Tyler Clementi Suicide: Rutgers Student Apparently Sought Room Change

[Hepburn]

The 18-year-old violinist from Ridgewood, N.J. killed himself after, police say, he learned that his roommate had secretly streamed video on the Internet of him in a sexual encounter with another man.

Clementi's roommate, Dharun Ravi, of Plainsboro, N.J., and another student, and Molly Wei, of Princeton, N.J., both 18, are charged with invasion of privacy. The charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison if they're convicted.


In an online posting on Sept. 22, Clementi said, "I ran to the nearest RA and set this thing in motion....We'll see what happens....He seemed to take it seriously....He asked me to e-mail him a written paragraph about what exactly happened....I e-mailed it to him, and to two people above him."

Rutgers hasn't said how far that request got, CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor reported.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018385-504083.html

My heart just bleeds with sorrow and anger over the death of this young man. He tried everything to get away from the problem roommate and found no immediate relief other than death.

:cry:

[Hepburn]

1. Thank you for the rec's...

...I think of the pain he suffered. This has to stop somewhere. Tormenting and bullying has gotten so far out of hand. I am watching MSNBC and the interview of the father that went off on the school bus because of the students who were bullying his daughter who has cerebral palsy. He is charged with a fucking crime. I don't get this at all ~~ no one in authority protects the target child, but if a parent does, this is a crime. This world is just upside down some times.

JMHO

Edit for typo

[renate]

65. ... he's CHARGED? I didn't know that

I read that story when it first happened, and 98% of the comments were vehemently in favor of the dad. Maybe the charge is a pro forma thing. I can't imagine that a jury would ever in a million years convict him of anything but protecting his daughter.

[MNBrewer]

79. what daughter are you talking about?

[6000eliot]

70. How hard is it to figure out?

Our culture sides with the bullies, not the victims.

[liberation]

85. Well, it should be too surprising...

... after all we're the world's biggest bully, who also loves to play the victim no matter what.

The whole entitlement to have it all both ways, to me, is one of the defining aspects of the character of our society. That is why when tragedies like this happen, there seem to always be tons of people who will rush to make all sorts of excuses for the victimizers' and their behavior while trying to put the blame on the victims themselves. Probably due to the projection of people who grew up in a society which adores aggressiveness and abhors weakness. And I have seen plenty of examples of just that even in a supposedly progressive site like DU. It is that pervasive.

[hedgehog]

2. Side issue to this story- every dorm I've heard about bears a strong resemblance to

the island in Lord of the Flies. Freshman year, my daughter had a roommate who was pissed off at being sent to a public university. She handled this by refusing to utter a single word or otherwise acknowledging my daughter's presence all year. Then there was the roommate who shared her bed with her boyfriend every night for a semester. (They moved into my daughter's room after his roommate kicked them out.) My son's roommate who smoked pot with his buddies in the room on a regular basis. The students who regularly greeted 2AM by dropping trash cans off the roof.... then followed up by puking in the hall.

Insert your own horror story here.

Even worse, every year some students get into serious mental health issues; numbing depression, outbreaks of mania, onset of schizophrenia. All too often, the burden of handling this falls onto some well meaning but totally clueless 18 year old roommmate with problems of his own.

The typical university or college, public or private, charges an inordinate amount of money for a room that would land any other landlord in jail, then walks away. Every school has a mental health office, but if the kid never leaves bed due to depression, teachers just hand out an F for excessive absence and move on. Friends and family at home find out about problems only by accident; students are ashamed to admit that a problem exists and it's easy to hide things over the phone. We don't want a return to bed checks, but there has to be a better way.

[Hepburn]

3. Wow....

...I lived in a dorm my first year on campus ~~ back in the mid-1960s, there was a University of California requirement that freshman girls lived on in an on-campus dorm if not living at home, married, living with relatives, etc. Gotta remember that back in those dark ages, the age of majority was 21 and not 18...so we were really limited on what we could do as minors. Water balloons, some pot, and pushing all the buttons on the elevators were about as bad as it got. Oh, and never signing out and staying out all night. Sounds like things have become a hell of a lot worse!

Wow...!!!

Edit for typo

[hedgehog]

6. I knew someone who had to have his room ready for inspection

every Saturday morning - and it wasn't a military school!

