LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throw this kid in jail. He was also probably sexually assaulted himeseld and and now unfortunately is a hardened evil criminal.

He cannot change. His brain chemistry is messed up. He is like an animal.

Honestly it’s sad in a way. Two-time sex offender at 15? I don’t think rehabilitation is likely to be possible. A wasted life already.

Why is your focus on the Taoist and not the victims? That’s the sad part. Smh

Rapist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand this at all. What does this have to do with protecting transgender rights? Can we get some FACTS here? My questions:

1) the statement from LCPS today says the first assault was reported to the sheriff’s office the day it happened. They are under obligation to avoid any investigation of the incident until AFTER law enforcement concludes their investigation, right?

2) Are people asserting the the Board is informed of all disciplinary cases in schools or all crimes in schools? At what point is a board member informed? Would a school be in violation of Title IX by transferring an accused assaulted or expelling him/her before a school investigation could occur?

(For those getting political, remember that it was the Besty DeVos Dept of Ed that swung the pendulum back to the rights of accused rapists to avoid any consequences at school until AFTEr an assault had been proven through a legal process. If lane enforcement says that the school can’t investigate until they are done investigating, what authority does the school have to suspend or expel a student?

It seems to me that law enforcement dropped the ball here, not LCPS. How can people hold the Board responsible when they weren’t even allowed to be notified until after law enforcement concluded their investigation?

If the student had been arrested for violent assault, that student would NOT be in classes the next day. There IS juvenile debate too still, despite the uninformed political agitators here claiming there is only “restorative justice.” I have a friend who taught for years at the Fairfax County juvenile detention center.

So…the question is not really anything about elevated school hoard members, but rather why didn’t law enforcement arrest this student after the first reported assault?

The issue of gender fluidity or whatever seems like a total red herring, as the student assaulted someone else in a CLASSROOM. This has nothing to do with transgender rights. Rapists can find victims in school building in lots of places.

I think that he WAS arrested but he was placed one electronic monitoring. I do imagine there are a number of kids that are arrested and attend school while awaiting trial.

I guess my main question is what is the policy on expulsion. It seems like the board has to vote on this (for long term/permanent bans) and they are required to hold hearings and follow due process (provide notice and appeals rights). Does Loudon even allow for permanent bans (not all districts/states do)? Or do they have to provide alternative schools or options for students? Were there hands tied in removing the kid completely because of the police investigation? In sum, did they follow the current policy which then resulted in a second girl being victimized? OR did the second attack occur because the school/district/board NOT follow policy/procedures? Or is the main problem that the police incorrectly believed he could be safely electronically monitored?

Depending on which situation it was, it requires different solutions. Do we change policy or should folks in the school/SB resign/lose their job because of their failure to follow policy/procedures? Or do police policy/procedures need to be changed?

In Virginia, students charged with sexual assault can be required to attend an alternative school due to the charge alone. The student has due process rights, and the school system has to follow them, but assuming they hold a hearing or the like, the student could be removed and assigned to a smaller setting simply f they confirm the criminal charge (which the courts have to report to the Superintendent regardless of age). For expulsion, the sexual assault would have to occur at school (which this apparently did). The school system may not be able to investigate or take any action at first if the police/courts told them to step back as they took action. It is not clear to me that the student was charged with the first sexual assault alleged. In that case, the school could not require a smaller alternative school, but a move to another location or regular school would likely occur. The school would have to do something to provide for the alleged victim, and this would be the most they could do at that point. That does not mean the kid should not be better supervised in the new school, but there is only so much supervision that is available in a regular high school - not an excuse, just a reality. Yes, they could have brought in somone to specifically keep a watch on the situation, which clearly in hindsight, would have been a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said this exact scenario would never happen?

I shared my thoughts in one of the deleted threads. Allowing boys to use the girls bathroom removes a layer of protection for girls. It means a boy can walk into the girls room and not get called out by his peers or stopped by a teacher. It means a girl will feel like she can’t just turn around and walk out because that would be considered “transphobic”. She is left vulnerable by policies that requires schools to allow students to use the restroom of their choice. Originally transgender students were offered private bathrooms but lawsuits were filed to let them into their choice instead. And now a girl has been raped in one. This isn’t okay.

This really resonates with me and I agree completely.

If we normalize boys being in the girls restroom, this is what we need to deal with.

