What charges do you think are appropriate for the Rutgers kids?

[Cid_B]

The kid who filmed and streamed and the girl who's computer it was...

Same charges for both?

Some info here... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9289121

[Warpy]

1. I say tough shit

and think an involuntary manslaughter charge might be more appropriate.

Certainly the two of them need to be charged with producing and disseminating pornography, something that should only be a crime when someone was harmed in producing it, which this was.

"Invasion of privacy" is totally inadequate.

[pnwmom]

3. What did Molly do to warrant a charge of involuntary manslaughter?

I haven't seen any evidence that she helped either to plan the "prank" or to carry it out. It's not even clear to me that she saw the images on the computer, or whose computer it was.

Here's what Ravi tweeted. Notice that he said "I" turned on "my webcam" and that "I saw him making out" not "WE." The newspapers, however, beginning with the Newark Star Ledger, have been paraphrasing the tweet (and altering its meaning) to say that "they" turned on the webcam and both Ravi and Molly saw the two men "making out."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018088-504083....

"Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay," Ravi said on his Twitter page in a Sept. 19 entry posted at 6:17 p.m., according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

Ravi allegedly broadcast that encounter but investigators would not say what video site it was posted to.

A few days later Ravi allegedly tweeted to his 150 followers telling them to "chat" him on iChat, an instant messaging sight with live video feed, the Star-Ledger reported.

"Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again," Ravi wrote Sept. 21.

_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/molly_weis_att...

This is how the Newark Star Ledger twisted the paraphrase to make it appear that Molly was more involved than the evidence thus far shows:

"Ravi posted a message on his Twitter account telling friends he and Wei had seen his roommate 'making out with a dude' when they turned on the webcam remotely from her dorm room."

Only Ravi turned on the webcam and only Ravi saw the images -- according to his tweet. But that's not what you'd think if you read the Newark Star ledger or all the papers that have quoted this article.

[ThomCat]

7. The story is that he turned on his web cam

remotely FROM HER COMPUTER in her room WITH HER present. She was in on it from the beginning and let him do this from her room.

His computer was left behind in his room with the web cam on it. The first time, they streamed the video from his web cam on his camera, and watched it on her computer.

Tyler unplugged that computer. So they went to Tyler's twitter account and found a way to stream images through the camera on Tyler's computer over the internet, and view them on the computer in Molly's room.

If the court determines that all of this is correct, then she is absolutely involved. She made her room and her computer essential parts of this crime, and she was present for all of it. She hasn't claimed that she gave Ravi the keys to her room, the use of her computer, and left him alone in her room to do this without her.

[blondeatlast]

16. ...went to MOLLY'S room and turned on MY webcam. " Interesting use of pronouns there.

Then presumably Ravi had permission to enter and the video is on Molly's computer.

That makes for a legit accessory charge; guilt to be determined.

[pnwmom]

17. Presumably he had permission to enter. But how did you make the leap

to Molly knowing what he was doing on her computer? Or that he saved the images on her computer? Or that he even used her computer (lots of computer geek college students have more than one.)

But let's assume it was Wei's computer. When I let someone else borrow my laptop, I don't stand there peeking over their shoulder to see what they're doing with it. Do you?

[blondeatlast]

21. I didn't make any "leap." It's all pure conjecture. I don't know what the police and DA know

any more than you do.

As to the laptop issue--yes, I DO know what my son is doing when he's on it. Plus I change my password frequently (a requirement). Nothing is impossible--but I'm extremely careful with my laptop considering that I use it for work.

The justice system has to consider Molly innocent, but the court of public opinion doesn't. She may not have done anything criminal, but I finnd it hard to believe she's pure in all this, either. And the play for sympathy? Give me a break. If she wasn't scared, she'd be on the tube telling us how awful it was her friend died in such an awful manner--that's what most decent people would be doing. That she isn't speaks volumes to me--but I'm not on the jury and they wouldn't allow me to be anyway.

[pnwmom]

23. Good attorneys tell their clients NOT to go on TV making statements.

It was very unusual, for example, when that Duke lacrosse student did it anyway -- and of course, those who thought he was guilty weren't influenced in the slightest by his protesting his innocence.

Knowing what your son is doing on your work laptop is very different from this situation. You are responsible for your minor child; and you're also responsible for your work computer.

These two students were peers, not a mother and child. Wei wasn't morally or legally responsible for what Ravi did unless she actively assisted him somehow. And I haven't seen any evidence that she did. Even lending him her computer -- unless she knew exactly what he planned to do with it -- wouldn't make her responsible.