Like I said, there has to be a balance between treating adults as prisoners and allowing the standards to fall to the lowest common denominator. My solution would be for students to have an actual mentor; some adult who sees them on a regular basis to ensure that things are going OK. It would be nice to have an adviser who actually gives advice! (I have comments about academic advisers who don't know the academic requirements, but that's another rant!)

[Hepburn]

8. That is a good idea. Back in the dark ages of the 1960s, we had Dorm Mothers....

...OMG...what a pain in the ass they were. Talk about RW biddies. Advice??? LOL...it was like hellfire and brimestone on any social issue!

[hedgehog]

15. PIA maybe, but at least they cared!

[bobbolink]

58. Being intrusive doesn't equate with "caring".

Power And Control issues aren't "love".

[knitter4democracy]

56. For us, it was Thursdays.

I went to a conservative evangelical Christian college. We had weekly room inspections, curfews, you name it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

27. Kids without adult supervision for the first time ever.....

...it's like taking the leash off a terrier in a huge field loaded with landmines and barb-wire.

I had roommates who smoked pot in the room, took LSD trips that had them up all hours of the night, had sex with people while I was trying to sleep......

Everyone lives on top of one another and knows each other's business. Now, let's say you have a crush on a girl, but she has a boyfriend and you have to hear about it from their roommates everytime they are screwing around in their room? That can drive a kid over the edge. I know. That was my whole freshman year.

[Ken Burch]

62. How about no longer FORCING all first and second-year students to live in the dorms?

Why not let them live off-campus in private apartments if they'd be more comfortable doing that?

These are people who are legally adults-what RIGHT does the university have to make them live in dorms, when dorms are often the worst possible place for young people out on their own to have to live?

[Chipper Chat]

63. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Ken Burch]

64. Better to sacrifice a few kids than to pass up money.

I shoulda known.

[blueamy66]

76. My soon to be step son is a freshman

at Florida....he lives in an apartment....not forced to live in a dorm.

??

Thank goodness that I lived at home thru my college years. What a nightmare. I can only imagine what frat/sorority life is like. Yuck.

[Ken Burch]

97. Well, things are obviously different in Florida, and for your son's sake

and the sake of anyone there who might be "at risk" in a dorm situation, I'm glad.

[babydollhead]

91. my firstborn is away at school for the first time

He has crazy stories of boundary pushing, posts you tube videos called "college livin'" in which he records the mayhem and bullshit he and his roommates do to each other. if you look on you tube under"slipping on ice" you will see movie after movie of ridiculous pranks. This one went too far, it's NOT funny. It's more of the same though. My son's RA is the recipient of refined pranks he and his roommates have exhausted on each other and then they do them to him. Here's one, Throw all this garbage and laundry into the others area and the madder they get, the more points you score. He and I talked along while about this incident with the boy committing suicide. He understands. I feel sorry for the kid who goes away to school who thinks he is there to study, not learn what makes people tick, what's funny, what's going too far. My hat is off to every adult who works with these freshmen.

[TexasObserver]

4. recommend

[Lost4words]

5. this country does not care about people, only $$$$$$$$$$$

I hope these tricksters have a conscience but I doubt it.

[CatFancy55]

7. I see a big lawsuit

Against Rutgers.

[Hepburn]

9. I can see that...

...they let him down and should have done something to protect him from his roommate.

[MrScorpio]

10. I just realized something...

Ravi is being charged with invading the privacy of his own dorm room.

Not that he should have done it at all, or despite the consequences, does that in any way excuse the tragic subsequent incident...

But, I'm not absolutely positive that he's going to be convicted on that charge if he's tried.

Jeezus.

How specifically can the state succeed with such a case?

Any lawyers here?

[fishwax]

11. he's not invading the privacy of the room, he's invading the privacy of the person

I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think you're allowed to invade someone's privacy just because you've a claim to the space that they're in--otherwise it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy for, say, a clothing store to stream live video from their changing rooms. After all, they'd just be invading the privacy of their own store. Or, perhaps a closer example--if you have roommates or houseguests, I would think it would still be an invasion of privacy to, without their knowledge or consent, run a webcam in the shower while they were showering.

