LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

So why is LCPD describing the bathroom assault as "too complex" to notify the community but the classroom assault was simple?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the bathroom debate is still happening, when it appears to have absolutely no relevance to the assaults?

Excellent question. It seems there are far more relevant issues at hand re: this case.

Because there seems to be the idea that LCPS hid info about the initial assault because it involved a boy (who may or may not have been wearing a skirt) assaulting a girl in a restroom...while a huge debate was going on about transgender access to restrooms. So, the optics here arent good.
I agree, the issue to me is that 2 sexual assaults occurred, perpetrated by the same boy, and there was what appears to be a cover up. But, based on the ongoing transgender bathroom debate, that has turned into the focus here.

No one here is trying to attack transgender people so get a grip. It appears the school may have wanted to sweep this assault under the rug because they knew it would be used against them since they were debating the transgender policy. Whether the boy was transgender or not from the father's account he was wearing a skirt when the assault happened in the girl's bathroom. Of course if parents knew this many of them would have flipped out at the school board meeting that took place a few weeks after the attack.

Where did I say transgender people were being attacked?

PP here, sorry I was agreeing with you. Other posters kept questioning why the trans issue kept being brought up as if posters were using the assault to go after transgender people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Stone Bridge, we received an email that the police were called because a parent was acting agressive toward the Staff. There was no mention of a possible rape.
We did not receive any notification about an assault or rape at anytime from Stone Bridge High School or the Sheriffs office, even after they charge the male student some weeks later.

We did receive notice of the assault and rape at Broad Run High School on the day that it was reported. We receive an email from the LCPS and a notice from the Sheriff's office was posted on Facebook and other places.

I am less concerned about the bathrooms as the second assault/rape was in a classroom. My concern is why was he in school to be allowed the opportunity to do this a second time? And why were we not informed of the assault and rape at Stone Bridge?

I want answers from the Stone Bridge principal, the Superintendant and the School Board. I am appalled by their actions.

As a parent I would have been furious if my child attended that high school and I was never informed of an assault that took place on school grounds. Why were parents notified of the second assault but not the first one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why is LCPD describing the bathroom assault as "too complex" to notify the community but the classroom assault was simple?

I don't think the school believed the girl. The Sheriff's Office statement references the fact that the victim and the boy knew each other. I'm guessing the boy claimed it was consensual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Stone Bridge, we received an email that the police were called because a parent was acting agressive toward the Staff. There was no mention of a possible rape.
We did not receive any notification about an assault or rape at anytime from Stone Bridge High School or the Sheriffs office, even after they charge the male student some weeks later.

We did receive notice of the assault and rape at Broad Run High School on the day that it was reported. We receive an email from the LCPS and a notice from the Sheriff's office was posted on Facebook and other places.

I am less concerned about the bathrooms as the second assault/rape was in a classroom. My concern is why was he in school to be allowed the opportunity to do this a second time? And why were we not informed of the assault and rape at Stone Bridge?

I want answers from the Stone Bridge principal, the Superintendant and the School Board. I am appalled by their actions.

As a parent I would have been furious if my child attended that high school and I was never informed of an assault that took place on school grounds. Why were parents notified of the second assault but not the first one?

This is purely speculation, but it's possible that the victim in the first assault had a prior relationship with the assailant, which is why the investigation took more time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Stone Bridge, we received an email that the police were called because a parent was acting agressive toward the Staff. There was no mention of a possible rape.
We did not receive any notification about an assault or rape at anytime from Stone Bridge High School or the Sheriffs office, even after they charge the male student some weeks later.

We did receive notice of the assault and rape at Broad Run High School on the day that it was reported. We receive an email from the LCPS and a notice from the Sheriff's office was posted on Facebook and other places.

I am less concerned about the bathrooms as the second assault/rape was in a classroom. My concern is why was he in school to be allowed the opportunity to do this a second time? And why were we not informed of the assault and rape at Stone Bridge?

I want answers from the Stone Bridge principal, the Superintendent and the School Board. I am appalled by their actions.

So, let me get this straight. The Stone Bridge parents have STILL not been officially informed of the "alleged" rape that occurred back in May? No communication from the principal at all? (Except to inform of Smith's arrest)

Yes, I am the PP, no we have not received an email from the Principal of Stone Bridge nor from LCPS to inform us of the assault the rape that happened at Stone Bridge.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is ascribing malice when there may be none, other than the actions of the perpetrator.

