LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

He was convicted of two counts of forcible sodomy. One was anal and the other oral. Attempting to claim that was not "rape" is not only semantic, but ludicrously semantic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

He was convicted of two counts of forcible sodomy. One was anal and the other oral. Attempting to claim that was not "rape" is not only semantic, but ludicrously semantic.

No, it’s a legal distinction.

Was he wearing a skirt or no? Was he lurking in a bathroom?

Was the anal penetration digital or penile? (Genuinely asking — I hadn’t seen this detail).

The semantics actually matter here because it’s facts versus narrative.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

He was convicted of two counts of forcible sodomy. One was anal and the other oral. Attempting to claim that was not "rape" is not only semantic, but ludicrously semantic.

No, it’s a legal distinction.

Was he wearing a skirt or no? Was he lurking in a bathroom?

Was the anal penetration digital or penile? (Genuinely asking — I hadn’t seen this detail).

The semantics actually matter here because it’s facts versus narrative.

The boy testified in the first trial that he was wearing a knee-length skirt. According to Virginia law, "rape" must be vaginal. Since these offenses were not, they are "forcible sodomy". That is a precise legal distinction but commonly both are considered "rape".

[Anonymous]

Saw this article today in the New York Times. Seems to be arguing that this was not a ‘rape’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-district-got-caught-virginias-130904877.html

From the article:

“The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He told his own mother he anally penetrated her. What do you think the charge means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this article today in the New York Times. Seems to be arguing that this was not a ‘rape’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-district-got-caught-virginias-130904877.html

From the article:

“The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.”

Are you seriously arguing that because the victim had a previous relationship, this wasn't assault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this article today in the New York Times. Seems to be arguing that this was not a ‘rape’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-district-got-caught-virginias-130904877.html

From the article:

“The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.”

Are you seriously arguing that because the victim had a previous relationship, this wasn't assault?

No, not at all. I actually do think it was rape. And you can definitely be a victim of rape even if there was a previous consensual relationship.

But the New York Times article seems to imply differently. And, there are lots of people who see the NYT as ‘real news’, for whatever that is worth nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this article today in the New York Times. Seems to be arguing that this was not a ‘rape’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-district-got-caught-virginias-130904877.html

From the article:

“The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.”

Are you seriously arguing that because the victim had a previous relationship, this wasn't assault?

No, not at all. I actually do think it was rape. And you can definitely be a victim of rape even if there was a previous consensual relationship.

But the New York Times article seems to imply differently. And, there are lots of people who see the NYT as ‘real news’, for whatever that is worth nowadays.

The NYT article was not implying differently.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

He was convicted of two counts of forcible sodomy. One was anal and the other oral. Attempting to claim that was not "rape" is not only semantic, but ludicrously semantic.

Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this article today in the New York Times. Seems to be arguing that this was not a ‘rape’.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-district-got-caught-virginias-130904877.html

From the article:

“The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.”

Are you seriously arguing that because the victim had a previous relationship, this wasn't assault?

No, not at all. I actually do think it was rape. And you can definitely be a victim of rape even if there was a previous consensual relationship.

But the New York Times article seems to imply differently. And, there are lots of people who see the NYT as ‘real news’, for whatever that is worth nowadays.

The NYT article was not implying differently.

You are definitely reading a way different article than the one that is in the link above. There is a definite denial of rape in that NYT article.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There was no “rape.”

These are specific legal charges. He was not charged with rape. You will stop using that word because every time you do you are repeating false information.

He was convicted of two counts of forcible sodomy. One was anal and the other oral. Attempting to claim that was not "rape" is not only semantic, but ludicrously semantic.

This was a closed hearing so we don’t know all the details other than he was convicted.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
This was a closed hearing so we don’t know all the details other than he was convicted.

Based on this article which has many details from the hearing, it doesn't appear to have been closed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a closed hearing so we don’t know all the details other than he was convicted.

Based on this article which has many details from the hearing, it doesn't appear to have been closed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

The article you linked to is from Oct 25th which is a while ago.

Here's a more recent article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sexual-assault-cases/2021/11/15/6502e79a-461e-11ec-95dc-5f2a96e00fa3_story.html

The defendant has pleaded no contest to the second case where he was accused of molesting a girl.

The article also reiterates that the defendant was found responsible for forcing a girl to perform sex acts in the first trial. In other words, the defendant was found guilty of rape, in the common usage of the term.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a closed hearing so we don’t know all the details other than he was convicted.

Based on this article which has many details from the hearing, it doesn't appear to have been closed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

The article you linked to is from Oct 25th which is a while ago.

Here's a more recent article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sexual-assault-cases/2021/11/15/6502e79a-461e-11ec-95dc-5f2a96e00fa3_story.html

The defendant has pleaded no contest to the second case where he was accused of molesting a girl.

The article also reiterates that the defendant was found responsible for forcing a girl to perform sex acts in the first trial. In other words, the defendant was found guilty of rape, in the common usage of the term.

I was just pointing out to the poster to whom I was replying that the hearing was not closed. As for your point about rape, I made that point myself in multiple posts above.