Why would anyone do this to another human being?

[Magic Mom]

But some posters said it should be treated as a "simple prank." I don't think ti should be no matter what the perpetrators thought. Some horrible people think rape is funny. That doesn't make rape a prank. The same could be said for many things. The point is that this is not the type of thing that our society considers acceptable and funny and these young adults SHOULD have known that and their failure to do so does not mean we should treat them as if what they did is not as serious as it was.

Frankly, I don't care whether they regarded it as a prank or not. A crime is a crime, regardless of its intent. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't change anything if they broke laws.

I must have missed the person that thought it should be dismissed because it was a simple prank. From what I can see, everyone seems to be in agreement that it was wrong and they shold be held responsible.

 

[auntie]

This is so incredibily sad. I would like to see laws enacted that address the issues of cyber bullying, and privacy. This is all relatively new.

I would also like to be there ...years from now, when either of these so called "pranksters".. has a child of their own.
I believe only then, will they truly understand the ramifications of what they have done. How do they live with themselves?

 

[NHdisneylover]

While it is sad what happened let's remember that this is just a plain old stupid prank that lead to an awfully bad outcome.

Should the kids who did this be punished. Yes. Should their lives be ruined because of it - probably not.

I don't believe in a million years they ever imagined that the kid would commit suicide.

They were having a discussion about the on "Morning Joe" today and their were arguments on both sides.

Frankly, I don't care whether they regarded it as a prank or not. A crime is a crime, regardless of its intent. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't change anything if they broke laws.

I must have missed the person that thought it should be dismissed because it was a simple prank. From what I can see, everyone seems to be in agreement that it was wrong and they shold be held responsible.

I agree with you--doesn't matter HOW the two regarded their actions; it was a crime. Anyway, I had to go back and find what had stuck in my mind from last night and here it is. Seems the quote IS saying that the poster themselves sees this as a "stupid prank" (and by extension then that it would have been funny if only one of the victims had not committed suicide) and also feels the perpetrators should be punished but not all that heavily (basically from how I read it at the same level as one would punish people who perform "stupid pranks" which usually amounts to a small fine or community service for having taken a rival school's statue to your own school or some other actually harmless yet annoying activity). Hopefully this poster simply did not express himself/herself well and that is not at all what was meant.

 

[DawnCt1]

I agree with you--doesn't matter HOW the two regarded their actions; it was a crime. Anyway, I had to go back and find what had stuck in my mind from last night and here it is. Seems the quote IS saying that the poster themselves sees this as a "stupid prank" (and by extension then that it would have been funny if only one of the victims had not committed suicide) and also feels the perpetrators should be punished but not all that heavily (basically from how I read it at the same level as one would punish people who perform "stupid pranks" which usually amounts to a small fine or community service for having taken a rival school's statue to your own school or some other actually harmless yet annoying activity). Hopefully this poster simply did not express himself/herself well and that is not at all what was meant.

I don't think that is an 'extension' that anyone can make, and I don't think anyone has. It wouldn't have been "funny" under any circumstance. Pranks aren't necessarily funny and being amusing does not define a prank. This behavior was criminal, no doubt about it, but it wasn't manslaughter.

 

[Magic Mom]

I wonder how much shows like Pranked and Punked promote or encourage this kind of behavior especially in that age group. Do kids find it more acceptable to embarrass people on screen because they grew up seeing it done over and over. I realize those victims must have signed releases, but those details aren't pointed out ever on those shows.

I'm not using that as any kind of excuse. I'm just wondering about a correlation.

 

[dejr_8]

Some on this thread are really hung up over the (my?) use of the word prank. Let me give you another example of where I would use the word prank to see if you can understand my usage.

Years ago I remember a rash of incidents where kids (teenagers) were throwing bricks off of overpasses onto cars. There were major accidents and injuries caused by that PRANK. Was it criminal yes but it still started out as a PRANK.

The PRANK in the current case was not designed to cause the suicide of the victim. Plain and simple.

 

[DawnCt1]

I wonder how much shows like Pranked and Punked promote or encourage this kind of behavior especially in that age group. Do kids find it more acceptable to embarrass people on screen because they grew up seeing it done over and over. I realize those victims must have signed releases, but those details aren't pointed out ever on those shows.