The School Board was likely kept on the dark on the initial assault. The Superintendent was probably told not to discuss an ongoing case by the police/lawyers. The School Board/attendees/police likely viewed the father as a right-wing agitator (which is unfortunately common now), and the father lost his cool making the situation worse.

None of that requires much of a leap of faith

The other outstanding issue is why the school didn’t make the assault allegations public early on (like happened with the 2nd assault). Was that at the request of the police? Was it such that there was no way to keep the identity of the perpetrator/victim quiet? That is a fair question moving forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Stone Bridge, we received an email that the police were called because a parent was acting agressive toward the Staff. There was no mention of a possible rape.
We did not receive any notification about an assault or rape at anytime from Stone Bridge High School or the Sheriffs office, even after they charge the male student some weeks later.

We did receive notice of the assault and rape at Broad Run High School on the day that it was reported. We receive an email from the LCPS and a notice from the Sheriff's office was posted on Facebook and other places.

I am less concerned about the bathrooms as the second assault/rape was in a classroom. My concern is why was he in school to be allowed the opportunity to do this a second time? And why were we not informed of the assault and rape at Stone Bridge?

I want answers from the Stone Bridge principal, the Superintendant and the School Board. I am appalled by their actions.

As a parent I would have been furious if my child attended that high school and I was never informed of an assault that took place on school grounds. Why were parents notified of the second assault but not the first one?

This is purely speculation, but it's possible that the victim in the first assault had a prior relationship with the assailant, which is why the investigation took more time.

This is the first thing said in this thread that makes me think they were hiding a potential trans controversy. I cannot think of anytime that police were involved at any school my children attended and we were not notified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Stone Bridge, we received an email that the police were called because a parent was acting agressive toward the Staff. There was no mention of a possible rape.
We did not receive any notification about an assault or rape at anytime from Stone Bridge High School or the Sheriffs office, even after they charge the male student some weeks later.

We did receive notice of the assault and rape at Broad Run High School on the day that it was reported. We receive an email from the LCPS and a notice from the Sheriff's office was posted on Facebook and other places.

I am less concerned about the bathrooms as the second assault/rape was in a classroom. My concern is why was he in school to be allowed the opportunity to do this a second time? And why were we not informed of the assault and rape at Stone Bridge?

I want answers from the Stone Bridge principal, the Superintendant and the School Board. I am appalled by their actions.

As a parent I would have been furious if my child attended that high school and I was never informed of an assault that took place on school grounds. Why were parents notified of the second assault but not the first one?

So many people asking this question when the answer is staring us in the face: they didn't tell you because they didn't have to and didn't want to.

You can tell they didn't have to by listening to all the mealy-mouthed bureacrateese from LCPS about what they can and can't report. It sounds so murky because it's supposed to. Murky and unclear policies give admins the ability to act with their own discretion without ever being blamed if things go wrong ("I only did what the procedures said to do!"). At this point the only way to show wrongdoing by the principals or superintendent would be to involve lawyers and conduct a months-long investigation, by which time things will either blow over, new jobs can be found, or retirements planned. This is the system working as it was designed to do. You can get offended by this characterization but there's nothing about working in a school that changes the iron laws of bureaucracy. It's an organization like any other.

You can tell the admins didn't want to tell anyone because everyone could see which way the wind was blowing. Principals and superintendents know what's going on at the school board and what the priorities are, and they know they'll land in hot water if they gave ammunition to "those people". You know the ones. The ones that have a problem with the school board, and by extension the superintendent they hired, etc. etc. So why be the bearer of bad news? Why disrupt the dominant narrative of progressive LCPS marching towards inclusion and equity? Why risk an otherwise promising career over a single incident?

No human being specifically choses these factors over the human cost of ignoring what happened to that girl. But it's a rare person in a position of authority who would risk all of that stuff just to stick their neck out and tell the truth about a single individual that the system, as we have seen, doesn't place a particularly high value on. So instead the authority figure looks for excuses. "Well, policies might not let us say anything (I think)". "Did you see her dad? He's obviously one of "those" people. Better to let the police handle it; I'm not getting involved." "Oh, one of the investigators said the incident was 'complicated'? Well then I guess I have to be completely frozen and can't do anything until the investigation and trial concludes (which also happens to be what's best for my career). Oh well."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that at the time of the board meeting where Smith was arrested, the board actually didn’t know about the assault? I assume the superintendent knew, so perhaps my point doesn’t matter. But it’s possible the board really thought Smith was crazy because they didn’t know about the assault, and would’ve acted differently if they knew.

