After posting bail, while awaiting trial, the judge should have the two roommates live with the cast of the Jersey Shore…
Jersey Shore exile is reserved for people on bail for murdering a homeless guy at the very least.
My apologies if I’m not clear, but I actually agree completely with the above. I don’t believe he should be charged with manslaughter or that this should be treated as a hate crime (and in fact I’m against most aspects of hate crime law in general). For invasion of privacy or whatever other charges exist, throw the book at him, sure, but not because the guy was gay. This was a tragic event but not something the asshole roommate could realistically have seen coming.
That’s just not true Muffin.
The best example would be how and why the homeowners policies of the Columbine shooters parents paid out millions to their son’s victims. Deliberate criminal act and the parents certainly weren’t doing the shooting, but I believe the plaintiffs claimed failure to supervise by the parents. That’s negligence, and the policies kicked in.
Plus, homeowners policies usually cover unintentional acts. I’m sure the roommate and his friend didn’t intend for the gay student to kill himself, but he did.
Homeowners policies kick in on quite a few things that you wouldn’t immediately think of, and I’d bet anything that this will be one of those times.
What you don’t think it’s possible for it to be a hate crime unless someone dies? :dubious: It’s called “hate crime,” not “hate murder.”
The Columbine shooters were–wait for it–high school students. I.e., minors. These people are college students, and presumably above the age of majority.
Surely the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause would prohibit this type of punishment.
My WAG is that it may not have been pursued as a criminal matter at all, had he not killed himself—but to answer your question: no, not impossible, but it does seem that hate crime charges (or at least the ones we hear about, because they make the news) typically involve someone’s death or at least assault. Does someone better-informed than I have any actual statistics on how common hate crime charges are in cases not involving physical violence?
The hard and fast “18 years of age” rule has being blurred lately. For instance, many parents are now compelled by the courts to pay college tuition for their non-minor children. Surprises the hell out of me, but there it is. And, of course, health insurance policies have extended their coverage to include college students so it wouldn’t be a complete stretch for homeowners’ policies to be stretched to include children still living in the home.
Then we have the cases where plaintiffs have successfully sued the employer of a driver’s spouse when the driver injured someone but was un- or under-insured. Figure that one out.
Actually, I may have figured it out on my own… the FBI website maintains annual hate crime statistics. Here’s a breakdown by offense type for the most recent year available (2008).
For crimes against persons, “Intimidation” has the highest number of incidents (2,178) followed by simple assault (1,503), aggravated assault (774), forcible rape (11), and murder/negligent manslaughter (7). Also a list of property crimes, with “destruction/damage/vandalism” being the runaway leader (2,970 incidents).
So, it would appear that non-violent offenses comprise the majority of hate crimes charges.
Wait, what? Seriously? Seriously? How the fuck is that legal? I mean, I could see it maybe in the case of a parent setting up a trust fund for the kid’s college which they then raided, but were forced to pay back, but outside of that… :dubious: Like I needed another reason not to have kids.
I dunno, those seem to be two distinct forms of coverage to me. A student probably won’t have access to a (remotely decent/affordable) health plan, i.e., through an employer, so it makes sense to allow their parents to choose whether or not to keep covering them under their plan. But a student probably won’t own a home, and if they do, they should be able to also afford their own homeowner’s insurance.
:cues “The More You Know” banner:
Am I reading this correctly? Someone was in an accident and the employer of that person’s spouse was sued because that person didn’t have (enough?) insurance? What’s the rational for that?
It was already being pursued as a criminal matter before he killed himself. The police and the university were already investigating. It certainly wouldn’t have received national attention, but there’s a good chance that there would have been charges filed.
Okay, after a Google search, it looks like you somewhat exaggerated the situation, PunditLisa. What it appears is actually the case is that there are *some *states where *non-custodial *parents can be forced to contribute to college tuition.
That is exactly what I was referring to: The courts are compelling parents to support their ADULT children.
Which makes sense. The primary purpose of hate crime laws is punish actions that in and of themselves are relatively minor offenses, but that are used to intimidate or harass.
So, for example, a group of drunks standing outside your window singing loudly at 3am isn’t a hate crime. A group of drunks standing outside your window at 3am yelling “Go back to Africa, nigger!” is.
So forcing someone against their will to be in pornography that is now on the Internet and will never, ever, ever go away isn’t being a sexual predator? I’d consider that on par with sexual assault.
The kid was a musician. Any hope he had of being in the closet, or at least keeping his sex life private, was just blown away. It’s not just that he was outed, but that his future career would be defined by this one asshole forever after. He was eighteen and a freshman. That first year of college gives you so much perspective and he didn’t have that yet. In his mind, his life was probably over. In some ways, it was. Certainly his future career options were limited.
Be that as it may, there was a gap in time between when Tyler posted on that message board and when he killed himself. It’s entirely possible that something else happened or was brought to his attention that pushed him to suicide. There may have been more the roommate or others did to cause him to kill himself, or there may have been something completely unrelated to the video. I’m pretty disgusted by the actions of the roommate and the girl, but I’d like the investigation to continue and paint a fuller picture of just what happened.
The way you phrased it, it sounded like any child could sue their parents to force them to pay for college, which is absolutely not the situation. Instead, only in *some *states can *non-custodial *parents be sued to force them to contribute additional child support in the form of college tuition.
There is no video.
I’m surprised at the silence of whoever he was making out with. I can understand wishing to remain anonymous- voice scrambler and blurred face or whatever- but hopefully somebody will find him for a statement as I’d like to hear his version. I’m curious if he knew Tyler well or if this was a casual hookup, whether he had any contact with him after the scandal broke, if he’s planning to place charges, etc…
Scenario 1:
I get in a fight with a guy in a bar and punch him. I can’t punch worth shit and he’s a sturdy fellow, so he suffers little damage. If the cops are called I may get an assault charge.
Scenario 2:
I get in a fight with a guy in a bar and punch him. Unbeknownst to me, he suffers from a congenital defect and his bones crush easily. He’s killed instantly. I get charged with manslaughter.
The consequences of your actions, even if they were unforeseen, are taken into account in many cases when it comes to what charges are laid against you. I have no idea how New Jersey handles cases involving suicide as a result of a crime, though.
On preview: Palooka, the video feed was distributed over the Internet live and advertised on Twitter. It’s nice to think things distributed over the Internet go away when we want them to, but that’s rarely the case.