Payback is a B@!*#

Sorry for demanding that you stick to the facts. I know when you have moral indignation on your side, it doesn't seem necessary to do so. That's probably a lot like how the jury felt.

So for tweeting that his roommate was gay and invading his roommate's sexual privacy in a shared dorm room, he's facing multiple felonies and a prison sentence that could measure in decades.

That's completely out of whack. Expulsion, his name dragged through the mud, a few misdemeanors on his permanent criminal record? Sure.

 

I agree he was overcharged because of the social outrage of it all, but how is this not what happened? He set up a video camera and invited people to watch.

 

A person died as a direct result of his actions. Seems like it's worth more than an expulsion.

 

Actually, if you're following facts, and it's factually correct that invasion of privacy using this set of facts is a felony, then he was charged correctly.

Listening to the verdicts, seems most of the guilty findings were related to invasion of privacy and intimidation, not the subsequent death.

Sentencing is in a couple weeks, I believe.

ps, this thread title is really stupid.

 

There were two webcam incidents.

The first, the video was broadcast to himself and a friend via a direct webchat connection.

The second, where he tweeted to his friends that they could open up a webchat with him that night because "it's happening again." This never happened because Clementi saw the tweet, figured out what he meant, and shut off his computer. Ravi rather unconvincingly contends that he didn't intend to go through with it.

There was no "broadcasting all over the internet." There was a direct broadcast to himself and a friend, and intent to broadcast to other friends later that never happened.

 

I believe that they were not allowed to mention the suicide. The invasion of privacy for bias related purposes was the only crime.

 

While I agree with the convictions, I think it's hard to say that the kid died "as a direct result of his actions." The act of filming the video didn't actually lead to the death. Indirect? Possible - maybe even probable. But that wasn't what the trial was about, and in fact both sides were barred from making any link between the webcam and the kid's suicide in the trial. This isn't someone shooting a cannon into a trailer, which directly lead to a death.

 

You can't remotely begin to prove that.

And even if you did, you can't sentence based on results. If Clementi had laughed off the harassment, you wouldn't (and shouldn't) be arguing that Ravi should be let off. The crime was the crime, the results are irrelevant.

 

They were allowed to mention the suicide, but they couldn't try to imply that Ravi caused it. The defense could not deny that Ravi caused it.

 

Thanks.

Part of me is a little troubled by the prosecution, because let's be honest -- he would not have been prosecuted if the roomate were alive.

Also -- why the kid obviously was an immature prick, we played tons of stupid pranks in college and I'd hate to think that any of them would be felonies

 

I'm certain several of them were.

 

There's no statute of limitations on involuntary manslaughter? Forget what I wrote above -- just a joke.