[MrScorpio]

14. This is where I think that a defense lawyer could work against that argument:

As far as I know, the web cam was set up in a common area. So that would make it different from a location where there's a more distinct expectation of privacy, like a changing room or a bathroom.

And if that room was set up like most dorm rooms that I know, both beds are in plain sight of each other. Now since it was also Ravi's room, I'm not sure how he can invade whoever's privacy who's in his own room, without let's say, some kind of prior agreement. Whether or not he and Tyler made such a release of each other's rights to the room whenever the other is out of it is something that has to be looked in to.

Then there's a property rights question about Ravi's web cam and if it was in plain sight or not. That has to be considered as well.

I've lived in dorms with other guys before and there were times when I wished that I knew what was going on in my room when I wasn't there. Not out of some sick, voyeuristic purpose, like Ravi. But because, I didn't want any of my asshole roommates touching any of my shit while I was out.

Frankly, I'd hate to be on a jury for this case, because it looks as if the lawyers are going to have a field day with it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. I think the real problem you're going to see in this case

is when the defense attorneys subpoena the records from Rutgers that show this sort of thing happening dozens of times in the past few years, with the only "sanction" being a roommate switch off, or a cease and desist from the resident director, with not even a contact with the university police, much less the county district attorney. At that point, the defense attorney is going to argue selective prosecution, essentially arguing that these two are being charged for the suicide through the back door. And the defense attorneys are going to win that argument. Given the facts I'm seeing, I'd be shocked if this wnt to trial at all. Two or three days ago I thought Ravi would get a year, Wei three years probation. Given what I've seen in the past three days, I'd be surprised if either of them got any jail time at all. They'll both plead to probation plus community service.

[MrScorpio]

22. That's a very likely scenario for sure

If their parents have any money, you can expect some good lawyers for defense as well.

[LisaL]

32. I fail to see how defense is going to win an argument of

"selective prosecution." Prosecution has a right to decide on whether to prosecute someone or not based on variety of factors. Using your logic, defense would win selective prosecution argument in, for example, all statutory rape cases, because a lot of these cases aren't prosecuted at all.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. It's certainly not a high probability defense

But it will be enough to move the prosecutors to to a plea deal fairly quickly. The defense is going to argue that the only reason the invasion of privacy charges were brought at all was because of the suicide. And if you have 100 similar cases and this is the only prosecution, they'll have a case. And you can't do that.

It's not my logic. It's the logic of the 14th Amendment that forbids selective prosecution.

[LisaL]

41. Do you really think they have hundreds of similar cases?

Somehow I doubt it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Of college student secretly taping their roommates?

At Rutgers I'd suspect they have several. In the state of New jersey as a whole, almost certainly dozens.

YouTube generation and all. This guy isn't the first clown to come up with this, and I frankly don't think it's all that rare.

[LisaL]

45. Even assuming there were several similar cases not prosecuted,

I do not think there is anything to worry about. Again, prosecution has a wide discretion on whether to take cases to trial. Furthermore, I believe you are misinterpreting the 14 amendment. To claim selective prosecution, the defendants would have to alleged they are only prosecuted because of some bias, and that kind of defense is rarely successful anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. No

Bias is ONE forbidden reason for prosecuting among others. In this case, the question would be whether a crime that is almost never prosecuted is being pursued because of some other social offense not technically chargeable ( i.e., the suicide). The analogy would be something like charging the neo-Nazi skinhead for jaywalking, while dozens of others stroll the intersection unmolested by the police. And courts do not like this sort of thing, and for good reason.

Indeed, if you read the articles between the lines, you can see that the prosecutors and the police are already anticipating this defense, as they keep publically insisting that the invasion charge is completely independent of the suicide. They're not just saying that for information purposes.

[Tunkamerica]

66. Somehow I think you're wrong.

It happens and it happens pretty frequently.

My little brother (21) was trying to catch a guy who was stealing his stuff and the first thing he thought of was setting up a remote webcam. He's not all that original. Trawl the internet and you'll find hundreds of illicit webcam sex videos made by guys with girls who didn't know they were being recorded.

[MedicalAdmin]

83. OK - it's not your logic. It's your interpretation.

Happy now?

