Ex-Rutgers student guilty in webcam s...

Ex-Rutgers student guilty in webcam suicide case

There are 126 comments on the ABC 27 story from Mar 16, 2012, titled Ex-Rutgers student guilty in webcam suicide case. In it, ABC 27 reports that:

Defense attorney Philip Nettl, left, and Dharun Ravi sit in the courtroom during jury deliberations at the Middlesex County Courthouse, Thursday in New Brunswick, NJ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC 27.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#4 Mar 16, 2012
Can we all watch he verdict in our browsers? Maybe we should organize a viewing party.

The lawyer looks pretty out of it. Maybe he's got gay activist family members....

snicker

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Mar 16, 2012
Ravi will besentenced on May 21. Sinche hewsa convicted of 15 FELONIES, I certianly hope he recieves a LONG prison sentence and is then deported, after he serves his sentence, and is then permenantly barred from ever reenetering the U.S.

It's a PRIVILEGE for a foreginer to visit, or live in, the United States oF America, NOT a RIGHT.

DEPORT THE LITTLE S.O.B.!
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#6 Mar 16, 2012
So now we have reached the place where people are punished severely for their thoughts and opinions. How could that ever be happening in a free society? If Ravi had filmed his roommate with a girl and that boy or girl later jumped off a bridge, Ravi's name never would have been mentioned. Instead, purely for political motives, the issue has been blown up and a young man's life is ruined for a stupid kid stunt. Anybody who had a role in this, including the politicians who passed that hate-crime law, should be ashamed. Ravi might have had more freedom and sanity in his ancestral home.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Mar 16, 2012
Snickers wrote:
So now we have reached the place where people are punished severely for their thoughts and opinions. How could that ever be happening in a free society? If Ravi had filmed his roommate with a girl and that boy or girl later jumped off a bridge, Ravi's name never would have been mentioned. Instead, purely for political motives, the issue has been blown up and a young man's life is ruined for a stupid kid stunt. Anybody who had a role in this, including the politicians who passed that hate-crime law, should be ashamed. Ravi might have had more freedom and sanity in his ancestral home.
Mind if I come over and stick a webcam in your bedroom without your knowledge ?

:)

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Mar 16, 2012
Snickers wrote:
So now we have reached the place where people are punished severely for their thoughts and opinions. How could that ever be happening in a free society? If Ravi had filmed his roommate with a girl and that boy or girl later jumped off a bridge, Ravi's name never would have been mentioned. Instead, purely for political motives, the issue has been blown up and a young man's life is ruined for a stupid kid stunt. Anybody who had a role in this, including the politicians who passed that hate-crime law, should be ashamed. Ravi might have had more freedom and sanity in his ancestral home.
"Ancestral home" ?! He was BORN THERE, you idiot ! He'as a NATIVE of India. it's NOT his "ancestral home". And I HOPE he doesn't speak the language.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#9 Mar 16, 2012
Snickers wrote:
So now we have reached the place where people are punished severely for their thoughts and opinions. How could that ever be happening in a free society? If Ravi had filmed his roommate with a girl and that boy or girl later jumped off a bridge, Ravi's name never would have been mentioned. Instead, purely for political motives, the issue has been blown up and a young man's life is ruined for a stupid kid stunt. Anybody who had a role in this, including the politicians who passed that hate-crime law, should be ashamed. Ravi might have had more freedom and sanity in his ancestral home.
Furthermore, as a resident alien, it is a PRIVILEGE for him to beallowed to live in the U.S., NOT a RIGHT. He forfeited the privilege when he decided to commit 15 felonies.
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#10 Mar 16, 2012
Snickers wrote:
So now we have reached the place where people are punished severely for their thoughts and opinions.
Shut up you impotent filth. If he had only had an opinion he wouldn't be convicted.

You right wing, sexually sick, divorced, "religious" freeeks don't object to taking motivation into account when it's first versus second degree murder.

I don't hear you complaining about hate crimes protecting on the basis of religious affiliation.

Why do you think your continual lying is okay with jeebus, you sub human pos?

