MCPS bus driver arrest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

I must not be up to date on my stereotypes. Why is a 62 year old man suspicious to be a bus driver? I would imagine this would be common because older blue collar workers will be shut out of most blue collar jobs due to physical atrophy. Is it the lazy eye? Does that make him more likely to molest kids? Is it in the bible or something, because I've never heard lazy eye stereotypes before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

How are you assessing risk? Short of hiring an aide for every bus (as the special ed kids already have), how are you going to make sure there is never a case where a man has to drive one kid? And how are a going to tell parents of a normal kid that their bus driver is too high risk to drive special ed kids, but he's okay to drive THEIR kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

I must not be up to date on my stereotypes. Why is a 62 year old man suspicious to be a bus driver? I would imagine this would be common because older blue collar workers will be shut out of most blue collar jobs due to physical atrophy. Is it the lazy eye? Does that make him more likely to molest kids? Is it in the bible or something, because I've never heard lazy eye stereotypes before.

You've never heard the phrase, "dirty old man"?
You definitely don't get to be incharge of bus personnel scheduling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

How are you assessing risk? Short of hiring an aide for every bus (as the special ed kids already have), how are you going to make sure there is never a case where a man has to drive one kid? And how are a going to tell parents of a normal kid that their bus driver is too high risk to drive special ed kids, but he's okay to drive THEIR kid?

What? Telling parents why they have which bus driver? Lol what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

How are you assessing risk? Short of hiring an aide for every bus (as the special ed kids already have), how are you going to make sure there is never a case where a man has to drive one kid? And how are a going to tell parents of a normal kid that their bus driver is too high risk to drive special ed kids, but he's okay to drive THEIR kid?

What? Telling parents why they have which bus driver? Lol what?

You don't think they'll eventually figure out how driver assignments are made?

[Anonymous]

I also don't understand which characteristics identified this particular bus driver as one of the "highest risk ones". Besides (according to the PP) that he was a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

How are you assessing risk? Short of hiring an aide for every bus (as the special ed kids already have), how are you going to make sure there is never a case where a man has to drive one kid? And how are a going to tell parents of a normal kid that their bus driver is too high risk to drive special ed kids, but he's okay to drive THEIR kid?

What? Telling parents why they have which bus driver? Lol what?

You don't think they'll eventually figure out how driver assignments are made?[[b]/quote]

Who are they?
Do i think "they" are going to rise up and say, "hey! We just noticed all of the special needs kids have middle aged female drivers and the high schoolers don't?! What gives! We're suing!"
No. No, i don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me-no men around kids poster

I'm not saying there could be a law or policy that prevents men from being around children.

I am saying there could be administrators who hire bus transportation managers with enough brains not to put the 62 year old man with a lazy eye on the disabled kids bus route.

Society has managed to get away with all sorts of bias despite written policy for eons.

Hire smarter, savvier bosses.
In the end, it's on us-the voters- not to allow morons to run our schools.

Thanks for your time. I understand 50% of you won't get this.

So most men are okay, but 62-year old cross-eyed men should be limited to only driving normal kids. Because hey, we discriminate anyway, so lets limit our $35,000/year jobs driving screaming children around to people with perfect facial features. And that's the smart way? You were doing better with the no men allowed policy.

Nope. Thanks for the logical fallacy. You're in the 50%.
If you are a transportation supervisor burdened with hiring some men, you keep the highest risk ones away from the highest risk population.
Ideally, you don't have any men driving children in a situation where they are ever alone with any child.

How are you assessing risk? Short of hiring an aide for every bus (as the special ed kids already have), how are you going to make sure there is never a case where a man has to drive one kid? And how are a going to tell parents of a normal kid that their bus driver is too high risk to drive special ed kids, but he's okay to drive THEIR kid?

What? Telling parents why they have which bus driver? Lol what?

You don't think they'll eventually figure out how driver assignments are made?[[b]/quote]

Who are they?
Do i think "they" are going to rise up and say, "hey! We just noticed all of the special needs kids have middle aged female drivers and the high schoolers don't?! What gives! We're suing!"
No. No, i don't.