Private bathrooms for transgender students is a reasonable accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post confirms almost all the details from the Daily Wire story, including that it was the same student.

They even got an interview with Biberaj but didn’t ask her about her decision to prosecute the father of one of the victims…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html

Except the inflammatory claims that the boy wore a skirt into the bathroom and/or is transgender/gender-fluid, but the RWNJs are still trying to use it as a platform to attack transgender people.

No. Not attack trans people.
It is an example of the harm that can come from having a policy allowing anyone into a restroom depending upon how they say they identify.

Which means you effectively want to victimizes trans people in the name of supposed safety, never mind that if these allegations are true changing the bathroom rule wouldn’t make a difference because, as already demonstrated, he could just assault someone in a classroom instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post confirms almost all the details from the Daily Wire story, including that it was the same student.

They even got an interview with Biberaj but didn’t ask her about her decision to prosecute the father of one of the victims…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html

Except the inflammatory claims that the boy wore a skirt into the bathroom and/or is transgender/gender-fluid, but the RWNJs are still trying to use it as a platform to attack transgender people.

No. Not attack trans people.
It is an example of the harm that can come from having a policy allowing anyone into a restroom depending upon how they say they identify.

Which means you effectively want to victimizes trans people in the name of supposed safety, never mind that if these allegations are true changing the bathroom rule wouldn’t make a difference because, as already demonstrated, he could just assault someone in a classroom instead.

Harm done to someone by using a private bathroom vs harm done to someone by being anally raped in the girls bathroom. HM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please also stop referring to the boy as "transgender" or "gender fluid" - he isn't.

Why? What do you call a boy who wears a skirt and chooses to use the girls bathroom?

Well, I call a trans girl who uses the girls bathroom a girl.

I call a boy who wears a skirt (which hasn't been confirmed yet via the police report) and rapes girls a rapist.

I'm sure you can find different labels, but you can be pro trans and anti rape. I know it's a lot for your little brain to handle.

Why can’t you discuss this without resorting to name-calling?

Honestly? Because living in Loudoun I see so many of you on our Facebook posts and I'm sick of it. Some of us actually know the families and it's pretty shitty for folks to weigh in because Tucker Carlson told them too.

Is it that hard to believe that non-Fox-watching, middle-of-the-road people have concerns about this?

+1 I'm a Democrat. I'm also a rape survivor. I think it's dangerous to make it normal for biological men to just walk into vulnerable places like women's bathrooms and locker rooms unquestioned.

I’m sorry that you were raped. I’m also sorry that it made you an awful human being. What do you think is more risky, a trans girl in a women’s bathroom or a trans girl in a men’s bathroom?

Do you realize you’re putting the well-being of a hypothetical “trans girl” over this very real girl who was brutally raped?

Trans people are at a far, far higher risk. That is what is important.

Wait, what?

Do you know the stats for sexual assaults? Do you even know how many females have been victims of sexual assault?

No. Trans people are not at a ‘far, far higher risk’.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone doubt for a moment that if we discovered that LCPS had covered up a violent rape committed by, say, a straight white wealthy football player because the playoffs were coming up, and only revealed because the victim’s father made a scene at the game and was arrested, threatened with jail time, and the feds announced that football game disruption should be considered domestic terrorism, there would be widespread national outcry?

Perhaps it’s instructive to wonder why this is any different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please also stop referring to the boy as "transgender" or "gender fluid" - he isn't.

Why? What do you call a boy who wears a skirt and chooses to use the girls bathroom?

Well, I call a trans girl who uses the girls bathroom a girl.

I call a boy who wears a skirt (which hasn't been confirmed yet via the police report) and rapes girls a rapist.

I'm sure you can find different labels, but you can be pro trans and anti rape. I know it's a lot for your little brain to handle.

Why can’t you discuss this without resorting to name-calling?

Honestly? Because living in Loudoun I see so many of you on our Facebook posts and I'm sick of it. Some of us actually know the families and it's pretty shitty for folks to weigh in because Tucker Carlson told them too.

Is it that hard to believe that non-Fox-watching, middle-of-the-road people have concerns about this?

+1 I'm a Democrat. I'm also a rape survivor. I think it's dangerous to make it normal for biological men to just walk into vulnerable places like women's bathrooms and locker rooms unquestioned.