It's possible regarding the board. But, when discussing the new trans policy, the school board specifically asked the superintendent about any instances of assault in attempt to allay any parent fears. LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler declared that to his knowledge, "we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms." This meeting took place on June 22, almost a month after the first assault (in the school bathroom) took place.

Thank you for these FACTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, people who are in favor of the bathroom policy and who were suspicious of this story when it was only reported by right-wing news sources: do you think it's appropriate for administrators to hush up this rape until after the policy was passed? I assume you believe (1) that it being in a bathroom was irrelevant, and (2) that it being in a bathroom would nevertheless have frightened and upset parents and school board members to the point that the policy probably wouldn't have passed. Do you think that was the right call?

If this kid was not permitted to use the girls bathroom at the time of the alleged assault because the policy allowing trans students to use the bathroom of their choice hadn’t passed yet, why do you think going back to the old policy would prevent similar assaults given that it did not prevent this one? This argument doesn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

In regards to their transgender policy I think the students in LCPS should have been able to vote on it rather than leave it up to the school board since they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of the policy. Or at least they should have done a survey to see what kids were comfortable with or not. I would have to guess while they are tolerant and accepting of their transgender peers, a majority would not feel comfortable sharing a locker room and bathroom with the opposite sex. I doubt boys would want to change in front of a transboy and visa versa for the girls. The school board members could have taken their input into consideration when voting on the policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, people who are in favor of the bathroom policy and who were suspicious of this story when it was only reported by right-wing news sources: do you think it's appropriate for administrators to hush up this rape until after the policy was passed? I assume you believe (1) that it being in a bathroom was irrelevant, and (2) that it being in a bathroom would nevertheless have frightened and upset parents and school board members to the point that the policy probably wouldn't have passed. Do you think that was the right call?

If this kid was not permitted to use the girls bathroom at the time of the alleged assault because the policy allowing trans students to use the bathroom of their choice hadn’t passed yet, why do you think going back to the old policy would prevent similar assaults given that it did not prevent this one? This argument doesn’t make any sense.

I’m not arguing that the policy was bad or shouldn’t have been passed. I’m asking if people who think the policy was good and should have been passed think it was good to suppress this information lest it cause the policy to fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, people who are in favor of the bathroom policy and who were suspicious of this story when it was only reported by right-wing news sources: do you think it's appropriate for administrators to hush up this rape until after the policy was passed? I assume you believe (1) that it being in a bathroom was irrelevant, and (2) that it being in a bathroom would nevertheless have frightened and upset parents and school board members to the point that the policy probably wouldn't have passed. Do you think that was the right call?

If this kid was not permitted to use the girls bathroom at the time of the alleged assault because the policy allowing trans students to use the bathroom of their choice hadn’t passed yet, why do you think going back to the old policy would prevent similar assaults given that it did not prevent this one? This argument doesn’t make any sense.

It does make sense when you think about it... Just because a policy was violated once, doesn't mean the policy is bad and should be scrapped because it failed once. The change explicitly lets boys in girls locker rooms and bathrooms, which I think is safe to say increases chances of problems to occur. There is no verifiable criteria which limits it. No medical documentation, no phycological documentation, no attestation, nothing. Any boy can walk in to a girls bathroom or locker room - this is wrong, and the policy shifted the pendulum too far to one side in order to protect the rights of the few. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect trans rights - I'm saying that the rights of many others (like what recently happened) were trampled on in a faulty attempt to help others. There has to be a middle ground that can protect everyone, but both sides have dug in so far on their respective sides that common sense gets just gets thrown out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight, the theory here is LCPS buried the assault so they could push through a proposal to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender rather than sex at birth? That would imply there was no policy at the time of the assault in question allowing a “boy in a skirt” to use the girls bathroom. If that’s the case, why do people think going back to the policy in effect at the time of this assault would prevent similar assaults in the future?

There doesn’t have to be an official policy. In the current climate, if a girl complained that she felt uncomfortable with him in the bathroom, she would have been ridiculed and probably faced disciplinary action by the school for transphobia. The policy is simply a formality. The problem here is liberal idiots, both on the board and in the community.