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. I don't understand why

you're being so hostile towards me. We're having a civil discussion of legal implications here.

[MedicalAdmin]

81. But, isn't it a civil case that you are arguing?

If Reutgers didn't contact anyone, then they are negligent and it is NOT selective prosecution because the government authorities didn't even know of the events in order to decide whether or not to prosecute. Given that the authorities (DA) wasn't aware they couldn't have made a choice to prosecute or not. Ruetgers is not a police department or a DA.

And in any event, can't we get together a few rainbow warriors with clubs to go visit Ravi and have a little "chat" about civil behavior, perhaps with a few salient punctuation marks on his knees and hands?

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Actually

Rutgers has a police department. Now, you're certainly right that non-notification is a counter-argument on the part of the DA. But I think the question will still be "Were it not for the suicide, would you have charged in this case?" And I'm not convinced that the DA or the police are going to have a good answer to that one.

[LisaL]

30. Well first of all it's not Ravi's room. He does not own it.

It belongs to the college.

[MrScorpio]

33. That's right, but it is his campus residence, however

That mixes this thing up even more.

So, you're right that the college has much more of a say than the guys who are staying in the room.


Good point.

[LisaL]

34. And college has a code of conduct.

Recording someone in a sexual situation without consent violates that code of conduct.

[MrScorpio]

35. Well, yeah, But that's solely under Rutgers' purview

I don't think that state is going prosecute violations of Rutgers' code of conduct.

[LisaL]

36. No, state has charged them with invasion of privacy.

They can be expelled for violations of Rutger's code of conduct.

[Gaedel]

17. Plenty of that crap in the internet

"a clothing store to stream live video from their changing rooms."

Whole websites dedicated to changing room cameras, locker room cameras, toilet cameras, see my-ex videos, ect.

[Wednesdays]

29. "Plenty of stuff out there"

Does that make it legal? :shrug:

[MedicalAdmin]

84. C'mon. You don't think that is actually real, do you?

If so, then please send me a PM. Have I got a deaaaaaaaaal for you.

[Hepburn]

20. It was Tyler's privacy which was invaded...

...who resides there is not the issue. Privacy is a personal right and not a property right.

[KurtNYC]

49. Clementi asked for and had an expectation of privacy. Ravi broadcast

an account and/or images of things which both roommates agreed was private.

It is Clementi's room also.

[rug]

25. Here's the statute.

2C:14-9. Invasion of Privacy, Degree of Crime, Defenses, Privileges.

1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.

b.An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.

c.An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.

d.It is an affirmative defense to a crime under this section that:

(1)the actor posted or otherwise provided prior notice to the person of the actor's intent to engage in the conduct specified in subsection a., b., or c., and

(2)the actor acted with a lawful purpose.

e. (1) It shall not be a violation of subsection a. or b. to observe another person in the access way, foyer or entrance to a fitting room or dressing room operated by a retail establishment or to photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image of such person, if the actor conspicuously posts at the entrance to the fitting room or dressing room prior notice of his intent to make the observations, photographs, films, videotapes, recordings or other reproductions.

(2)It shall be a violation of subsection c. to disclose in any manner any such photograph, film, videotape or recording of another person using a fitting room or dressing room except under the following circumstances:

(a)to law enforcement officers in connection with a criminal prosecution;

(b)pursuant to subpoena or court order for use in a legal proceeding; or

(c)to a co-worker, manager or supervisor acting within the scope of his employment.

f.It shall be a violation of subsection a. or b. to observe another person in a private dressing stall of a fitting room or dressing room operated by a retail establishment or to photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image of another person in a private dressing stall of a fitting room or dressing room.

g.For purposes of this act, a law enforcement officer, or a corrections officer or guard in a correctional facility or jail, who is engaged in the official performance of his duties shall be deemed to be licensed or privileged to make and to disclose observations, photographs, films, videotapes, recordings or any other reproductions.

h.Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provisions of law, a conviction arising under subsection b. of this section shall not merge with a conviction under subsection c. of this section, nor shall a conviction under subsection c. merge with a conviction under subsection b.

L.2003,c.206,s.1.