I’m sorry that you were raped. I’m also sorry that it made you an awful human being. What do you think is more risky, a trans girl in a women’s bathroom or a trans girl in a men’s bathroom?

Do you realize you’re putting the well-being of a hypothetical “trans girl” over this very real girl who was brutally raped?

Trans people are at a far, far higher risk. That is what is important.

Wait, what?

Do you know the stats for sexual assaults? Do you even know how many females have been victims of sexual assault?

No. Trans people are not at a ‘far, far higher risk’.

Trans people are statistically more likely to be victims of rape because they are statistically more likely to be involved in street prostitution. This isn’t hard. Has Spiders Georg taught us nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone doubt for a moment that if we discovered that LCPS had covered up a violent rape committed by, say, a straight white wealthy football player because the playoffs were coming up, and only revealed because the victim’s father made a scene at the game and was arrested, threatened with jail time, and the feds announced that football game disruption should be considered domestic terrorism, there would be widespread national outcry?

Perhaps it’s instructive to wonder why this is any different.

Their hypocrisy won’t let them wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post confirms almost all the details from the Daily Wire story, including that it was the same student.

They even got an interview with Biberaj but didn’t ask her about her decision to prosecute the father of one of the victims…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html

Except the inflammatory claims that the boy wore a skirt into the bathroom and/or is transgender/gender-fluid, but the RWNJs are still trying to use it as a platform to attack transgender people.

No. We are saying that the school suppressed all of it so they could pass their mixed bathroom agenda.

[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:Can we please also stop referring to the boy as "transgender" or "gender fluid" - he isn't.

Why? What do you call a boy who wears a skirt and chooses to use the girls bathroom?

Well, I call a trans girl who uses the girls bathroom a girl.

I call a boy who wears a skirt (which hasn't been confirmed yet via the police report) and rapes girls a rapist.

I'm sure you can find different labels, but you can be pro trans and anti rape. I know it's a lot for your little brain to handle.

Why can’t you discuss this without resorting to name-calling?

Honestly? Because living in Loudoun I see so many of you on our Facebook posts and I'm sick of it. Some of us actually know the families and it's pretty shitty for folks to weigh in because Tucker Carlson told them too.

Is it that hard to believe that non-Fox-watching, middle-of-the-road people have concerns about this?

+1 I'm a Democrat. I'm also a rape survivor. I think it's dangerous to make it normal for biological men to just walk into vulnerable places like women's bathrooms and locker rooms unquestioned.

I’m sorry that you were raped. I’m also sorry that it made you an awful human being. What do you think is more risky, a trans girl in a women’s bathroom or a trans girl in a men’s bathroom?

Do you realize you’re putting the well-being of a hypothetical “trans girl” over this very real girl who was brutally raped?

Trans people are at a far, far higher risk. That is what is important.

Wait, what?

Do you know the stats for sexual assaults? Do you even know how many females have been victims of sexual assault?

No. Trans people are not at a ‘far, far higher risk’.

Trans people are statistically more likely to be victims of rape because they are statistically more likely to be involved in street prostitution. This isn’t hard. Has Spiders Georg taught us nothing?

Don’t engage in risky behavior. That’s what it taught me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post confirms almost all the details from the Daily Wire story, including that it was the same student.

They even got an interview with Biberaj but didn’t ask her about her decision to prosecute the father of one of the victims…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html

Except the inflammatory claims that the boy wore a skirt into the bathroom and/or is transgender/gender-fluid, but the RWNJs are still trying to use it as a platform to attack transgender people.

No. Not attack trans people.
It is an example of the harm that can come from having a policy allowing anyone into a restroom depending upon how they say they identify.

Which means you effectively want to victimizes trans people in the name of supposed safety, never mind that if these allegations are true changing the bathroom rule wouldn’t make a difference because, as already demonstrated, he could just assault someone in a classroom instead.

You are so single-minded in your SJW agenda, that you can’t even see straight. You see trans people as victims, despite the fact that there are ACTUAL victims in this story. You are choosing to ignore and delegitimize what actually happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post confirms almost all the details from the Daily Wire story, including that it was the same student.

They even got an interview with Biberaj but didn’t ask her about her decision to prosecute the father of one of the victims…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html

Except the inflammatory claims that the boy wore a skirt into the bathroom and/or is transgender/gender-fluid, but the RWNJs are still trying to use it as a platform to attack transgender people.

