitutionality of hate crimes

[Frdsdx26]

Pretty sure the exact language of 'Hate Crime' wasn't mentioned. As far as bias intimidation there were some tweets that would support that charge. I'm sure they're posted somewhere. I haven't yet found a complete list of counts and charges (didn't know they were separate) and the jury's decision on each. Also, they did not charge him with Tyler's suicide. That would have been almost impossible to convict. Not because they couldn't link it directly to what Ravi did, but because Ravi couldn't possibly have known that Tyler would take his own life. The below article goes into it a bit.

Ravi found guilty on 24 of 35 charges in webcam case

12:44 PM, Mar. 16, 2012







This article is from a couple weeks ago but is more detailed on Ravi's actions, including some of his tweets/texts. It is a two-page article.

Witness in Rutgers webcam spying trial tells of talk about 'viewing party'

10:59 PM, Mar. 5, 2012

[violalmina]

Throw the book at this creep.

[standaman]

Yes, Ravi invaded his privacy but he doesn't hate gays.

I think his attitude toward gays is unknown, but a hate-crime is about motivation; it's more accurately called a bias-crime. Hate-crime gives the impression of physical assault.

He didn't kill the guy either, He wasn't charged in the death.

I can see this going to the Supreme Court and getting a ruling on the constitutionality of hate crimes The issue has gone before the Supreme Court several times.

There are two notable decisions: R.A.V. vs City of St Paul (1992), and Wisconsin vs Mitchell (1993).
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp

Challenges based on Constitution Fifth Amendment "due process" clause: In this case, the crime was committed by a student at a university campus. There are laws that cover the responsibility of the institution to inform students of policy. Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990); Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997).

[SarkisPioute]

Would Ravi have done the same thing if his roommate had been straight and had a girl over for fun?

[LkEHaduy]

Well, he sounds kind of pervy so I'm going to venture a yes.

[TessUnsonia]

So if he would -- and had that been the case on trial -- would that mean that Ravi should have been found guilty of these same charges?

Count 2: Third-degree bias intimidation in regard to invasion of privacy charge by way of observation.
Guilty because Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation.

Count 4: Second-degree bias intimidation in regard to invasion of privacy charge by way of disclosure.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

Count 6: Fourth-degree bias intimidation in regard to attempted invasion of privacy charge by way of observation.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

Count 8: Second-degree bias intimidation in regard to attempted invasion of privacy by way of disclosure.
Guilty because he attempted to invade Clementi’s privacy to intimidate him because of sexual orientation, knowing that it would intimidate, and because Clementi reasonably believed he was a target because of sexual orientation.

[Cydayshosse]

This is the most detailed article I could find with regard to each count & subsequent charge & its verdict. Many counts/charges seem repetitive & are slightly confusing.


Dharun Ravi verdict: Breakdown of charges

Friday March 16, 2012, 1:13 PM
STAFF REPORT
The Record

Full story: Ravi guilty of most serious charges in Rutgers webcam spying caseA charge-by-charge breakdown of the Dharun Ravi invasion of privacy and bias intimidation case and verdict.


Count 1 Invasion of privacy

• With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
• With regard to M.B.: guilty

Count 2 Bias intimidation, five separate counts

• Invasion purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: not guilty
• Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
• Knowing conduct would cause Tyler Clementi to feel intimidated: not guilty
• Knowing conduct would cause M.B. to feel intimidated: not guilty
• Reasonable belief of intimidation: guilty

Count 3 Invasion of privacy

• With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
• With regard to M.B.: guilty

Count 4 Bias intimidation

• Invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: not guilty
• Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
• Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
• Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
• Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty

Count 5 Attempted invasion of privacy, two parts

• In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
• In regards to M.B. guilty

Count 6 Bias intimidation

• With regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty
• With regard to M.B.: not guilty
• Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
• Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
• Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty

Count 7 Attempted invasion of privacy

In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
In regards to M.B.: guilty
Count 8 Bias with regard to attempted invasion of privacy

• In regards to Tyler Clementi: guilty
• In regards to M.B.: not guilty
• Purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi: guilty
• Purpose to intimidate M.B.: not guilty
• Reasonable belief of intimidation in regard to Tyler Clementi: guilty

Count 9 Tampering with physical evidence: Guilty
Count 10 Tampering physical evidence: Guilty
Count 11 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 12 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 13 Hindering apprehension or prosecution: Guilty
Count 14 Witness tampering: Guilty
Count 15 Tampering physical evidence: Guilty
http://www.northjersey.com/news/crim...f_charges.html

[cliceperperIa]

It is difficult to say, but I think this guy is more a general ass than a targeted prick.

[dafodilkemmy]

What does that mean?

[Bonioners]

It means he did not choose to be an ass to him because of race, creed, gender or orientation.

IOW, he did not "target" him out.

[LindaSmithIV]

Answering lofter, I think he would have only been guilty of invasion of privacy with a str8 couple, possibly intimidation of a female if he wanted to brand her as a slut.

[teentodiefows]

It means he did not choose to be an ass to him because of race, creed, gender or orientation.

IOW, he did not "target" him out.

I don't agree. I think he was clearly targeted because of his orientation.

[peakyesno]

The problem with the way the court case unfolded is that the defense took the attitude that there wasn't any sort of crime, a "youth defense" where a kid acted dumbly. Maybe more accurate is that there was a crime with unintended consequences.

Still, the prosecution offered a plea bargain, by which the defendant would have received no (or very little) prison time, and no threat of deportation.

It's up to the sentencing judge now to find the appropriate measure.

[KitRittyTug]

He also should have taken the stand. That always backfires on a defendant and makes them look guilty as sin

[DJkillos]

I don't agree. I think he was clearly targeted because of his orientation.

I think he targeted him because he was different.

As someone who got abused daily w/o having this "characteristic", I can safely say that people "hate" anything that is different than they are, for whatever reason that may be.

Maybe I would rather think of him as a generic ass than someone special....

[jhfsdhf]

The problem with the way the court case unfolded is that the defense took the attitude that there wasn't any sort of crime, a "youth defense" where a kid acted dumbly. Maybe more accurate is that there was a crime with unintended consequences.

Still, the prosecution offered a plea bargain, by which the defendant would have received no (or very little) prison time, and no threat of deportation.

It's up to the sentencing judge now to find the appropriate measure.

Agree that the defendant's posture was really arrogant. I can't imagine why they would not have taken the plea agreement.

[bushomeworkk]

He may not hate gays or want to do harm to them, but this didn't help the bias intimidation part of his defense:

She testified that the exchange continued with Huang messaging Ravi and telling him to be careful of M.B. winding up in his bed. Ravi replied that he set his computer to alert him when people were in his room and texted, “Yeah, keep the gays away.” I've read about different people over the years being called homophobe for far less.



And he specifically targeted him for the purpose of spreading the news:

Huang testified about Ravi encouraging her to spy on Clementi and his guest known as M.B. on the night of Sept. 21.
“Do it for real, I have it pointed at his bed and the monitor is off so he can’t see you,” Huang said about a message Ravi send her about Sept. 19.
Huang said the next message from Ravi read, “Be careful it could get nasty.”


This pretty much seals the douchebag tag on this guy for me:

Huang said Dharun Ravi sent her a text message on Sept. 23, 2010, after he learned Clementi had taken his own life that read: “He was quiet all the time and had no friends, so I guess it makes sense.”