[MrScorpio]

31. So, unless Tyler or the other guy had exposed genitalia...

The best the state can prosecute this case is under a 4th degree violation of the law, and that's only if Ravi was aware that Tyler and the guy was going to do more than just kiss and have some sort of penetrable sex act going on.

Now if it was just kissing and no more, is Ravi liable under the sole "sexual contact" clause? I'm not sure if the law defines just kissing as sexual contact.

Is that how I'm reading this?

[LisaL]

38. Well I'd think it's not an asexual conduct.

[MrScorpio]

40. I'm talking about the LEGAL definition

The statute is very explicit when it comes to exposure and penetration.

But what if neither happened however?

Is the 4th degree violation clause still applicable for mere kissing?

[rug]

39. I think you're reading this correctly. Looks like sexual contact also involves genitalia.

2C:14-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter:

a. "Actor" means a person accused of an offense proscribed under this act;

b. "Victim" means a person alleging to have been subjected to offenses proscribed by this act;

c. "Sexual penetration" means vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse between persons or insertion of the hand, finger or object into the anus or vagina either by the actor or upon the actor's instruction. The depth of insertion shall not be relevant as to the question of commission of the crime;

d. "Sexual contact" means an intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim's or actor's intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor. Sexual contact of the actor with himself must be in view of the victim whom the actor knows to be present;

e. "Intimate parts" means the following body parts: sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast of a person;

f. "Severe personal injury" means severe bodily injury, disfigurement, disease, incapacitating mental anguish or chronic pain;

g. "Physically helpless" means that condition in which a person is unconscious or is physically unable to flee or is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to act;

h. "Mentally defective" means that condition in which a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders that person temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding the nature of his conduct, including, but not limited to, being incapable of providing consent;

i. "Mentally incapacitated" means that condition in which a person is rendered temporarily incapable of understanding or controlling his conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, intoxicant, or other substance administered to that person without his prior knowledge or consent, or due to any other act committed upon that person which rendered that person incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct;

j. "Coercion" as used in this chapter shall refer to those acts which are defined as criminal coercion in section 2C:13-5(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).

L.1978, c.95; amended 1983, c.249, s.1; 1989,c.228,s.2.

[MrScorpio]

44. So it really depends on how far Tyler and the other guy went?

And if an act can defined under that definition of sexual contact was caught on camera.

Fair enough.

Well looks like it's going to be up to a jury to figure out what they're watching.

[LisaL]

46. Since the two are charged with invasion of privacy,

I am going to assume prosecution would not bring charges if what they alleged to have done did not qualify under the law.

[MrScorpio]

48. Well, like I said, it's going to be up to a jury to look and the law and the evidence

And decide if the state has a case or not.

The state can charge anything that they want, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to stick.

[LisaL]

53. The state can't charge them with anything they want.

[MrScorpio]

55. People get unwarranted charges all the time

Sometimes it's just to elicit a plea out of defendants and sometimes the cases are thrown out by a judge,

The state has a lot of leeway either way.

[Xithras]

50. Legally, in California, recording someone in a private area requires notification.

People have been nailed for hanging clock cams and nannycams in their own houses before. I know of one case where a homeowner fired his cleaning company because his nannycam caught her sleeping on his couch. She, in turn, sued AND WON.

California law is pretty simple on this matter. If you are in an area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, including a private home, you MUST offer notification if there is recording going on. Consent isn't required, but notification is.

Ravi was free to film and stream his own dorm room if he wanted. He didn't even have to get his roomates consent for it. He DID have to notify his roomate that the recording was happening, or hang a sign in a visible area, to satisfy state law.

[LisaL]

51. Rutgers aren't in CA.

[Xithras]

52. Lol, true. Not sure how I misread that.

I had Stanford on the brain for some reason as I wrote that. Odd.

[LiberalEsto]

74. True

Teh Rutgers are in NJ

[defendandprotect]

54. Davi invaded the privacy of his roommate .... NOT his dorm room---!!!

:eyes:

[quiller4]

59. The invasion comes from the taping and there have been

numerous successful prosecutions against roommates for audio taping and distribution of still photographs. The only thing "new" about this case is the internet posting of the video

[LiberalEsto]

73. Video recording without consent is the issue here

I'm not a lawyer, but in Maryland, where I live, it's illegal to record the words of another person without consent or a warrant, and I imagine the NJ privacy law being applied in the Rutgers case is similar. Where the recording took place doesn't matter, although I suppose it's probably okay to record a speech in a public gathering.

