| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2012 10:17:33 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by heavyj:
I've read that Clementi had taken pictures of the bridge he jumped off of, some indicating that he was already considering suicide. |
Lots of people take pictures of bridges, they're no indicator of imminent suicide.
The guy intruded into the most private area of his victim's life, held a party to mock him and make him the subject of ridicule. He got what he deserves; prison and deportation. |
The reason I brought it ups was simply because lawyers in conversations (On TV) were talking about it. I would assume that had his hobby been photography or bridges then it wouldn't have come up but it did, so I'm ASSUMING that they have knowledge of evidence that we don't...yet.
 mike_311 you're comparing apples and oranges. A man who murders another because he's terminally ill and doesn't want to die vs a man who had no intention of pushing a person to commit suicide. Premeditated and then the opposite.
As others have pointed out, I don't think that this incident alone would've caused him to kill himself (And we'll never know). I'm not saying it wasn't embarrassing and hurtful, but I'm sure there was more to Clementi's life than this one incident. Now, if my roommate did the same to me and showed his circle of friends the girl I was sleeping with, I would've hit him with a lawsuit (Had it been a hurtful thing to me) and gotten PAID (If possible). Committing suicide without leaving any trace or reason behind why (I'm guessing the jury can't 'assume' this was the only incident) makes it difficult for me to believe it was ALL Ravi.
And by no means am I defending Ravi's actions. I think what he did was terrible. However, I don't think 10 yrs in prison is the answer. If this sets the standards by which all future court cases will rely on, then any grieving family can point the finger at someone and try and place blame on them in an effort to find some comfort.
RyanWareham I think we have differing opinions on what premeditation is and how it applies to these cases. |
But you seem to be missing the point that the family didn't press charges. He wasn't on trial for causing the death. He was on trial for invasion of privacy (which he admitted to in his taped confession), tampering with evidence (proved beyond a reasonable doubt), tampering with witnesses, and intimidation (real or perceived). He did these things. He either admitted to most of these things, or they have proof. His postings are all over the web. He was gay bashing his roommate before he even met him based on what he could find out about him over the internet.
If Martha Stewart can go to prison for obstruction of justice, why can't this kid? |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 10:56:58 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
I agree with the outcome of this.
As others have said, if he happened to come across something, snap a quick shot with a phone and show it to a few buddies in order to have a "laugh" at his expense, *that* would be grounds for academic suspension/expulsion.
Setting up a hidden camera and broadcasting the stream the way he did is pre-meditated - he knew what he was doing. He made a conscious decision to do this and now he is going to face the penalty for it. His pre-meditated actions directly resulted in another person losing their life. 10 years and deportation is a small price compared to what some other countries would do to you for being directly responsible for another person's death. |
he didn't broadcast the stream. he tweeted about having a viewing party but he did no such thing. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 11:42:20 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
... Now, if my roommate did the same to me and showed his circle of friends the girl I was sleeping with, I would've hit him with a lawsuit (Had it been a hurtful thing to me) and gotten PAID (If possible). Committing suicide without leaving any trace or reason behind why (I'm guessing the jury can't 'assume' this was the only incident) makes it difficult for me to believe it was ALL Ravi.
And by no means am I defending Ravi's actions. I think what he did was terrible. However, I don't think 10 yrs in prison is the answer. If this sets the standards by which all future court cases will rely on, then any grieving family can point the finger at someone and try and place blame on them in an effort to find some comfort.
|
Criminal trials are brought by the state and so is the punishment. Any action by the family will be done in civil court and the punishment there will be monetary damages. Typically, civil cases wait until after the criminal case because of the lower burden of proof in civil court. If the defendant is convicted in criminal court, it makes the case against them that much more sure in civil court.
You don't agree with his punishment, OK what punishment would you have handed out for the violations of the law he was convicted of? Remember that compensation to the victim is NOT part of the criminal trial and will be taken care of later in civil court. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 12:34:43 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
he didn't broadcast the stream. he tweeted about having a viewing party but he did no such thing. |
My mistake. Thought he had...
And as for pre meditated, its a standard concept: you know and plan in advance for a course of action to take.
You may not have correctly predicted the outcome, but you planned the action. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 12:38:45 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
And by no means am I defending Ravi's actions. I think what he did was terrible. However, I don't think 10 yrs in prison is the answer. If this sets the standards by which all future court cases will rely on ... |
Why don't you wait and see what sentence is meted out before you go complaining about it? The judge may sentence him to probation, or deportation, or whatever. Ten years is the "maximum possible" sentence based on the statutes violated, but there's no indication yet what the actual sentence will be. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 02:17:55 PM · #31 |
This may be a highjack of the thread, but given that this Ravi case is based in bullying (One side sees it as a bit of fun, the other sees it as torture) I thought I would throw up a link to a petition.
