Rutgers verdict: Dharun Ravi guilty of hate crimes, other charges

reply to post by TKDRL


There is no protected group. It's not like "well, everybody is protected from hate crimes except white people" or "everyone is protected from hate crime except Christians". If somebody blew up a church because they hate Christians and targeted them, it would be a hate crime.

We're not protecting homosexuals over any others, we're saying they were attacked BECAUSE of it, and that's a crime. A hate crime is a crime committed against anyone based on a group they are identified as. A hate crime can happen to anybody.

reply to post by TKDRL


Why would I assume he intended to intimidate? Because a jury of his peers looked at the evidence and found him guilty of doing so. They found him not guilty of doing so the first night when the defendant first discovered the information. After that though, they found him guilty. So its not an assumption, it's a court of laws determination based on the evidence gathered.

reply to post by grimreaper797


There have been numerous times white people were attacked, raped or killed just because they were white... It wasn't labeled a hate crime.

reply to post by grimreaper797


I think you must have been following the case more closely than me. I concede you might be right. But why is it said intimidate instead of embarrass? Did he try to extort him first, then release it?

You have to bear in mind that he is a foreign national.

Most likely he will be deported.

This was a tremendous expenditure of time and money for a crime that seems most like to be just a kid being stupid.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I didn't know he was a foriegn national. Is it common that they just get booted out and not go to prison? I was under the impression most serve their time first, then get booted out after.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

I didn't know he was a foriegn national. Is it common that they just get booted out and not go to prison? I was under the impression most serve their time first, then get booted out after.

Ravi could face up to 10 years in prison.

www.latimes.com...

10 years for a non-violent crime>? Unbelieveable.

reply to post by Annee


Everybody has problems. Some have it worse than others and the reason for these problems vary greatly. We cant have the law picking and choosing who deserves more sympathy for their particular problem.

Physically and mentally handicapped people deserve special assistance but Im sure you can see the difference between them and minorities as a whole.

reply to post by Annee


You can call something a "hate crime", I've no problem labeling it that. I do have a big problem with stiffer penalties. Because THAT is biased, and it creates a "protected class" of minorities that, if they were to commit a crime would not be punished as much as someone committing a crime against them. It's also used innapropriately half the time. For instance:

If I'm at a bar and I get into a fight with a gay guy for whatever reason, let's say he spilled my beer. I kick his ass, I get arrested, he says I did it because he's gay, and suddenly there is a media parade calling for my head and the DA throws "hate crime" charges at me.

Or I'm at a bar and I get into a fight and this time the gay guy kicks my ass. I tell police he did it because I'm straight.... they'll probably laugh at me, and the DA may decide I instigated the whole thing because the guy was gay and throws hate crime charges at me.

Have you ever heard of a black person charged with a hate crime? A Jew? A homosexual? A woman? Very... Very..... very rarely. Thus it's biased "justice" .. completely unconstitutional.

reply to post by TKDRL


That's a failure of the justice system playing politics, not a matter of technicality. I'm sorry if the system is acting bias, but the fact is a hate crime is a crime motivated by hate. Doesn't matter who's hating who. The "protected class" is not the law, that's the bias of people running the system. That's the bias of the public. Hate crime is just what it says it is though, and should carry a stiffer punishment, regardless of who it happens to.

reply to post by grimreaper797


But that is just reduntant then. Most crimes are committed out of hate. You don't commit a crime against someone out of love or respect.

reply to post by TKDRL


There's differences between accidental crimes, crimes against a random person, crimes of passion, premeditated crimes, etc. The law makes a distinction because society acknowledges intent matters. That's the way it is and has been.

This case sets a good example. I don't believe this act goes under the category of 'prank'.

A prank is when you put lipstick and a pink hair-bow in your boyfriend's hair, while he is, let's say, 'under the influence' and then take photos of him and post them on the dorm bulletin board and on FB.

