LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Absolutely BS. In all cases. But good to know you are ok with violent assaults in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Absolutely BS. In all cases. But good to know you are ok with violent assaults in schools.

That's not a response. Seriously, where do you think they should be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

MS-13 started in Los Angeles in the states. The roots are from south of the border. It is not homegrown.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39645640

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Absolutely BS. In all cases. But good to know you are ok with violent assaults in schools.

That's not a response. Seriously, where do you think they should be?

If illegal, not in this country. If legal, not in public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

Which has nothing to do with anything in this case. How is it relevant? His victim agreed to meet him in the bathroom. Because they had had a consensual sexual relationship previously. It’s not like he wore a skirt to sneak into a girls bathroom and lay in wait.

The teacher’s aide who expressed concern about his behavior was accused of being transphobic. Perhaps that impacted the teacher who found the boy in the bathroom with the girl during the assault and was part of the reason for that teacher not saying anything?

The teacher didn’t see anything but four feet. She didn’t speak to them, or ask who was there or if everything was okay. She just walked out.

There are more details than that. When she came in, the boy temporarily stopped his assault and jumped quickly up. The girl rose more slowly, probably due to the fact that she was in pain. She knew she was witnessing something that was simply wrong to be occurring in a school. She still did nothing, out of fear.

In your defense of transgenderism, it’s clear you are willing to ignore those situations where the politics get in the way of justice.

Please explain how transgenderism is in any way connected to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

No. Everyone is responsible for their own action or inaction here. LCPS doesn’t get to blame the sheriff for their own negligence and lies. The sheriff absolutely holds blame too, but that does not in any way absolve LCPS. Ziegler, the asst super, the division counsel and Wade should all be fired for cause.

Please try to keep up. The LCPS didn't blame the sheriff. The special grand jury did.

The grand jury also concluded there was no coordinated effort on part of LCPS. Nor did it make ANY recommendations for disciplinary action/consequences for LCPS officials, let alone bring criminal charges.

You're grasping at straws because you are deeply committed to an insane narrative about a tragic circumstance that is rooted in a bizarre and psychotic hatred of LGBTQ people. You're really disgusting, really, with your need to be righteous, inflammatory and try to fix blame when we should be looking to fix the problems identified in the report, which include institutions operating in silos. Left less said is what to do about protocols for handling sexual assaults.

I don’t even understand why you are pushing this narrative about hatred of LGBTQ people. The problem PP has is that individuals who could have intervened had been lectured by administration about LGBTQ, which is why the teacher, who witnessed the legs under the stall, kept her mouth shut. She was afraid to intervene, to go to anyone who would intervene. Even if it turned out to be consensual sex and not rape, do you think it’s appropriate for two kids to be screwing in a bathroom? When the higher ups in schools and school boards create an atmosphere of fear in the staff, bad thing happen to children.

This was not a first offense for this kid. He had offenses in other states and his own grandmother felt he was sociopathic. Her father stated his daughter was only back in school for a few weeks before this kid preyed on her.

I am not “pushing a narrative.” It’s calling out bigotry. The anti-LGBTQ bigots were absolutely pushing a narrative— the one about the boogeyman pretending to be a girl to gain access to girl’s bathrooms so he could lay in wait and attack their virtuous daughters. That isn’t what happened — affirmed by the grand jury. Yet it remains the subtext of the hollering and disdain by the anti-LGBTQ bigots.

This notion that the school was more concerned about transgender rights at the expense of a girl who willingly met her attacker in a bathroom (as opposed to him laying in wait after nefariously wearing a skirt to access it) is a new assertion by the grand jury. That’s all it is, though — an assertion by a prosecuting body that stopped well short of recommending criminal charges and lay equal blame for the mess at the feet of law enforcement. It hasn’t been proven this is what happened. It’s a characterization, nothing more. But the grand jury made a lot of characterizations in that report, some of which are rather suspect (describing someone’s reaction to encountering a subject as “blithe” for example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Absolutely BS. In all cases. But good to know you are ok with violent assaults in schools.

That's not a response. Seriously, where do you think they should be?

If illegal, not in this country. If legal, not in public schools.

Posts like this - the poor superintendent is well rid of the thankless, difficult job.

Good luck finding a new superintendent. You'll need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

Which has nothing to do with anything in this case. How is it relevant? His victim agreed to meet him in the bathroom. Because they had had a consensual sexual relationship previously. It’s not like he wore a skirt to sneak into a girls bathroom and lay in wait.