[MedicalAdmin]

80. Does NJ have a transfered intent law.

In some states there is transfered intent laws which allow for the intent to transfered from a small crime to a big crime if a big crime was committed during the, or from the, commision of the smaller crime. Example - a theft which results in a murder. Anyone involved in the theft can then be charged with murder or accessory to murder.

Does NJ have this law - anyone? Buehler?

If it does then this POS that broadcast a private act should get the fucking chair, IMHO.

[liberation]

86. It was not "his own" room, he was sharing it with a roommate...

... that is the whole point of where the invasion of privacy was coming form.

Even if it was a room all to himself, he was broadcasting a person's personal life on a public forum like the internet, with the consent of the person himself. Now, how heavy in the criminal scale those charges are gonna go is up to the prosecution.

However, where the family may have a real shot at getting actual responsibility from these psychopaths is by taking them to court on civil charges and make them pay. Because that is the only thing these assholes and their families are sure to care about: their pockets. Make them pay until they go bankrupt, then their shit eating grin will disappear... and maybe just maybe they may actually become part of the human realm and consider the gravity of their actions (and I am not really gonna hold my breath on that).

[WeekendWarrior]

12. Could these two see federal hate crime charges against them?

That would be sweet. Because they certainly deserve to be put away.

[Tunkamerica]

67. I don't get the hate crime charge at all.

I hate gay people so I'm going to watch them have sex?

Doesn't hold water.

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. "I hate gay people, so I'm going to ridicule and expose them on the Internet"

Seems like a slam-dunk motive to me.

[Tunkamerica]

96. If victim had been black instead of gay and had been filmed

having sex with a woman would it still be a hate crime?

Isn't the def. of hate crime that the crime is done because of the minority status of the victim. I think this guy would've filmed anyone having sex in his room. The victim happened to be gay.

[66 dmhlt]

72. Doubtful - There was no threat/perception of violence

From the Department of Justice on Hate Crime:

Simple Assault: An unlawful physical attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration or loss of consciousness.

Intimidation: To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.

Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property (Except "Arson"): To willfully or maliciously destroy, damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Nothing in a college dorm happens in two days

Unfortunately. Especially when you're talking about first-year students three weeks in. You're unlikely to get RA or RD action on that inside of two weeks, barring outright assault.

[hedgehog]

16. I think that freshman away from home for the first time are very , very

vulnerable those first few weeks. A lot of college rapes happen during that first semester, largely because the young women are too trusting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I agree...they're also very, very jumpy

Which means that the sheer volume of requests for roommate switches jumps through the fucking ceiling, making it a noisy environment in which to separate the authentic problems from the "it'll-clear-up-in-two-days" whining. So, with those two factors (actual sexual assaults, massive requests), it's very difficult to get stuff moving immediately unless the harm is clear cut.

[RobinA]

57. Yeah, In My Day

at my college it was virtually impossible to get a roommate change and when it did happen it took pretty much 'til Christmas. Normally kids did informal changes that were agreed to amongst themselves. Provided, of course, that one of the people wasn't so horrible that no one would room with him/her.

[ThomasQED]

82. According to the timeline from another article

there were two broadcasts - Sept. 19 and Sept. 21.

Presumably Mr. Clementi didn't know about the first one, so he found out about it on the 22nd, which is *probably* the day he spoke to his RA who he says "seemed to take it seriously". Mr. Clementi posted something online that made it sound like he (Mr. Clementi) was dealing with it.

But then later that same day he jumped off the bridge.

The school only had a few hours to deal with the situation.

So sad to think a few more hours might have made a big difference in the outcome.

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. Yes, this is my point exactly

Even if he found out about the September 19 incident on 9/20, it's extremely unlikely that a University residential life program could sort out the facts and deal with the situation in two days. It sounds like the RA did what he was supposed to do (and let's remember that the RA is probably a 19 or 20 year-old college student himself) - ask for a clarifying document and send it up to the Resident Director for further investigation and action. The timing is also problematic, since three weeks or so into the term, the RD is probably dealing with a multitude of requests and problems that could be appropriately labeled as minor adjustment and homesickness issues. It's hard to separate the serious problems from the minor issues when you're being flooded.