No. Not attack trans people.
It is an example of the harm that can come from having a policy allowing anyone into a restroom depending upon how they say they identify.

Which means you effectively want to victimizes trans people in the name of supposed safety, never mind that if these allegations are true changing the bathroom rule wouldn’t make a difference because, as already demonstrated, he could just assault someone in a classroom instead.

You are so single-minded in your SJW agenda, that you can’t even see straight. You see trans people as victims, despite the fact that there are ACTUAL victims in this story. You are choosing to ignore and delegitimize what actually happened.

This kid, if he even is trans (which has in no way been substantiated) is not the only trans person in LCPS. You are using this story as an excuse to victimize all other trans individuals, even though the allegations here point out that changing the bathroom policy would have done precisely nothing to prevent sexual assaults.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure that when this trans discussion about bathrooms began a couple of years ago, that alternative bathrooms were offered as a solution. That was shut down as discriminatory.

Seems to me that was a common sense solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand this at all. What does this have to do with protecting transgender rights? Can we get some FACTS here? My questions:

1) the statement from LCPS today says the first assault was reported to the sheriff’s office the day it happened. They are under obligation to avoid any investigation of the incident until AFTER law enforcement concludes their investigation, right?

2) Are people asserting the the Board is informed of all disciplinary cases in schools or all crimes in schools? At what point is a board member informed? Would a school be in violation of Title IX by transferring an accused assaulted or expelling him/her before a school investigation could occur?

(For those getting political, remember that it was the Besty DeVos Dept of Ed that swung the pendulum back to the rights of accused rapists to avoid any consequences at school until AFTEr an assault had been proven through a legal process. If lane enforcement says that the school can’t investigate until they are done investigating, what authority does the school have to suspend or expel a student?

It seems to me that law enforcement dropped the ball here, not LCPS. How can people hold the Board responsible when they weren’t even allowed to be notified until after law enforcement concluded their investigation?

If the student had been arrested for violent assault, that student would NOT be in classes the next day. There IS juvenile debate too still, despite the uninformed political agitators here claiming there is only “restorative justice.” I have a friend who taught for years at the Fairfax County juvenile detention center.

So…the question is not really anything about elevated school hoard members, but rather why didn’t law enforcement arrest this student after the first reported assault?

The issue of gender fluidity or whatever seems like a total red herring, as the student assaulted someone else in a CLASSROOM. This has nothing to do with transgender rights. Rapists can find victims in school building in lots of places.

I think that he WAS arrested but he was placed one electronic monitoring. I do imagine there are a number of kids that are arrested and attend school while awaiting trial.

I guess my main question is what is the policy on expulsion. It seems like the board has to vote on this (for long term/permanent bans) and they are required to hold hearings and follow due process (provide notice and appeals rights). Does Loudon even allow for permanent bans (not all districts/states do)? Or do they have to provide alternative schools or options for students? Were there hands tied in removing the kid completely because of the police investigation? In sum, did they follow the current policy which then resulted in a second girl being victimized? OR did the second attack occur because the school/district/board NOT follow policy/procedures? Or is the main problem that the police incorrectly believed he could be safely electronically monitored?

Depending on which situation it was, it requires different solutions. Do we change policy or should folks in the school/SB resign/lose their job because of their failure to follow policy/procedures? Or do police policy/procedures need to be changed?

In Virginia, students charged with sexual assault can be required to attend an alternative school due to the charge alone. The student has due process rights, and the school system has to follow them, but assuming they hold a hearing or the like, the student could be removed and assigned to a smaller setting simply f they confirm the criminal charge (which the courts have to report to the Superintendent regardless of age). For expulsion, the sexual assault would have to occur at school (which this apparently did). The school system may not be able to investigate or take any action at first if the police/courts told them to step back as they took action. It is not clear to me that the student was charged with the first sexual assault alleged. In that case, the school could not require a smaller alternative school, but a move to another location or regular school would likely occur. The school would have to do something to provide for the alleged victim, and this would be the most they could do at that point. That does not mean the kid should not be better supervised in the new school, but there is only so much supervision that is available in a regular high school - not an excuse, just a reality. Yes, they could have brought in somone to specifically keep a watch on the situation, which clearly in hindsight, would have been a good idea.

Thank you that was informative.