The teacher’s aide who expressed concern about his behavior was accused of being transphobic. Perhaps that impacted the teacher who found the boy in the bathroom with the girl during the assault and was part of the reason for that teacher not saying anything?

The teacher didn’t see anything but four feet. She didn’t speak to them, or ask who was there or if everything was okay. She just walked out.

There are more details than that. When she came in, the boy temporarily stopped his assault and jumped quickly up. The girl rose more slowly, probably due to the fact that she was in pain. She knew she was witnessing something that was simply wrong to be occurring in a school. She still did nothing, out of fear.

In your defense of transgenderism, it’s clear you are willing to ignore those situations where the politics get in the way of justice.

Please explain how transgenderism is in any way connected to this?

The school and board were too woke for their own good, so put their own biases above the safety of students. Whether or not the kid was truly transgender does not matter here - it’s how the staff, board, and politicians acted in response to the possibility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Absolutely BS. In all cases. But good to know you are ok with violent assaults in schools.

That's not a response. Seriously, where do you think they should be?

If illegal, not in this country. If legal, not in public schools.

Posts like this - the poor superintendent is well rid of the thankless, difficult job.

Good luck finding a new superintendent. You'll need it.

It will take a courageous person, who can stand up to the likes of people like you, that’s for sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It was the cover up to allow a policy to go unchallenged and then a subsequent assault that is the problem. Having her dad arrested and seeking jail time looked vindictive. That's the problem. It's not a trans issue, it's the fact that our elected officials will hide information that isn't politically expedient and try to silence critics is the issue and leaves us wondering what else do they hide from us or lie about because it may run counter to their agenda that is the issue. And it is why we will elect a Republican Governor on Tuesday.

I agree that this interpretation is not without support. The denial of assaults at the June school board meeting and the father's arrest look bad in hindsight and support your conclusions. However, I will argue that there is another equally valid analysis.

When school officials were informed of the May assault, they were faced with what was essentially a date rape case with the usual he-said, she-said of such incidents. Neither school officials nor law enforcement immediately believed that an assault had occurred. We don't know the specific details that led to that reaction and it could easily be the same disregard for and unwillingness to believe women that we have seen elsewhere. But, we simply don't know what led to this uncertainty. At any rate, it took the police until July to complete their investigation and for prosecutors to charge the assailant.

At the June meeting, the May incident was still being investigated and the fact that it was an assault had not yet been concluded. Ziegler has claimed that he misunderstood the question about assaults to mean assaults involving transgender students. Since the May incident did not involve transgender students, his response that there were no such incidents would be accurate. However, his explanation seems like a stretch to me and I think undermines his credibility whether it is true or not. But, the fact that no determination had yet been made about whether an assault had occurred and the fact that LCPS has a policy of not commenting on on-going investigations leaves room for doubt that there was an actual cover-up.

The Loudoun Sheriff has said that Smith was not arrested at the behest of school officials, but rather as a result of interactions involving Smith and another parent that officers observed. He subsequently resisted his arrest, leading to the highly-publicized video of him being dragged out with a bloody lip.

Between legal restrictions on detention and Title IX obligations, school officials had limited recourse about what to do with the assailant while he was waiting adjudication of his case. There is a discussion to be had about whether sending him to another school with electronic monitoring was appropriate. Again, this is a situation where we don't know all the details. But, this response obviously blew up in school officials' faces when the assailant allegedly committed a second assault.

In sum, I believe that it can be argued that school officials did not attempt a cover-up and that many of their decisions were influenced by circumstances outside their control. It is unfortunate that this occurred in the midst of a hyped-up political atmosphere because it is a situation that could really benefit from calmer minds.

I, and my friend Luke Rosiak, would appreciate an apology.

Why? The grand jury basically validated what you bolded in finding no coordinated cover up.

And learn to spell your friends’ names correctly.

Troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

No. Everyone is responsible for their own action or inaction here. LCPS doesn’t get to blame the sheriff for their own negligence and lies. The sheriff absolutely holds blame too, but that does not in any way absolve LCPS. Ziegler, the asst super, the division counsel and Wade should all be fired for cause.

Please try to keep up. The LCPS didn't blame the sheriff. The special grand jury did.

The grand jury also concluded there was no coordinated effort on part of LCPS. Nor did it make ANY recommendations for disciplinary action/consequences for LCPS officials, let alone bring criminal charges.

You're grasping at straws because you are deeply committed to an insane narrative about a tragic circumstance that is rooted in a bizarre and psychotic hatred of LGBTQ people. You're really disgusting, really, with your need to be righteous, inflammatory and try to fix blame when we should be looking to fix the problems identified in the report, which include institutions operating in silos. Left less said is what to do about protocols for handling sexual assaults.

