Skip to comments.Former Rutgers student convicted in webcam case
Posted on 03/16/2012 9:10:02 AM PDT by Williams
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) A former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate's love life was convicted of all counts Friday in a case that exploded into the headlines when the victim of the snooping committed suicide by throwing himself off a bridge.
More at the link: http://news.yahoo.com/former-rutgers-student-convicted-webcam-case-155436220.html
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Nonsense hodar. http://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/newcomputers.php is what the university told Ravi to do.
I wish we only were dealing with double-standards these days...
Maybe he should have written an investigative journalism article and sent it with pictures to a tabloid exposing sex open house practices at Rutgers.
I am not totally against the ten year sentence.
In a very real way he is somewhat responsible for a persons death.
Admittedly the person wasn’t packing a full sea bag to begin with, but he had the right not to be exposed in this manner.
Actually, I now see he was NOT convicted of the “hate crime”. Looks like the jury got this one just right. Good job.
Hopefully, he will deported after his sentence is served.
I was in that young man’s situation. In my case, I hadn’t done anything, but because of where I was, it was assumed I had done something and throughout my junior high and high school, there were individuals totally committed to my humiliation, ensuring that everybody possible knew about a rumour and using it against me whenever possible, so I know that is like.
I do not believe this was ever widely broadcast or viewed on the web. He provided an email link to friends who could access the webcam. I believe one of the students involved mistakenly said under questioning that it had been “broadcast”.
In any event he definitely showed several students. He was guilty of invasion of privacy. The inappropriate part IMO is the “bias intimidation” charge. Technically, he probably was guilty of that as well. He may indeed have watched bc the sex involved was gay though there was very little evidence of that. IMO that in itself should not be a more serious crime.
There was no evidence he disliked gays or his roommate. Let’s say I spy on my (female) roommate because she has big hooters. Should there be a more serious crime for bias intimidation against well endowed women? The bias crimes are liberal fantasy land crimes, and certainly in this case where there was no hatred or anger involved.
“By illustration, if your kid is spyed on having sex but they arent gay, this level of protection is not afforded them. Nor does the spy face ten years in prison.”
There should be a class-action lawsuit, against the state of New Jersey, from all the other victims of invasion of privacy in Neww Jersey, on the Constitutional basis of “equal protection” of the laws.
That suit should lead to dismatling New Jersey “hate crimes” as nothing other than unconstitutional thought crimes where mere motive becomes a crime in itself but not even in all cases of the same crime.
The original victim was a victim of deliberate invasion of privacy. The defendant in the case is now the victim of an unconstitutional thought crime.
Agreed. Awful what happened here.
TY for the clarification. I agree he probably was technically guilty because he seemed to be more interested in spying because the sex involved was gay sex. BTW from all parts of the trial I watched, they never saw this roommate having sex. They saw him with his shirt off and possibly a kiss. Whether they were all being honest, the witnesses all claimed they turned it off within seconds.
Still my objection is to the law itself and to the possibly high sentence. This defendant really is being prosecuted for the victim’s subsequent suicide, which is tragic but not legally chargeable.
Stupid college kids screwing around, tragic consequences and lives ruined. Not really stupid, many pre med students.
>>>I agree. Ten years is far too long and it should have been handled internally with the university.
The more appropriate punishment is being thrown out of the university and have it on his record.<<<
I hope you forgot the /sarcasm tag.
What he did was clearly a serious crime, not merely a violation of university rules, like copying his roommate’s term paper or drinking on campus.
How would you feel if someone planted a webcam in your bedroom and secretly videotaped you having sex with your spouse and then broadcast it to others?
I’m not sure it warrants 10 years (and I think the 10 years would only be in play if he had been convicted of the “bias crime”), but it definitely warrants jail time.
Apparently you were not aware of the Web-cam that was used to record the encounter, and the internet postings of that encounter, followed by mass emails to students directing them to the video.
Peeping Tom is one thing ... what he did was something completely different.
Compare this to someone secretly recording you and your wife during an intimate interlude, editing it, posting it online; then sending a mass email directing your co-workers, friends, family members, neighbors and anyone with a mind to see, to go watch with a web-link to the video. Cabish?
An illegal alien in Hartford, CT was conviced last year of recording videos of women in bathroom stalls. Sentence: 18 months, with early release for good behavior. If h had done it in a gay bar? 50 years? Disgusting verdict today. "Gay" is the super-protected class of the new millenium.
“but absolutely humiliating somebody like that was absolutely uncalled for and I support the conviction.”
Public officials in CA did nothing to stop a perverted homosexual student from absolutely humiliating a heterosexual student in public. In fact these public officials openly encouraged the perverted homosexual student to do that. This was after the heterosexual student asked the public officials to stop this homosexual sexual harassment. When no public officials would not help this heterosexual student. The student killed the perverted homosexual. The state of CA then tried to charge the heterosexual student with a hate crime!
So, your defense is the ‘level’ that this event was broadcast?
The fact that the webcam was secretly placed in the room, where the roomate had a legitimate expectation of privacy is irrevalent? The fact that his actions were recorded without his knowledge or concent are irrevelent?
The intent was to hurt and humiliate as much as possible. In this, he was wildly successful - now it’s time to pay the price.
This entire story is tragic for everyone involved, but I’m not sure why they bothered with a court trial. The verdict was a foregone conclusion.
Does ten years in prison mean 9 actual months in jail? A woman here in Houston who stood by while her boyfriend (not even her baby daddy, just her current live in) molested then killed her 3 year old daughter. She got 20 years in prison and is up for parole.... after less than 2 years served.
I wasn’t sure if it was a criminal case or not.
I don’t have the problem of it being so.
But ten years still seems too much. I think 3 years is more apropriate.
The universities need to get out of the housing business. Let the market provide housing. How would you like to be an apartment owner trying to compete with taxpayer funded dormitories? The universities don’t provide cars for the students. Why should they provide housing? They exist to provide education, not housing. Think of how much tuition could go down if the universities got out of the housing business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.