[tilsammans]

21. OK, I'm out of school for 100 years now, but . . .

. . . in this day and age, isn't there a way to computer-match roommates according to compatibility? Like online dating. Who's a night owl, who's a lark, who's straight, who's gay, who's a Republican, who's a Democrat, etc.

Isn't something like that available? You'd think it would be.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Some layers of matching are not preferable

You can't have colleges preaching diversity non-stop, then have incoming first-year students paired for similarity. Certainly, this doesn't mean that you put the Klan member in the room with the African American, but I don't think many residential life professionals would find a descent into tribalism to be the preferable response.

[tilsammans]

24. I agree totally with what you said, but . . .

. . . I just think there'd be some technology that would help to ferret out potential problems. :shrug:

[onpatrol98]

95. That would be tough though....

I doubt seriously the "video-taping" culprit would have suggested that he had a problem with gays AND the young man he videotaped would not have divulged that information.

[jmm]

26. We had something like that at my college.

The only request I made Freshman year was to not have a roommate who smoked. I ended up with a chain smoking klepto with obnoxious friends who liked to start rumors about me when she wasn't cheating on her boyfriend or getting high. My other roommates weren't much better which is why I live alone now.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. I wanted a non-smoking room

My freshman roommate checked off non-smoking too because he thought it would force him to quit.......

He didn't.

[Tunkamerica]

68. We did that in 1997

Worked for me, didn't work for others. Smoking was the big thing.

[Politicalboi]

42. This should be more about

Putting it on the internet rather than privacy of the room. What right gives anyone the right to put sexual pictures or video of people who have no knowledge it's happening? I hope these two do some hard time, but they probably won't. Like that witch that drove that young girl to commit suicide over a "boy" she fell in love with. Only to find out the "boy" was the woman who told her she should kill herself. She also walked away from her crime. Too bad she didn't show her pornography, then she would really be doing some time. But no she helped this girl kill herself, no biggie.

[RobinA]

60. This is a Be Careful What You Wish For

scenario. As egregious as some of these actions are, prosecuting people for their actions that precede another's suicide is a pretty slippery slope. Additionally, you could then make the argument that anybody who bullied Dylan Klebold pre-Columbine has culpablity for his actions, the only difference being that he shot up a school before shooting himself.

[LisaL]

61. I totally agree with you.

But these two Rutger students aren't charged with anything leading to suicide, they are charged with invasion of privacy.

[Tunkamerica]

69. Thank you. I feel this story is making people lose their grip

on reality. There are reasons we have the laws we do. Half of the posters on this thread seem to want vigilante justice against two college freshmen who acted like assholes. Lots of 18-year-old's act like assholes. If the court finds that they broke laws then they should pay the penalty, but until that time these people are innocent until proven guilty. Am I wrong?

[kenfrequed]

75. Hmm

Half of the RA's have been infiltrated by evangelical groups at most public universities. Many of them are way too busy trying to convert people to actually do their damned job.

[hedgehog]

89. My daughter is a self-proclaimed lesbian atheist. She was turned

down for an RA position largely (she thinks) because she made clear she'd be calling campus security on noisy underage drunken freshmen.

[kenfrequed]

99. She may know best

But it seems really, really unlikely that she would be prevented from being an RA because she wants to follow the rules.

[xchrom]

77. Recommend

[Odin2005]

78. There is a reason I refused to live in the dorms.

THEY SUCK!

[hedgehog]

90. My youngest daughter, freshman year, made a deposit on

an off-campus apartment before the first week was out.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

98. No offense, but you don't think that was just you telling yourself that....

.....to avoid something that you fear?

Many people have lived in dorms, and it brought them out of a shell. Me included.

[mstinamotorcity]

87. Just so happens

he comes from a peaceful family. Had this been another type of family Mr. Ravi and Ms. Wei would probably need medical attention themselves.

[MadMaddie]

88. I am with you

I also go back to if the roommate didn't like Clementi why the hell didn't he ask for a roommate change?

They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.