LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[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?

Because the school administration at the second school notified the police directly right away

[Anonymous]

The second rape (same boy) occurred in an empty classroom. So it has nothing to do with the bathroom. It has to do with the fact that this pervert wasn’t expelled and jailed the first time!!! Family 2 should be even more enraged than Family 1!! 100% preventable.

[Anonymous]

And this gets back to why the father of the first victim was so irate. The assault happened in May and he had been kept in the dark by the school right up until the June 22 meeting. Something with this is broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this gets back to why the father of the first victim was so irate. The assault happened in May and he had been kept in the dark by the school right up until the June 22 meeting. Something with this is broken.

Presumably he was working with the police on their investigation though, and got information that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The second rape (same boy) occurred in an empty classroom. So it has nothing to do with the bathroom. It has to do with the fact that this pervert wasn’t expelled and jailed the first time!!! Family 2 should be even more enraged than Family 1!! 100% preventable.

I think it's actually both. Doesn't have to be an either/or thing. Letting boys into girls locker rooms/bathrooms is a terrible idea. Covering up and transferring responsibility and then lying about it is disgraceful and needs accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this gets back to why the father of the first victim was so irate. The assault happened in May and he had been kept in the dark by the school right up until the June 22 meeting. Something with this is broken.

Presumably he was working with the police on their investigation though, and got information that way.

You've obviously never been the victim of a crime if you think the police give timely information to the victim (or victim's family in the case of a minor victim) during the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Either the superintendent Ziegler or principal Flynn needs to be fired. There are only two possible truths. A). Ziegler truly diid not know that the rape had occurred and Flynn didn’t issue an immediate correction. Flynn fired. B). If Ziegler was informed of the case and lied in the June meeting in which case Ziegler needs to removed for lying, and violating community trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either the superintendent Ziegler or principal Flynn needs to be fired. There are only two possible truths. A). Ziegler truly diid not know that the rape had occurred and Flynn didn’t issue an immediate correction. Flynn fired. B). If Ziegler was informed of the case and lied in the June meeting in which case Ziegler needs to removed for lying, and violating community trust.

I agree. At least one of them should be out of a job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the superintendent Ziegler or principal Flynn needs to be fired. There are only two possible truths. A). Ziegler truly diid not know that the rape had occurred and Flynn didn’t issue an immediate correction. Flynn fired. B). If Ziegler was informed of the case and lied in the June meeting in which case Ziegler needs to removed for lying, and violating community trust.

I agree. At least one of them should be out of a job

Also agree.

[Anonymous]

While the focus is unnecessarily on trans students, the rewrite of Title IX under Betsy Davos/Trump seems to be a much bigger deal here. Those rule changes give the accused more protection.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/activists-increase-pressure-biden-scrap-betsy-devos-title-ix-rules-n1261017

The rules, which DeVos called a signature achievement of her tenure as education secretary, give accused students more avenues to defend themselves, restrict how a school can investigate sexual assault allegations, and limit schools to only investigating incidents that happen at school or as part of a school activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either the superintendent Ziegler or principal Flynn needs to be fired. There are only two possible truths. A). Ziegler truly diid not know that the rape had occurred and Flynn didn’t issue an immediate correction. Flynn fired. B). If Ziegler was informed of the case and lied in the June meeting in which case Ziegler needs to removed for lying, and violating community trust.

What if the lawyers/cops told them to not say anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really, really doubt that, because a boy in a skirt is not the same as a trans girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really, really doubt that, because a boy in a skirt is not the same as a trans girl.

Can you explain how a third party can the difference?

[Anonymous]

*can tell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really, really doubt that, because a boy in a skirt is not the same as a trans girl.

Can you explain how a third party can the difference?

If I saw a person every day and he presented as a boy and then wore a skirt, I’d know he’s a boy.

This is not a serious argument.