I'm not using that as any kind of excuse. I'm just wondering about a correlation.

That's an excellent point. In addition to that, this generation has been exposed to open access to the internet, sexual behavior on network tv, social networking which limits face to face interactions. Some people may have really high "IQs" but are totally lacking an "emotional IQ".

 

[palavra]

Some on this thread are really hung up over the (my?) use of the word prank. Let me give you another example of where I would use the word prank to see if you can understand my usage.

Years ago I remember a rash of incidents where kids (teenagers) were throwing bricks off of overpasses onto cars. There were major accidents and injuries caused by that PRANK. Was it criminal yes but it still started out as a PRANK.

The PRANK in the current case was not designed to cause the suicide of the victim. Plain and simple.

I think you may have a different definition of prank than many other people do. The scenario above is not a prank in any sense of the word to me. it is a crime that could and did harm or even kill someone. A prank, to me, is a realtively harmless act that you can laugh about later in your life.

 

[Acklander]

Some on this thread are really hung up over the (my?) use of the word prank. Let me give you another example of where I would use the word prank to see if you can understand my usage.

Years ago I remember a rash of incidents where kids (teenagers) were throwing bricks off of overpasses onto cars. There were major accidents and injuries caused by that PRANK. Was it criminal yes but it still started out as a PRANK.

The PRANK in the current case was not designed to cause the suicide of the victim. Plain and simple.

I understand where you're coming from. I think where the confusion is, is many people are used to hearing the word "prank" with the work "harmless" in front of it; so are used to pranks being considered harmless - but many times that's not the case.

While, I consider what these people did, to be hateful and vile; I don't think their intentions were that the victim commit suicide. Part of that is stupidity. yes, they were bright students, but they're at the age where they still do incredibly stupid stuff without thinking it through or considering the outcome. And in this situation the outcome was horrible. Also, while I'm sure this was the straw that broke the camels back, I would think Tyler had other issues going on in his life to think that this was the only solution to the problem with his roommate. It's very sad all around.

 

[DawnCt1]

Some on this thread are really hung up over the (my?) use of the word prank. Let me give you another example of where I would use the word prank to see if you can understand my usage.

Years ago I remember a rash of incidents where kids (teenagers) were throwing bricks off of overpasses onto cars. There were major accidents and injuries caused by that PRANK. Was it criminal yes but it still started out as a PRANK.

The PRANK in the current case was not designed to cause the suicide of the victim. Plain and simple.

I thought you were quite clear. Prank does not equate to humor or sanity. I agree with your conclusion. What disturbs me, almost as equally, is that Tyler went to the school for help and nothing was done. Intervention by adults may have resulted in a very different ending.

 

[Hannathy]

Some on this thread are really hung up over the (my?) use of the word prank. Let me give you another example of where I would use the word prank to see if you can understand my usage.

Years ago I remember a rash of incidents where kids (teenagers) were throwing bricks off of overpasses onto cars. There were major accidents and injuries caused by that PRANK. Was it criminal yes but it still started out as a PRANK.

The PRANK in the current case was not designed to cause the suicide of the victim. Plain and simple.

I don't call that a prank either!

 

[luvmy3]

Just as? so you really believe that a boy ousted for not being able to perforrm would be in danger for being harrassed, attacked, discriminated, and being killed for it? Because that's the future for a boy who is ousted for being gay

So do you think the intent of the roommate was to oust him so that he would be harrassed, attacked, discriminated and killed? If so, I think thats really jumping to conclusions especially when you don't really know anything about that roommate or his past behaviors or opinions regarding homosexuals.

I think "funny" got into the discussion because that is what a prank is intended to be--and calling it a simple prank indicates that was the intent--with no real intent to cause ANY lasting harm. Thus, the issue so many of us have with the use of that term in this thread--basically it seems to say that some people see this as something that would normally be viewed as funny; and I for one just cannot understand that view. Nothing about this is in any way funny or harmless. It was cruel, plain and simple. No, you wouldn't necessarily expect it to lead to suicide (though enough have happened it is a fairly reasonable thing to think of) but you most anyone would expect it to have lasting and damaging emotional effects as well as possible affecting the person's future employment possibilities and the like and setting the person up to become the target of other (or actual depending on what this was) hate crimes and harrasment.