[Warpy]

41. That's what the court is for

to sort that stuff out.

I'm talking about charges levied. I'm neither judge nor jury nor defending attorney.

What these kids did resulted in the death of another student. That's the reason for the charges. Whether those charges stick is up to the court.

[Cid_B]

43. The kid jumping off the bridge resulted in his death....

... not taping the sex act.

[pnwmom]

46. And the larger community feeds the homophobia that caused him

to give up on life.

[Cid_B]

4. Other end of the spectrum for me...

I'd be interested in what the punishment has been in previous cases where the student filmed was with his girlfriend and didn't commit suicide. That's what he should get and something lesser for the girl if she was complicit.

If it was just her computer then nothing.

[keopeli]

6. I seriously doubt there are many such cases

Not because people don't do the same thing with str8 people. In that case, it's likely there would be far, far less interest. The roommate might get beaten up for being a prick. If it was taken to authorities, he surely would be charged (and Wei too). But this is not only invading privacy and distributing porn, this is a type of hate crime. It doesn't seem malice was involved (though I don't know), but showing the guys on the internet both outed them and has a cultural impact that is MUCH, MUCH more devastating than if it was a str8 couple. Ravi, no doubt, knew this when posting it, which is what made it so intriguing and captivating for him and the viewers. I think it's akin to torture. Certainly the emotional damage is akin to torture.

It's simply wrong to want to prosecute this the same as if the couple were straight. The difference between it being str8 and gay is enormous.

Peace

[pnwmom]

9. You're not addressing the other question: what about Molly?

Do you think, based on the evidence you've heard of so far, that she's equally culpable? All we know from Ravi's tweets is that HE did whatever he did from her room. But he doesn't say what, if anything, she did -- or even if she viewed the images.

[keopeli]

52. What I think, and what the 'news' shares, is not important.

The fact that she has been held by authorities and charges are being considered is enough for me to call her actions into question. I can presume her innocence while, at the same time, conjecture about how what she did (or might have done) was wrong.

In fact, we know very little about what happened. But what we DO know is quite damning and deserves stern and strenuous reflection and condemnation by us all.

If she's totally innocent, fine. But, I lived in dorms, too. I know what it's like in those close quarters. These two were old friends from High School. Do you think Ravi didn't share this info with her? If he did, why would she allow him access for the second incident?

[xfundy]

14. "The difference between it being str8 and gay is enormous."

Absolutely! HOW many times have judges thrown out cases where a GLBT person dared to risk their jobs, their housing, even their relationships with their families, while trying to be treated equally under the law? TOO DAMN MANY.

The only reason the roommate and accomplice found the prospect of whatever was recorded and webcast "funny" enough to invade Clementi's privacy was because, "ooh, he likes guys, ooh, that's so GROSS and so WIERD and so WRONG!"

Remember, not too many years ago, African Americans who sought justice were often denied it in court by 'conservative' judges and juries, especially in the South, and that was in my lifetime, and I'm not THAT old! OK, at least not as old as my father, who is still kicking.

[Cid_B]

25. It should be exactly the same...

no more and no less... That's what equality is...

[pnwmom]

2. Depends on what they did. We still don't know enough facts.

We don't even know it was her computer. Unless you have some evidence to point to.

[aikoaiko]

51. I agree -- we really need to know more facts.

I certainly appears that Ravi streamed his roommates sexual encounter, but Wei's specific involvement is unclear to me.

Wei'd supposed close friend's comments to People magazine didn't help Wei at all.

[JI7]

5. sex offender

[pnwmom]

10. Do you have evidence that the two are equally culpable?

I haven't seen anything other than that Ravi did part of what he did while in Molly's room. But his tweets don't point the finger at her. So where's the evidence?

[blondeatlast]

18. "equally culpable" Probably not, that would be nigh impossible. But she ain't clean unless

she expressly forbade Ravi from entering her room.

I have a real tough time with that one, since he said it was HIS webcam.

[pnwmom]

20. There's also the difference between morally correct and legally correct.

I haven't seen anything about a NJ law that says letting someone else use your computer could make you criminally liable for what the other person does. Are librarians ever prosecuted for what computer users do in their libraries? Are owners of autos criminally prosecuted for lending their cars to other licensed drivers who subsequently drink and drive?