Praiz!
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#11 Mar 16, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mind if I come over and stick a webcam in your bedroom without your knowledge ?
:)
I guarantee you it wouldn't make me jump off a bridge. I also guarantee you that it wouldn't be a "hate crime" because I'm not gay. You wouldn't be punished nearly as much as Ravi because the government wouldn't be able to find a way to make it into a "hate crime."
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#12 Mar 16, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ancestral home" ?! He was BORN THERE, you idiot ! He'as a NATIVE of India. it's NOT his "ancestral home". And I HOPE he doesn't speak the language.
The point is, he most likely wouldn't have been charged with a hate crime in India, i.e. not punished for thought. India has more freedom than the U.S.A.? Pretty pathetic, I think.
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#13 Mar 16, 2012
Ex Senator Santpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Shut up you impotent filth. If he had only had an opinion he wouldn't be convicted.
You right wing, sexually sick, divorced, "religious" freeeks don't object to taking motivation into account when it's first versus second degree murder.
I don't hear you complaining about hate crimes protecting on the basis of religious affiliation.
Why do you think your continual lying is okay with jeebus, you sub human pos?
Praiz!
Oxy, when are you going to figure out that none of your ranting does a thing but make you look like a lunatic. I don't want any protection from hate crime laws for any reason whatsoever. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They take away far more freedoms than they protect. If he were punished for just what he did and not his supposed opinion, he would be punished far less. The conviction stands either way. It is unreasonable punishment that will follow because of the stupid hate crimes law. Besides, people testified that Ravi wasn't anti-gay. But, I bet his is now since he will get shafted on behalf of gays.

“We grill um up 4 you ?”

Since: Jul 10

North Country Faire

#14 Mar 16, 2012
Snickers wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxy, when are you going to figure out that none of your ranting does a thing but make you look like a lunatic. I don't want any protection from hate crime laws for any reason whatsoever. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They take away far more freedoms than they protect. If he were punished for just what he did and not his supposed opinion, he would be punished far less. The conviction stands either way. It is unreasonable punishment that will follow because of the stupid hate crimes law. Besides, people testified that Ravi wasn't anti-gay. But, I bet his is now since he will get shafted on behalf of gays.
Do you mean Unconstitutional for instance like Prop 8 in California? LOL,The hate laws are NOT just for gays but they work for you also if the need ever arose!

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Mar 17, 2012
Snickers wrote:
<quoted text>
I guarantee you it wouldn't make me jump off a bridge. I also guarantee you that it wouldn't be a "hate crime" because I'm not gay. You wouldn't be punished nearly as much as Ravi because the government wouldn't be able to find a way to make it into a "hate crime."
That's immaterial. That he was found guilty of a hate crime is an enhancement to teh underlying crime. If he had ben foudn NOT guilty of a hate crime, he still would have been found gulity of the other crimes.

Even though sticking a webcam in YOUR bedroom may not be a hate crime, it is STILL a crime if done without your permission.
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#16 Mar 17, 2012
Snickers wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxy, when are you going to figure out that none....
You stinking, lying, evigelical filth better get used to be sht on. You're the new KKK in educated society.

And you still can't grasp that motivation is taken into account in charging and sentencing all the time in the legal system, in contexts that go well beyond hate crimes laws.

You're merely an ignorant, pos bigot. Your kind is being culled from the population by time's march as we speak.

And none of you tabibangelical freeeks complained about hate crimes laws for the decades they've covered religious affiliation, among other characteristics.

Did jeebus say you could lie all the time? I don't think so.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#17 Mar 17, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's immaterial. That he was found guilty of a hate crime is an enhancement to teh underlying crime. If he had ben foudn NOT guilty of a hate crime, he still would have been found gulity of the other crimes.
Even though sticking a webcam in YOUR bedroom may not be a hate crime, it is STILL a crime if done without your permission.
A crime yes. He was convicted of a few crimes. But for the hate crime attachment, the prosecution had absolutely nothing to show this kid hated gays, spoke foul of gays or ever bashed gays from any public records covering emails, texts, conversations with friends etc. The jury found just enough evidence that they thought "could" be used to define a hate crime but even the jurors had to dig deep to find evidence for that.
The entire case for the prosecution was based on this kid hating gays and that is why he did it and they didn't actually prove that theory.
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#18 Mar 17, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
A crime yes. He was convicted of a few crimes. But for the hate crime attachment, the prosecution had absolutely nothing to show this kid hated gays, spoke foul of gays or ever bashed gays from any public records covering emails, texts, conversations with friends etc. The jury found just enough evidence that they thought "could" be used to define a hate crime but even the jurors had to dig deep to find evidence for that.
The entire case for the prosecution was based on this kid hating gays and that is why he did it and they didn't actually prove that theory.
You're a liar.