The people I hung around with in college would have never been a part of humiliating someone. We did some crazy things, but we would have never humiliated or embarrassed anyone or violated their rights. This is plain wrong.

For this reason I believe Ravi is probably a sociopath. Sociopaths don't want others to have what they want. In this case it was 'privacy'. They want them instead, to have what they don't want -- in this case to be humiliated.

With that said, I wonder if the following had instead happened. What if Tyler was an aggressive bully type and demanded they videotape him and his gay lover and stream it live on the internet. Their response to this unusual request probably would have been, "Eff you man, don't ask us to do your dirty work ... we aren't going to video you and some dude", etc. ... OR ... "We'll do it, but this will cost you $$$."

If Ravi was asked to do this, he would have either refused OR he would have had no interest, unless there was some self-serving gain, monetary or other benefit or payout.

My point is that this guy is a classic sociopath who has no empathy and no regard for others. These are two main traits of a sociopath. He is a bully who didn't want his victim to have what he wanted and had no regard for his rights ... privacy. All sociopaths are bullies and all bullies are sociopaths.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Yeah, it's been like that forever. The hate crime is a new edition to an already tiered system, and one I do not agree with. No difference between planning to murder someone because they are gay, or planning to murder someone because they looked at you funny. Or punching someone in the face because they are gay, or punching someone in the face because they looked at you funny.

Why is it worse to put a gay guys sexcapades on the internet, than it would be putting the ex that gilted you? Or the straight roommate that talked smack. Same end result, but only one of them would be called a hate crime. Spying and breach of privacy in all cases, but the gay guy is so much worse for some reason.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The law makes a distinction because society acknowledges intent matters.

Well said.

The express intention indeed, with premeditated formation of HATE

As Ravi decidedly dissociated his roomate as being an equal human being, instead reducing the gay victim to an expendable object, in his mind and judgment, worthy of being humiliated and tormented to death.

reply to post by TKDRL


Actually if a gay person video taped a straight person having sex, then released it with the intent for it to harm that person based on the fact he's straight, or did so because he is straight, and that were provable via evidence, then it would be a hate crime. He breached the straight persons privacy, targeting that person because they were straight. That's a hate crime. I just don't think I've EVER heard of that happening.

I can't think of any gay people that hated a straight person for being straight. Maybe this is some sort of underground bigotry I've never heard about, but I doubt it. Technically speaking though, there's no difference between the two, both are hate crimes.


Also, there is a difference between plotting to murder somebody because they are gay, and plotting to murder somebody who looked at you wrong. If somebody looked at you wrong, for you its a personal matter. Obviously you would have mental issues, but nonetheless, you would see it as "that guy" (personal) looked at you wrong. As completely twisted and deluded you may be, you perceived that you were wronged. Plotting to kill somebody because they're gay indicates a willingness to kill an entire group of people based on that one fact. That's not personal. They didn't "wrong" you, it was completely unprovoked, even in your own eyes, yet still plotted to kill them anyway.

The law would view those two crimes differently, and I'm glad. The one guy obviously needs mental help. Somethings gone terribly wrong in his brain if he's plotting murder over a look somebody gave him. The other person needs to be removed from society because they're still an active threat. If somebody plots to kill another person because that person is gay, or black, or christian, etc. what's to indicate they will stop at that person? People who commit hate crimes have a dangerous mentality which threatens society. Anybody who's willing to kill others over something completely impersonal needs a stiffer sentencing.

Its the same reason people who kill to cover up a crime get stiffer sentencing. It's a mentality and intent that shows what kind of a danger they are to society.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Why is this even newsworthy??? Seriously... They interrupted "the price is right" on the only time I watched it in about 5 years for this nonsense...

If you're coming with breaking news, let it be something that's actually important (has an impact) to millions at least.

I'm sorry, but this is very discussion worthy and that's why it's posted here. This is a forum. We are here to discuss topics and this one is NEWS WORTHY.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think the replies and the way the news makes people feel garners this attention.