LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is chilling. I don't know how a parent can mentally handle knowing their child was violated in such a way.

The treatment towards him was reprehensible

Eh, his chilling willingly did the dead numerous previous times. She still has the right to withdraw consent but she wasn’t a virgin, and had previously had consensual sex with this boy in this bathroom.

The boy claims he “accidentally” anally penetrated her and the rape kit showed force. This is not as much of a “he said-she said” as you’d like to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is chilling. I don't know how a parent can mentally handle knowing their child was violated in such a way.

The treatment towards him was reprehensible

Eh, his chilling willingly did the dead numerous previous times. She still has the right to withdraw consent but she wasn’t a virgin, and had previously had consensual sex with this boy in this bathroom.

The boy claims he “accidentally” anally penetrated her and the rape kit showed force. This is not as much of a “he said-she said” as you’d like to believe.

She’s allowed to withdraw consent, AS I SAID. Doesn’t change the fact that she’s admitted to banging boys in the Hs bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

You have a perspective I do not agree with. As a teenage girl, I would not have wanted to share a bathroom with the boy pictured on this thread. I believe he should have a private bathroom made available to him.

He does. Every school has single stall restrooms for privacy. Those are all gender. The main bathrooms are still gendered. Many students use the single stall ones for privacy. ALL of my students who are trans or have a different gender identity use the single stalls for privacy and because they are much more likely to be targeted and victimized in gendered restrooms than cis kids.

Curious as to how many students identify this way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

And started having sex at 13. “ Accidentally” had anal sex with the Stone Bridge victim. I guarantee that kid has been watching p@rn online for years.

The girl was troubled as well.

That's one reason why schools shouldn't put gasoline anywhere near fire.

Confused by your metaphor . What exactly was the gasoline?

Giving a teenage boy with a long history of sexually inappropriate behavior access to troubled girls in the school setting is a recipe for disaster. He should have been in a much more restrictive placement. In this situation gasoline= access to vulnerable students.

By your definition, the existence of school generally is just a problem. All kids are vulnerable because they’re kids. Many are troubled. Many have issues going on at home. Many have personal stressors and difficulties. In your comparison, basically no kids should ever be put into large groups with each other where they outnumber supervising adults. But that … is… school.

No. Students who have a history of sexually inappropriate behavior or multiple disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior towards others should not be in the same setting as the students who don’t. I have no idea why people keep trying to make this work. It doesn’t.

Ok but that would (for real) exclude a significant portion of the population of each school. A lot of kids have discipline infractions for a lot of reasons, some justified and some not. They also have a right, an actual right via federal law to Free Appropriate Public Education. What you propose is kids who have been disciplined eventually just … don’t get school? There’s also not really any evidence he had tons of discipline issues at school. His mom saying he sent another girl nude pictures when he was in 5th grade likely happened outside of school. Not in. Bottom line you’re not rational.

That’s perfectly rationale. They have a right to an education, they don’t have to have it in the same environment as non-troubled children. Kids who have been disciplined for high level offenses ( repeatedly) should be forced to attend some kind of appropriate counseling in addition with parents for an extended period of time. As far as who pays for that, some of the cost should come from the family. And before someone complains, that solution seems to be the best middle ground. You don’t want the child remove from the general population, fine. But it’s unfair to everyone else if they continue to be a problem and frankly, it’s probably better for them in the long term.

You have no proof this kid has been punished by school before this for high level offenses. If he was punished for being caught having sex in the bathroom twice before maybe that would count but the victim of the assault who met him in the bathroom would also have been punished for those 2 offenses if so. You truly don’t know that any policy like you’ve dreamt up would have applied to him because you don’t have his entire academic discipline record.

His own mom discusses his discipline record in the article. Examples:

"At the same time, she concedes her son is deeply troubled, acknowledging his extensive history of misbehavior that included sending nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. "

"The mother made no secret of the fact her son had been repeatedly suspended for misbehavior, including fist fights with classmates."

Is there a Dad in the picture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

And started having sex at 13. “ Accidentally” had anal sex with the Stone Bridge victim. I guarantee that kid has been watching p@rn online for years.

The girl was troubled as well.

That's one reason why schools shouldn't put gasoline anywhere near fire.

Confused by your metaphor . What exactly was the gasoline?

Giving a teenage boy with a long history of sexually inappropriate behavior access to troubled girls in the school setting is a recipe for disaster. He should have been in a much more restrictive placement. In this situation gasoline= access to vulnerable students.

By your definition, the existence of school generally is just a problem. All kids are vulnerable because they’re kids. Many are troubled. Many have issues going on at home. Many have personal stressors and difficulties. In your comparison, basically no kids should ever be put into large groups with each other where they outnumber supervising adults. But that … is… school.

No. Students who have a history of sexually inappropriate behavior or multiple disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior towards others should not be in the same setting as the students who don’t. I have no idea why people keep trying to make this work. It doesn’t.

Ok but that would (for real) exclude a significant portion of the population of each school. A lot of kids have discipline infractions for a lot of reasons, some justified and some not. They also have a right, an actual right via federal law to Free Appropriate Public Education. What you propose is kids who have been disciplined eventually just … don’t get school? There’s also not really any evidence he had tons of discipline issues at school. His mom saying he sent another girl nude pictures when he was in 5th grade likely happened outside of school. Not in. Bottom line you’re not rational.

That’s perfectly rationale. They have a right to an education, they don’t have to have it in the same environment as non-troubled children. Kids who have been disciplined for high level offenses ( repeatedly) should be forced to attend some kind of appropriate counseling in addition with parents for an extended period of time. As far as who pays for that, some of the cost should come from the family. And before someone complains, that solution seems to be the best middle ground. You don’t want the child remove from the general population, fine. But it’s unfair to everyone else if they continue to be a problem and frankly, it’s probably better for them in the long term.