While the hate crimes aspect was the weakest one of all the many charges, there was the tweet form the perp, "He's doing it with a dude!" Not, "He's having sex in our room!" This was about gay sex, not sex.

Also, to believe anti gay bias had nothing to do with this invasion of privacy, you'd have to believe that the convicted perp would have spied once upon Tyler having sex with a woman, and then continued on the next occasion of Tyler having sex with a woman of publicizing his attempt to have a dorm viewing party.

You'll claim you'd believe that. But you are a lying mongoloid and bigot.
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#19 Mar 17, 2012
Road Kill Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean Unconstitutional for instance like Prop 8 in California? LOL,The hate laws are NOT just for gays but they work for you also if the need ever arose!
If someone commits a crime that makes me a victim, then the usual laws should do all that needs to be done. I don't want anybody's opinions punished. Whether someone hits me over the head with a bat because they hate me or because they want to steal my wallet, the result is the same. The so called "hate crime" might even be the less troublesome of the two because the "hate crime" criminal might leave my wallet alone. With the result of the crime being the same, the punishment should also be the same. Actions should be punished, not opinions.
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#20 Mar 17, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's immaterial. That he was found guilty of a hate crime is an enhancement to teh underlying crime. If he had ben foudn NOT guilty of a hate crime, he still would have been found gulity of the other crimes.
Even though sticking a webcam in YOUR bedroom may not be a hate crime, it is STILL a crime if done without your permission.
Exactly. The punishment would have been there without the stupid hate crime law. All the hate crime law does it dish out more punishment. There is absolutely no reason why one should incur more punishment for their opinions.
Snickers

Grove City, PA

#21 Mar 17, 2012
Ex Senator Santpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
You stinking, lying, evigelical filth better get used to be sht on. You're the new KKK in educated society.
And you still can't grasp that motivation is taken into account in charging and sentencing all the time in the legal system, in contexts that go well beyond hate crimes laws.
You're merely an ignorant, pos bigot. Your kind is being culled from the population by time's march as we speak.
And none of you tabibangelical freeeks complained about hate crimes laws for the decades they've covered religious affiliation, among other characteristics.
Did jeebus say you could lie all the time? I don't think so.
Oxy, if motivation is already taken into account, WHY DO WE NEED HATE CRIME LAWS? They are nothing but political butt kissing, something that gays insist upon. As for religious affiliation being covered, I am completely unaware of any case where that has been used for Christians, Muslims maybe, but not Christians. But, you, Mr. or Ms. Know-It-All, must know of such a case, so by all means, feel free to show off your knowledge and tell us about it.
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#22 Mar 17, 2012
Snickers wrote:
<quoted text>
....if motivation is already taken into account, WHY DO WE NEED HATE CRIME LAWS?
You stupid, divorced buybull filth, because you're a dissembling retardate, that's why.

1. For the same reason we have federal hate crimes laws rather than only state ones:

So some local, bigot, redneck sheriff or prosecutor can't undercharge when it's a bias crime, crimes which serve to try and intimidate entire sub communities.

2. Because, as with first and second degree murder, the motivation is deemed to make the crime worse, thus requiring a stiffer sentence.

Or did you just argue that there should be no sentencing guidelines differentiating first, second, third degree or manslaughter from one another? Well, you did just argue that, azzhole.

BTW, cretin, you "religious" freeeks never harped on hate crimes laws that long protected on religious affiliation...until the long existing laws were extended to cover glbt people.

Anyway, it's a done deal federally and you'll always be a bigot and fool on the way out. And jeebus didn't give you permission to liea all the time, you filth. Praiz!
Ex Senator Santpornum

Wilmington, DE

#23 Mar 17, 2012
Snickers wrote:
<quoted text>
...absolutely no reason why one should incur more punishment for their opinions.
If people were punished for their opinions you'd be posting from death row.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Victory Bridge jumper survives icy plunge after... (Jan '11) Tue lazywolf54 10
TRUMP is coming to Edison May 22 Rosenburg for Trump 6
Any Gay/Bi Teens In Central NJ or Anywhere in NJ?? (Aug '14) May 19 Princeton bareback 9
News Obama Knocks Trump at Rutgers: 'Ignorance is no... May 19 Excellent One 105
News Obama at Rutgers commencement was 2 years in th... May 14 John McCharlie 2
News Police arrest Edison man wanted for alleged agg... May 5 Anthony Scarpuzzi 2
News Atlantic Canadians watching Fort McMurray wildf... May 4 was it Jooish lig... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New Brunswick Mortgages