I don’t even understand why you are pushing this narrative about hatred of LGBTQ people. The problem PP has is that individuals who could have intervened had been lectured by administration about LGBTQ, which is why the teacher, who witnessed the legs under the stall, kept her mouth shut. She was afraid to intervene, to go to anyone who would intervene. Even if it turned out to be consensual sex and not rape, do you think it’s appropriate for two kids to be screwing in a bathroom? When the higher ups in schools and school boards create an atmosphere of fear in the staff, bad thing happen to children.

This was not a first offense for this kid. He had offenses in other states and his own grandmother felt he was sociopathic. Her father stated his daughter was only back in school for a few weeks before this kid preyed on her.

I am not “pushing a narrative.” It’s calling out bigotry. The anti-LGBTQ bigots were absolutely pushing a narrative— the one about the boogeyman pretending to be a girl to gain access to girl’s bathrooms so he could lay in wait and attack their virtuous daughters. That isn’t what happened — affirmed by the grand jury. Yet it remains the subtext of the hollering and disdain by the anti-LGBTQ bigots.

This notion that the school was more concerned about transgender rights at the expense of a girl who willingly met her attacker in a bathroom (as opposed to him laying in wait after nefariously wearing a skirt to access it) is a new assertion by the grand jury. That’s all it is, though — an assertion by a prosecuting body that stopped well short of recommending criminal charges and lay equal blame for the mess at the feet of law enforcement. It hasn’t been proven this is what happened. It’s a characterization, nothing more. But the grand jury made a lot of characterizations in that report, some of which are rather suspect (describing someone’s reaction to encountering a subject as “blithe” for example).

x1 million

Disgusting that these bigots are hurting our kids for their own political motives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

No. Everyone is responsible for their own action or inaction here. LCPS doesn’t get to blame the sheriff for their own negligence and lies. The sheriff absolutely holds blame too, but that does not in any way absolve LCPS. Ziegler, the asst super, the division counsel and Wade should all be fired for cause.

Please try to keep up. The LCPS didn't blame the sheriff. The special grand jury did.

The grand jury also concluded there was no coordinated effort on part of LCPS. Nor did it make ANY recommendations for disciplinary action/consequences for LCPS officials, let alone bring criminal charges.

You're grasping at straws because you are deeply committed to an insane narrative about a tragic circumstance that is rooted in a bizarre and psychotic hatred of LGBTQ people. You're really disgusting, really, with your need to be righteous, inflammatory and try to fix blame when we should be looking to fix the problems identified in the report, which include institutions operating in silos. Left less said is what to do about protocols for handling sexual assaults.

I don’t even understand why you are pushing this narrative about hatred of LGBTQ people. The problem PP has is that individuals who could have intervened had been lectured by administration about LGBTQ, which is why the teacher, who witnessed the legs under the stall, kept her mouth shut. She was afraid to intervene, to go to anyone who would intervene. Even if it turned out to be consensual sex and not rape, do you think it’s appropriate for two kids to be screwing in a bathroom? When the higher ups in schools and school boards create an atmosphere of fear in the staff, bad thing happen to children.

This was not a first offense for this kid. He had offenses in other states and his own grandmother felt he was sociopathic. Her father stated his daughter was only back in school for a few weeks before this kid preyed on her.

I am not “pushing a narrative.” It’s calling out bigotry. The anti-LGBTQ bigots were absolutely pushing a narrative— the one about the boogeyman pretending to be a girl to gain access to girl’s bathrooms so he could lay in wait and attack their virtuous daughters. That isn’t what happened — affirmed by the grand jury. Yet it remains the subtext of the hollering and disdain by the anti-LGBTQ bigots.

This notion that the school was more concerned about transgender rights at the expense of a girl who willingly met her attacker in a bathroom (as opposed to him laying in wait after nefariously wearing a skirt to access it) is a new assertion by the grand jury. That’s all it is, though — an assertion by a prosecuting body that stopped well short of recommending criminal charges and lay equal blame for the mess at the feet of law enforcement. It hasn’t been proven this is what happened. It’s a characterization, nothing more. But the grand jury made a lot of characterizations in that report, some of which are rather suspect (describing someone’s reaction to encountering a subject as “blithe” for example).

NP. So you are forced to acknowledge and recognize that the grand jury identified a potentially serious issue here: that the school may have been willing to sacrifice the safety of the girl due to pressure to protect transgender rights. It is disgusting that you need to cast aspersions on the girl when doing so, however.