It was HIS webcam and he acknowledged that HE turned it on from Molly's room (which he could have done using another computer of his, or from her computer). And HE viewed the images. That's it. That's the only "evidence" I've seen and it's not much. By itself it doesn't implicate her.

[K8-EEE]

24. +1

[blueamy66]

49. I understand your viewpoint....

but a library and a dorm room are very different.

IMHO, she knew what was going on and saw what was going on. Dorm rooms are pretty small....she had to have seen and heard what HE was doing.

[Art_from_Ark]

50. So if Ravi says, "Hey Molly, my roomie wants some privacy in our room.

Mind if I hang out in your room for a while?"

And she says, "OK, sure", then continues studying or texting or whatever, while Ravi sets up his computer, and she doesn't really pay any attention to what he is doing, would that still make her culpable?

[flvegan]

8. Appropriate doesn't matter. The system will fail again this time, I'll bet.

Punishment won't likely come from the court system.

But I hope it comes from somewhere anyway.

[pnwmom]

11. The other part of the OP's question was whether the two defendents

are equally culpable. Are they? If Wei is, what did she do exactly -- based on any evidence you've seen. I haven't seen anything except for a couple of Ravi's tweets that don't implicate her.

[flvegan]

13. DKDC.

[Cid_B]

12. ATM we are in "should" land...

What do you think they "should" get?

[flvegan]

15. Can't say.

"should" is still based in allegations.

[xfundy]

19. Their "I'm better than you are!" ASSES KICKED.

Other than that, expulsion, surely, and maybe community service helping gay kids who've been abused/terrorized by people like them.

Prosecuted for invading privacy, certainly.

I'm honestly not sure about jail; these are 18 year old kids, but they were taught by older folks, TV talking a-holes and "religious leaders" that gays are subhuman. They acted in ways I imagine they might think would be acceptable in their version of "society." I'm sure they never imagined the outcome, and I'd bet they're actually very sorry for their actions, but possibly only because they got caught.

Surely there's a way to make something constructive out of this. There must be.

[pnwmom]

22. We don't know what Molly Wei did. We do know that Ravi's tweet said

HE turned on the webcam from Molly's room and that HE viewed the images. He doesn't say that she helped plan or carry out what happened. Or that she viewed the images.

But I do agree strongly that the biggest problem isn't a couple of 18 year olds -- it's the larger society that treats gays as subhuman.

[TorchTheWitch]

48. you're puting way too much emphasis on Ravi's tweets

Saying HE turned on the webcam can be nothing more than it was his hand that turned it on which has nothing to do with the decision and desire to do it having been only his. Him saying in his tweet that HE viewed the images doesn't mean no one else did along with him or he showed them after the fact. All it means is that he viewed them and they could very well have been viewed by others at the same time or after. That he doesn't mention Molly being involved in his tweets means absolutely nothing... just because she isn't mentioned other than his being in her room doesn't mean she wasn't just as much as involved as himself. For all anyone knows this may all have been Molly's idea from the beginning and Ravi agreed to go along with it. Nothing can be inferred from Ravi's tweets especially considering you can only write very brief messages in a single tweet.

Last month I went peach picking with a friend. It was his idea to go peach picking, he paid for it, and we picked peaches together (and he did most of the picking since I was often busy running away from the bees). In a tweet I might very well say that I went peach picking, it was fun and now I didn't know what to do with all these peaches... it would be stupid to infer from that tweet that it was my idea to go pick peaches, that I paid for it, and picked peaches by myself especially if it is later discovered that while I was doing this peach picking a friend of mine was arrested for cutting down one of the peach trees during the time I was there picking peaches (no, my friend did not actually cut down a peach tree). Come to think of it, when I gave a bag of some of the peaches to my neighbors all I said was that I'd gone peach picking and had an over-abundance of peaches that I couldn't possibly eat all by myself before they went bad. I never mentioned the friend at all since my reasons for giving them the peaches didn't have anything to do with the friend, but I doubt they assumed I'd gone peach picking alone or that the idea to go peach picking must have been only mine just because I didn't mention the friend.

[Cid_B]

39. What's the lesson here?

The criminal justice system is as much about deterrence as it is punishment. What lesson are we trying to send?

Don't do anything that will make people upset as they may kill themselves later and you'll be held responsible.

Whatever actions are taken should be the same ones that would have happened if the taped kid hadn't jumped.

[Scuba]

26. Kids? Most college students are adults.

[MattSh]

27. Can they legally drink?

NO! So they are not full fledged adults then.