You have no proof this kid has been punished by school before this for high level offenses. If he was punished for being caught having sex in the bathroom twice before maybe that would count but the victim of the assault who met him in the bathroom would also have been punished for those 2 offenses if so. You truly don’t know that any policy like you’ve dreamt up would have applied to him because you don’t have his entire academic discipline record.

His own mom discusses his discipline record in the article. Examples:

"At the same time, she concedes her son is deeply troubled, acknowledging his extensive history of misbehavior that included sending nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. "

"The mother made no secret of the fact her son had been repeatedly suspended for misbehavior, including fist fights with classmates."

Is there a Dad in the picture?

Appears to have been an ugly dysfunctional divorce. The dad lives in NJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is chilling. I don't know how a parent can mentally handle knowing their child was violated in such a way.

The treatment towards him was reprehensible

Eh, his chilling willingly did the dead numerous previous times. She still has the right to withdraw consent but she wasn’t a virgin, and had previously had consensual sex with this boy in this bathroom.

The boy claims he “accidentally” anally penetrated her and the rape kit showed force. This is not as much of a “he said-she said” as you’d like to believe.

She’s allowed to withdraw consent, AS I SAID. Doesn’t change the fact that she’s admitted to banging boys in the Hs bathroom.

Multiple times and did so when supposed rape occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

You have a perspective I do not agree with. As a teenage girl, I would not have wanted to share a bathroom with the boy pictured on this thread. I believe he should have a private bathroom made available to him.

He does. Every school has single stall restrooms for privacy. Those are all gender. The main bathrooms are still gendered. Many students use the single stall ones for privacy. ALL of my students who are trans or have a different gender identity use the single stalls for privacy and because they are much more likely to be targeted and victimized in gendered restrooms than cis kids.

Curious as to how many students identify this way

For me, typically 5-7 total a year in my own classes. Student body as a whole, maybe 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is chilling. I don't know how a parent can mentally handle knowing their child was violated in such a way.

The treatment towards him was reprehensible

Eh, his chilling willingly did the dead numerous previous times. She still has the right to withdraw consent but she wasn’t a virgin, and had previously had consensual sex with this boy in this bathroom.

The boy claims he “accidentally” anally penetrated her and the rape kit showed force. This is not as much of a “he said-she said” as you’d like to believe.

She’s allowed to withdraw consent, AS I SAID. Doesn’t change the fact that she’s admitted to banging boys in the Hs bathroom.

The girl got raped. What does it matter what happened in the past?

[Anonymous]

I love that the New York Times is trying to gaslight us and tell us that we thought there were random trams kids in skirts running into the bathrooms and attacking people. We knew he knew the victim. That doesn't change that the superintendent lied about it. Keep gaslighting us. That obviously worked well for Terry. Keep telling us how stupid and clueless we are. Keep telling us how the media are feeding us a bunch of lies. And that we are falling for it. Keep it up.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so there was no “rape.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/loudoun-teen-admits-to-sexual-touching-not-violent-rape-at-broad-run-high-school/65-3d2cc68d-d9fe-4b36-9b13-53cb08db6319

All of these people clinging to a narrative about what happened should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An independent investigation has been set up but I imagine since Youngkin won and the political points scored most of you don’t actually care.

I hope the dad wins a $5 million judgment against the county.

I don’t. I am sorry for the daughter, but his behavior was and continues to be outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so there was no “rape.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/loudoun-teen-admits-to-sexual-touching-not-violent-rape-at-broad-run-high-school/65-3d2cc68d-d9fe-4b36-9b13-53cb08db6319

All of these people clinging to a narrative about what happened should be ashamed of themselves.

There are TWO victims. The first one he sodomized and this second victim who no one here is saying he raped. He looked around when walking by her in a school hallway and then forced her into an empty classroom against her will where he fondled her breasts.

You should be ashamed of yourself! The first victim was raped. This article is about the second victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An independent investigation has been set up but I imagine since Youngkin won and the political points scored most of you don’t actually care.

I hope the dad wins a $5 million judgment against the county.

I don’t. I am sorry for the daughter, but his behavior was and continues to be outrageous.

So dad should have moused up when someone known to his family said she didn’t believe his daughter, and the school board lied about the assault? His anger was completely understandable. I’m sorry you don’t see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so there was no “rape.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/loudoun-teen-admits-to-sexual-touching-not-violent-rape-at-broad-run-high-school/65-3d2cc68d-d9fe-4b36-9b13-53cb08db6319

All of these people clinging to a narrative about what happened should be ashamed of themselves.

That article is completely disingenuous and downplays the rape in the first case. The so-called reporter should be ashamed of himself, and so should you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so there was no “rape.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/loudoun-teen-admits-to-sexual-touching-not-violent-rape-at-broad-run-high-school/65-3d2cc68d-d9fe-4b36-9b13-53cb08db6319

All of these people clinging to a narrative about what happened should be ashamed of themselves.

There are TWO victims. The first one he sodomized and this second victim who no one here is saying he raped. He looked around when walking by her in a school hallway and then forced her into an empty classroom against her will where he fondled her breasts.

You should be ashamed of yourself! The first victim was raped. This article is about the second victim.

No, he was not charged with rape in the first incident, either.

Don’t presume to scold me. You don’t even know what you’re talking about but have clearly been carry on spreading erroneous Information.

The charge was sodomy. Not rape. You probably think that means anal sex or anal penetration or something. That’s not what it means.