Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully Dharun gets deported. Then we've hit two birds with one stone. A racist bigot commits suicide (although, harsher than deserved) and a privacy invader/bias bully gets kicked out.
This was a CRIMINAL case... the jury of his peers of NJ found him GUILTY of all 15 counts against him.
You do know that in this case, ALL 12 JURORS had to agree unanimously on the verdict...? Which they did, as noted by the polling of said jurors post-verdict.
This will be a landmark case against the "just being a kid" defense as well as against cyberbullying.
Lady Justice has spoken...
Quote:
Originally Posted by captne76
There was no invasion of privacy because there is no privacy between two roommates who share the same room together. Everything else is "political correctness" being forced on people who just are looking for a decent normal lifestyle.
This verdict changes the boundaries of a free USA to exclude the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. They should update all the signs when entering NJ:
All thoughts, opinions and biases are prohibited and subject to prosecution. Surrender all thoughts at border.
With any number selection, your always going to have a bell curve of people who are highly intelligent, morons, strong leaders, and idiots. Thats why OJ got off.
OJ got off because of the corrupt LAPD - they (Mark Fuhrman) created the reasonable doubt they needed by corrupting/planting evidence. And the prosecution asking him to try on the glove that was now shrunk from all the lab testing was also a brilliant move. He is in jail now though - ain't karma a b*tch?
The third branch of government and centuries-old jury system is petty and meaningless?
what makes people this silly? the simple act of and individual reporting to jury service is a meaningless thing. its not really something so wonderful to be proud of yourself for. i never commented on the third branch of government and never said the jury system was meaningless and i never even used the word "petty."
This will be a landmark case against the "just being a kid" defense as well as against cyberbullying.
Lady Justice has spoken...
this is one issue you have, people have their own agendas and couldnt care less about the law. its almost comical to see people commenting on this case. of course, most of the comments show an ignorance of facts of the case but even more funny is people think they can interpret the law any way they choose. they see two words "bias intimidation" and they think they can form their own definition of this phrase. same with "invasion of privacy." now you have geniuses making their own decision on what constitutes an invasion of privacy, regardless of the fact that you can only find the person guilty if they violate the actual legal standards, not your personal interpretation. this is why you need professional jurors, not degenerates.
The defense did a very good job in putting reasonable doubt into the fact there was bias intimidation. The jury didn't do it's job. He was guilty of the privacy violations, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the bias intimidation.
The defense to this is, would Ravi videotaped his roommate if he was straight. The answer is, given Ravi's personality, is ABSOLUTELY. Ravi was a creep, but not a hateful one.
This is outrageous. Yeah, there was an invasion of privacy, but all of the other charges sound like BS to me. (And I'm a gay guy.)
Decisions like this just reinforce the perception among many people that gays are getting special rights and protections. I can't help but to think it myself.
The defense did a very good job in putting reasonable doubt into the fact there was bias intimidation. The jury didn't do it's job. He was guilty of the privacy violations, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the bias intimidation.
There was no intimidation either. To intimidate someone is to to put them in fear of something. No evidence was presented that Clementi was intimidated. The verdict was ridiculous.
The law is also ridiculous, in that it allows a conviction based on the feelings of the victim; that is, if the victim felt intimidated, that's enough, even if a reasonable person in a similar situation would not have felt intimidated. It not only throws out the requirement of intent, but it throws out the requirement of anything occurring at all outside the mind of the victim.
I would hope to see the bias intimidation charges (only some of them stuck, and those all the ridiculous ones) overturned on appeal; it's a bad law and ought to be thrown out on its face. The rest of it... well, Ravi was guilty, what did he expect?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