The MPAA has given an R rating to the film "Bully". The film is designed to be shown to students to document the epidemic of bullying in American schools. In the film one of the bullies uses course language in attacking a victim, so the film has been hit with an R rating, effectively keeping it out of schools and being seen by it's target audience. Given the level of violence that passes as PG-13 family entertainment, hitting a film that intends to fight bullying with such a rating seems absurd to me. If you agree, sign the petition at Change.org |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 02:33:38 PM · #32 |
if its a documentary why even bother with the MPAA leave it unrated or just cut the language or create an edited version for schools.
besides schools can show what they want. we watched the uncut Glory in history class when i was in high school and Saving Private Ryan with full language and violence is routinely showed on network tv and in schools.
ratings dont mean much any more. if you use the word "Fuck" more than twice in a movie it gets a R rating. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 02:56:52 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if its a documentary why even bother with the MPAA leave it unrated or just cut the language or create an edited version for schools.
besides schools can show what they want. we watched the uncut Glory in history class when i was in high school and Saving Private Ryan with full language and violence is routinely showed on network tv and in schools.
ratings dont mean much any more. |
Back in 2006, a group of parents took a stand and formed an organization known as Parents Active in Responsible Education (PARE). Consequently, the list of R-rated Hollywood movies has started to decrease from more than 70 down to 47 today. And there are no longer any NC-17 (X-rated) movies used in the curriculum as was the case in the past. The battle is far from over, but the momentum is clearly on PARE̢۪s side.
Ryan and Glory are still on that list, but nothing is being added. If the film gets an R raring each child who views it would have to show a permission slip signed by their parent. The reality is that if it gets an R rating it will have to cut out the sort of language bullies use, or it will not get a change to be shown in schools.
I find it weird that a filmic depiction of what goes in in school is viewed as more offensive that the actual activity that goes on in school. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 03:30:13 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if its a documentary why even bother with the MPAA leave it unrated or just cut the language or create an edited version for schools.
besides schools can show what they want. we watched the uncut Glory in history class when i was in high school and Saving Private Ryan with full language and violence is routinely showed on network tv and in schools.
ratings dont mean much any more. |
Back in 2006, a group of parents took a stand and formed an organization known as Parents Active in Responsible Education (PARE). Consequently, the list of R-rated Hollywood movies has started to decrease from more than 70 down to 47 today. And there are no longer any NC-17 (X-rated) movies used in the curriculum as was the case in the past. The battle is far from over, but the momentum is clearly on PARE̢۪s side.
Ryan and Glory are still on that list, but nothing is being added. If the film gets an R raring each child who views it would have to show a permission slip signed by their parent. The reality is that if it gets an R rating it will have to cut out the sort of language bullies use, or it will not get a change to be shown in schools.
I find it weird that a filmic depiction of what goes in in school is viewed as more offensive that the actual activity that goes on in school. |
Is Tipper Gore involved? Does this remind anyone else of the PMRC? |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 03:38:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The concept of bullies makes me nervous. If one of my children was seriously targeted and bullied I could see myself contemplating irrational behavior, for sure.
However, the concept of jailing someone for "humiliating someone to death" should be meted out sparingly.
Maybe this is all a credit to our enforcement of civility, but I guess we also must ask, (not considering the posting of a private hook-up video)when will society reach a level of, if not "equality," then "acceptance" of LGBT individuals that "outing" someone is not embarrassing or humiliating, and not an issue anymore? |
Interesting comparison and not one easily dismissed. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 03:55:33 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The concept of bullies makes me nervous. If one of my children was seriously targeted and bullied I could see myself contemplating irrational behavior, for sure.
However, the concept of jailing someone for "humiliating someone to death" should be meted out sparingly.
Maybe this is all a credit to our enforcement of civility, but I guess we also must ask, (not considering the posting of a private hook-up video)when will society reach a level of, if not "equality," then "acceptance" of LGBT individuals that "outing" someone is not embarrassing or humiliating, and not an issue anymore? |
Interesting comparison and not one easily dismissed. |
I don't think the issues or the criminal charges (save possibly the "bias of intimidation" charge) are different than they would have been had the victim been a heterosexual student (male or female) of the same age. Nor would the humiliation of the victim been less.
The charges were not about his roomate's death. He was not charged with manslaughter, murder or anything of the sort. If he had a problem with having a gay roommate, he could have switched rooms and been done with it. But he chose another course of action.
Message edited by author 2012-03-19 16:05:42. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 11:29:36 AM EDT.