"They" are parents, as you could have inferred from reading the previous posts. But more broadly, what is being proposed is that they will put in place a secret plan that
-assesses the risk posed by a given driver based solely on certain (to be determined) physical characteristics in males only,
-assign the "high risk" drivers to one group of students,
-assign the "low risk" drivers to another group students, and further
-such that a male driver is never alone with any student at any time,

and NOBODY
-not the drivers,
-not the union,
-not the lawyers,
-not the helicopter parents,
-not the parents who work for the district,
-not the bureaucrats who have to create the program,
-not the supervisors who have to implement it,
-not the managers who have to make sure the supervisors do it

is going to have a problem with this, think it strange, think they are being discriminated against, think it illegal (which it is) or even tell anybody about it?

And if one of those "high risk" drivers does attack a "low risk" kid, nobody is going to ask if the district had any reason to suspect the driver, and nobody is going to tell the truth and answer, "Oh, he was one of our "double secret high risk" drivers, so we put on him on a bus with kids we thought could handle it?"

What world do you live in?

[Anonymous]

this is so scary on so many levels. My son is non verbal so i would never know if anything were to happen on a bus; unless of course some drastic behavior changes. i used to feel more comfortable because there is an aide on every bus. I don't understand how this guy had time to rape this girl while the aide was off the bus??

Disgusting! something needs to be done- way too many cases involving our kids lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is so scary on so many levels. My son is non verbal so i would never know if anything were to happen on a bus; unless of course some drastic behavior changes. i used to feel more comfortable because there is an aide on every bus. I don't understand how this guy had time to rape this girl while the aide was off the bus??

Disgusting! something needs to be done- way too many cases involving our kids lately.

I suspect that it was digital penetration, which carries a second degree charge.

The aide was off the bus for quite some time, not just a typical quick handover. The driver must have known that dropping off the other student would be long. Perhaps that parent was never ready. Perhaps the parent and the aide were always chatty. But he would not have risked it, if he thought he had 2 min.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is so scary on so many levels. My son is non verbal so i would never know if anything were to happen on a bus; unless of course some drastic behavior changes. i used to feel more comfortable because there is an aide on every bus. I don't understand how this guy had time to rape this girl while the aide was off the bus??

Disgusting! something needs to be done- way too many cases involving our kids lately.

I suspect that it was digital penetration, which carries a second degree charge.

The aide was off the bus for quite some time, not just a typical quick handover. The driver must have known that dropping off the other student would be long. Perhaps that parent was never ready. Perhaps the parent and the aide were always chatty. But he would not have risked it, if he thought he had 2 min.

But that would be second degree sexual assault, not second degree rape. And it was the official school announcement that said rape, not just a newspaper so I’d expect them to accurately list the charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is so scary on so many levels. My son is non verbal so i would never know if anything were to happen on a bus; unless of course some drastic behavior changes. i used to feel more comfortable because there is an aide on every bus. I don't understand how this guy had time to rape this girl while the aide was off the bus??

Disgusting! something needs to be done- way too many cases involving our kids lately.

I suspect that it was digital penetration, which carries a second degree charge.

The aide was off the bus for quite some time, not just a typical quick handover. The driver must have known that dropping off the other student would be long. Perhaps that parent was never ready. Perhaps the parent and the aide were always chatty. But he would not have risked it, if he thought he had 2 min.

But that would be second degree sexual assault, not second degree rape. And it was the official school announcement that said rape, not just a newspaper so I’d expect them to accurately list the charges.

Thank you for clarifying that. I confused the two.

[Anonymous]

the sad part is this is most likely not his first time. At 62 he didn't just decide one day to do this. How many kids on SPED buses may not know how to verbalize these types of events??

Just eww!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the sad part is this is most likely not his first time. At 62 he didn't just decide one day to do this. How many kids on SPED buses may not know how to verbalize these types of events??

Just eww!

Sounds like this girl drew a disturbing picture instead.