[Scuba]

28. They can vote.

[JI7]

29. and go to war

[Scuba]

31. Exactly. So why should they be considered "kids" in this case?

We try lots of 16 year olds (and younger) as adults.

Are they "kids" because they're lucky enough to go to college?

[pnwmom]

33. This is not a case of intentional murder, despite what some people here think.

And I don't think teens (or preteens) should be tried as adults. Brain development isn't complete till the mid-twenties. Our laws should be adjusted to reflect this.

[Scuba]

37. So don't let 'em vote until their brains finish maturing?

[pnwmom]

44. Voting relies on intellect, which uses parts of the brain

that are much closer to maturity. Risk taking and self-control are in parts of the brain that are slower to develop.

[pnwmom]

35. Why do we send them to war at 18 or 19?

It's because they are so fearless at that age -- because their brains have NOT finished developing.

[pnwmom]

34. So? They are still not fully adults, either legally or in physical development. n/t

[pnwmom]

32. Because we arbitrarily changed the age of adulthood from 21, because we wanted

to continue drafting young men at 18.

Not because their brain development is completed at age 18 -- far from it. The latest research shows that adult brain development isn't completed till the mid twenties. This is an issue for all crimes, by the way -- not just what these two have been accused of.

One more thing -- both Ravi and Wei were barely into their freshman year when this happened.

[Hekate]

30. Two words: Duke University. Three members of the lacrosse team were tried, convicted, & hung here

... at Democratic Underground, this wonderful progressive site, where we all believe in the Constitution -- all before they ever saw a real judge or jury.

Incredible amounts of hellfire and brimstone writing took place here and in actual news media. They were racists, it was a hate crime, no woman would actually bring false charges, no woman ever HAD brought false charges.... and on and on and on, with imaginative punishments meted out in fevered imaginations.

Kindly look up the Duke results for yourselves before proceeding further with this Rutgers exercise. Something definitely bad happened, that much is true. But for the girl in the Rutgers case, there are an awful lot of hazy details, and I for one will wait until she sees an actual judge and an actual jury.

Hekate

[pnwmom]

36. Hekate, I wish I could give you a big

:hug:

This is what I have been thinking ever since I got over my own initial emotional reaction to the suicide -- and started looking at the evidence they have actually released. And the result was, as you know -- practically nothing with regard to Molly Wei. But the newspapers are twisting quotes from Ravi's tweets to make it appear that Wei was involved -- when the actual tweet doesn't say she did anything. (The Newark Star Ledger did this first, I believe, and then other newspapers began quoting the Star Ledger.)

Also, I haven't seen anything definite about any images actually being "streamed" over the Internet. As far as I can tell, Ravi tweeted to his friends about how he saw his roommate "making out" -- but this was AFTER it happened, not during or before. And a couple days later, he tweeted an invitation to his friends to join him in a chat to share the experience -- but that seems to have fallen through. (And Wei wasn't charged in the second incident.)

I wonder if the charges of "streaming" are based solely on the fact that the images were transmitted from Ravi's room to Molly's room? Or is Ravi being charged with "attempted streaming" for the second incident and Wei not charged with that at all?

The sad fact is that we hardly have any facts at this point and yet millions of Americans and tens of thousands of DUers probably have already made up their minds.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. I'm With You, In Principle

But, the objective evidence of which we have all been informed, is a lot different from the Duke case. The streaming and tweeting are definitely facts. There were no clear facts in the Duke case.

So, when people here went nuts on those Duke players, there was always too many gaps for that sort of certainty. Here, it seems things are little more clear. Not completely, but a lot more than in the Duke case.

So, while i agree with your overall premise, i don't know that it's fair to compare the two situations.
GAC

[Leftist Agitator]

40. Voluntary manslaughter with a hate crime specification.

That is, of course, in addition to the charges that have already been filed.

These two allegedly singled this young man out based on his sexual orientation. That's a hate crime.

They either knew, or should have reasonably known that their conduct was reckless and highly likely to result in death.

[Cid_B]

42. Instead of jumping out with a flat out "Thats bullshit"...

What is your reasoning for thinking that the guy should have known the kid would jump?

[pnwmom]

47. Except there is no evidence that "these two" did anything.

Much less a hate crime.

So far, the only evidence produced implicates only one of the defendents -- Ravi. Not both of them. His tweet says that HE turned on the webcam and that HE viewed the images. If Wei was viewing them too, why didn't he say "we"?

[VMI Dem]

45. Whatever will get them plenty of time plus hate crime added on.

So they get even more time.