To me a prank is a trick you play on someone for your own amusement, sometimes it can be something funny, but other times it can be something cruel, and sometimes it is done with the sole purpose to embarass someone.
I do not find what was done in this case funny however I do believe that the roommate and the girl probably thought it was, because 18 year olds can still be immature idiots.

But some posters said it should be treated as a "simple prank." I don't think ti should be no matter what the perpetrators thought. Some horrible people think rape is funny. That doesn't make rape a prank. The same could be said for many things. The point is that this is not the type of thing that our society considers acceptable and funny and these young adults SHOULD have known that and their failure to do so does not mean we should treat them as if what they did is not as serious as it was.

Is anyone really saying that?

I wonder how much shows like Pranked and Punked promote or encourage this kind of behavior especially in that age group. Do kids find it more acceptable to embarrass people on screen because they grew up seeing it done over and over. I realize those victims must have signed releases, but those details aren't pointed out ever on those shows.

I'm not using that as any kind of excuse. I'm just wondering about a correlation.

Who knows, I'm sure it contrinutes to the way the younger generation views things like privacy. Everything we do/say/feel can be posted for all to see, so I don't think its surprising that there are those who think things like secretly taping people and posting it for the world to see isn't a big deal.

 

[JoiseyMom]

Do you remember the woman who posed as a teenage boy on the internet, befriended her daughter's rival and then bullied her to the point of suicide? I do not believe that she was ever convicted of manslaughter, although the verdict was sought. That was ongoing, deliberate taunting and bullying that lasted for weeks. I believe that a civil, monetary judgement was later brought against her. So no, suicide is not murder by proxy.

Just because that jury didn't convict her, doesn't mean that a NJ jury would do the same with these two. Heck...I wish I lived in that county (I am in the next one) I would volunteer to be on that jury!

If Tyler had been 17 and not 18, these two would be facing child porn charges! I wonder what the age of Tylers partner is????

What these two did fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter, which I posted the other day. I hope the Middlesex County prosecutor has the cojones to bring it!

 

[DawnCt1]

Just because that jury didn't convict her, doesn't mean that a NJ jury would do the same with these two. Heck...I wish I lived in that county (I am in the next one) I would volunteer to be on that jury!

If Tyler had been 17 and not 18, these two would be facing child porn charges! I wonder what the age of Tylers partner is????

What these two did fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter, which I posted the other day. I hope the Middlesex County prosecutor has the cojones to bring it!

And I guess you would be excused because you have your mind made up about the verdict. I didn't see your definition, but here is one that I easily found,

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

There are two operative words here; the first and obvious? "intentional". They intended to embarrass and humiliate him. Proving that they set out to kill him is a very long shot and frankly unprovable.
The second, more important word, "kill". They didn't kill him. He killed himself. Why aren't you also angry at the adults who were approached to help him and didn't?

 

[moon]

So do you think the intent of the roommate was to oust him so that he would be harrassed, attacked, discriminated and killed? If so, I think thats really jumping to conclusions especially when you don't really know anything about that roommate or his past behaviors or opinions regarding homosexuals.

What is there to know? These two individuals knew Taylor was gay. They decided to tape him in the most intimate, private act a person can engage in and decided to show the tape not to a group of friends in a room, but advertised it and showed it to as many people as possible; even people they didn't know. They did all they could to get a huge reaction.

They were old enough and intelligent enough to know that ousting a gay boy would have serious if not grave consequences. That gay teens are harassed and attacked often. That Taylor's life would never be the same.
And they went ahead with their plan.

I don't know what their altitudes or opinions about homosexuals were, and I don't think that is relevant here. The point is that in this case they knew very well what they were doing, they went about it in a big way wanting to make an impact so Taylor would pay the consequences whatever they were.

What do you think their intention was?

 

[DawnCt1]

What is there to know? These two individuals knew Taylor was gay. They decided to tape him in the most intimate, private act a person can engage in and decided to show the tape not to a group of friends in a room, but advertised it and showed it to as many people as possible; even people they didn't know. They did all they could to get a huge reaction.