[Anonymous]

First question: Wasn't the sociopath wearing a kilt? How is that transgender?

Second question: What were the circumstances of second girl's assault? Did she agree to meet sociopath in the empty classroom?

Third question: A PP states sociopath had already gotten into trouble in another state. What state, and what was the offense? Did he face charges in the other state?

Fourth question: Did LCPS and LCSO take into account prior history of sociopath before choosing to believe or not believe the first assaulted girl? What exactly did they mean when they stated this girl had "a history" and that's why they didn't initially believe her? Are they referring to the threats of violence from gang members? In the mind of LCSO, did they presume she was somehow to blame for the threats and for the other thugs who threatened her with a knife?

Fifth question: Have there been any whispers or suggestions there might be more victims from this sociopath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

You have to get permission from a different school for a transfer. I don't agree the Leesburg schools aren't as good, though perhaps that applies more to middle schools.
One school has a whole section of kids taking algebra 2, while schools in Ashburn bus them to high school to take the class.

In this case, it was no longer safe for this girl to stay at the Leesburg school, given she had already been held at knifepoint by three students, and threatened by MS-13. You can agree or disagree, but those are the facts. If that kind of assault can happen at a school, it’s not a good school. There’s no reason on God’s green earth why violent gang members should be attending a public school, never mind members of a gang that was imported here by ‘kind souls who only want to help those less fortunate’. When politics put our kids in danger and politicians turn a blind eye to it, it’s up to parents to step up to the plate. It takes guts and you have to be prepared to be made a pariah. Scott Smith is the type of parent all of us should aspire to be. How he was treated by county officials is nothing short of reprehensible.

Where else should school-aged gang members be? They're supposed to be in school. And MS-13 is homegrown, not imported.

Jail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

No. Everyone is responsible for their own action or inaction here. LCPS doesn’t get to blame the sheriff for their own negligence and lies. The sheriff absolutely holds blame too, but that does not in any way absolve LCPS. Ziegler, the asst super, the division counsel and Wade should all be fired for cause.

Please try to keep up. The LCPS didn't blame the sheriff. The special grand jury did.

The grand jury also concluded there was no coordinated effort on part of LCPS. Nor did it make ANY recommendations for disciplinary action/consequences for LCPS officials, let alone bring criminal charges.

You're grasping at straws because you are deeply committed to an insane narrative about a tragic circumstance that is rooted in a bizarre and psychotic hatred of LGBTQ people. You're really disgusting, really, with your need to be righteous, inflammatory and try to fix blame when we should be looking to fix the problems identified in the report, which include institutions operating in silos. Left less said is what to do about protocols for handling sexual assaults.

I don’t even understand why you are pushing this narrative about hatred of LGBTQ people. The problem PP has is that individuals who could have intervened had been lectured by administration about LGBTQ, which is why the teacher, who witnessed the legs under the stall, kept her mouth shut. She was afraid to intervene, to go to anyone who would intervene. Even if it turned out to be consensual sex and not rape, do you think it’s appropriate for two kids to be screwing in a bathroom? When the higher ups in schools and school boards create an atmosphere of fear in the staff, bad thing happen to children.

This was not a first offense for this kid. He had offenses in other states and his own grandmother felt he was sociopathic. Her father stated his daughter was only back in school for a few weeks before this kid preyed on her.

I am not “pushing a narrative.” It’s calling out bigotry. The anti-LGBTQ bigots were absolutely pushing a narrative— the one about the boogeyman pretending to be a girl to gain access to girl’s bathrooms so he could lay in wait and attack their virtuous daughters. That isn’t what happened — affirmed by the grand jury. Yet it remains the subtext of the hollering and disdain by the anti-LGBTQ bigots.

This notion that the school was more concerned about transgender rights at the expense of a girl who willingly met her attacker in a bathroom (as opposed to him laying in wait after nefariously wearing a skirt to access it) is a new assertion by the grand jury. That’s all it is, though — an assertion by a prosecuting body that stopped well short of recommending criminal charges and lay equal blame for the mess at the feet of law enforcement. It hasn’t been proven this is what happened. It’s a characterization, nothing more. But the grand jury made a lot of characterizations in that report, some of which are rather suspect (describing someone’s reaction to encountering a subject as “blithe” for example).

x1 million

Disgusting that these bigots are hurting our kids for their own political motives.

It's literally 100% the opposite of what you're saying. It was the pro-LGBTQ bigots who put their political wishes over the safety of the children.