They were old enough and intelligent enough to know that ousting a gay boy would have serious if not grave consequences. That gay teens are harassed and attacked often. That Taylor's life would never be the same.
And they went ahead with their plan.

I don't know what their altitudes or opinions about homosexuals were, and I don't think that is relevant here. The point is that in this case they knew very well what they were doing, they went about it in a big way wanting to make an impact so Taylor would pay the consequences whatever they were.

What do you think their intention was?

Maybe they didn't know that. This is a generation that has a "cyberlife" and live on you tube and Facebook. Tyler asked to have his roommate leave the room until midnight. Did they see who he invited into his room? Was he open about who he was meeting there? How many times has the roommate had to leave the room at his roommate's request?
Heterosexual or homosexual, a dorm room that is shared by two or more students in not the place for sex. There is no real privacy in a dorm room and perhaps none should be assumed. That doesn't excuse what they did, which was criminal invasion of privacy however. .

 

[luvmy3]

What is there to know? These two individuals knew Taylor was gay. They decided to tape him in the most intimate, private act a person can engage in and decided to show the tape not to a group of friends in a room, but advertised it and showed it to as many people as possible; even people they didn't know. They did all they could to get a huge reaction.

They were old enough and intelligent enough to know that ousting a gay boy would have serious if not grave consequences. That gay teens are harassed and attacked often. That Taylor's life would never be the same.
And they went ahead with their plan.

I don't know what their altitudes or opinions about homosexuals were, and I don't think that is relevant here. The point is that in this case they knew very well what they were doing, they went about it in a big way wanting to make an impact so Taylor would pay the consequences whatever they were.

What do you think their intention was?

If people want this prosecuted as a hate crime because it was done to a homosexual then the roommates attitudes and opinions of homosexuals is certainly relevant.

What do I think their intention was? From what I have read/heard about it, that they wanted to embarass him, why I have no idea and since I don't know all the facts I'm not in a position to be 100% of sure of anything. Do I think it was because he was gay? No, nothing that I have read so far makes me believe that. Is it possible? Sure, but its also possible that its not.

 

[cm8]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uicide-gay-sex-encounter-online.html#comments

I cannot get my head round why anyone could even conceive such a twisted plot ( I cannot use 'prank' as that would be making light of it).

I hope the University is also taking care of Tyler's partner as he too must be devastated.

A prison sentence of 5 years seems inadequate.

Poor, poor young man. RIP Tyler.

I agree....people need to wake up and start teaching their children how to help others not harm them.

 

[dejr_8]

What is there to know? These two individuals knew Taylor was gay. They decided to tape him in the most intimate, private act a person can engage in and decided to show the tape not to a group of friends in a room, but advertised it and showed it to as many people as possible; even people they didn't know. They did all they could to get a huge reaction.

They were old enough and intelligent enough to know that ousting a gay boy would have serious if not grave consequences. That gay teens are harassed and attacked often. That Taylor's life would never be the same.
And they went ahead with their plan.

I don't know what their altitudes or opinions about homosexuals were, and I don't think that is relevant here. The point is that in this case they knew very well what they were doing, they went about it in a big way wanting to make an impact so Taylor would pay the consequences whatever they were.

What do you think their intention was?

Did they know he was gay?

If they knew he was gay then it was public knowledge so how were they outing him?

I really have a hard time describing this as a plan/plot. Sometimes pranks start out relatively harmlessly and then take on a life of their own. Which is exactly what I believe happened in this case.

 

[Hannathy]

Did they know he was gay?


I really have a hard time describing this as a plan/plot. Sometimes pranks start out relatively harmlessly and then take on a life of their own. Which is exactly what I believe happened in this case.

How is setting up the camera aimed at the bed, turning it on once you have left the room,watching it,and then going on face book or twitter don't know which and telling everyone to watch at a certain time that it was happening again. and bragging about, it not be a plan? Once they did it 2 times it passed being accidental. The advertising it was going to happen and bragging was just the proverbial icing on the cake in proving it was a planned action.