LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is ever sexually assaulted at school, I’m dialing 911. F the school.

+1

I told my daughter to call 911 if, God forbid, something like this happens at school. Because I have lost any faith I had that something like this would be handled appropriately by the admin.

Often the sheriff's department has a massive multi-year annual contract with the school district for patrols, resource officers, DARE, etc. So don't assume even local police will have your back over their cronies in a school bureaucracy.

To add, who you do think marched in there to arrest (?) the victim's dad the first time at the school and again at the school board meeting? Sheriff's deputies, whose department probably collects millions of dollars from the district.

Did you hear that the first victims Dad, when he was called by the school to come in to be told of his daughters' assault, was not permitted in right away because he didn't have his drivers' license or id on him. WTF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The first case is definitely a felony accusation. And to the pp the SRO is a policeman so reporting this to the SRO is what principals do. The SRO then takes it from there, the principal does not then call other law enforcement. I guess they could, but the SRO would be the one who would then contact whoever is the right law enforcement folks to handle a case beyond his/her scope.

The story I read said that the SRO did not believe the victim. Not sure she would have gone to hospital if Dad had not thrown a ruckus.

I understand that this is not a transgirl we are discussing, but there is a question as to whether the SRO did not believe the victim because the perp was "gender fluid." And, did that influence the school system, as well?

Lots of unanswered questions.

I'm not sure the transgender/bathroom issue is finally settled law. SC did not hear the Grimm case--that does not mean they will not decide to hear one in the future.

No question, it is a complicated issue. I predict that we will have more self-contained unisex bathrooms in the future. But, that will mean lots and lots more $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So change all bathrooms to unisex with no outside doors - just stall doors.

Dumb.

practical

Have you been in a high school bathroom lately. Stall doors seem to go missing....

Even with the bathroom door missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first case is definitely a felony accusation. And to the pp the SRO is a policeman so reporting this to the SRO is what principals do. The SRO then takes it from there, the principal does not then call other law enforcement. I guess they could, but the SRO would be the one who would then contact whoever is the right law enforcement folks to handle a case beyond his/her scope.

The story I read said that the SRO did not believe the victim. Not sure she would have gone to hospital if Dad had not thrown a ruckus.

I understand that this is not a transgirl we are discussing, but there is a question as to whether the SRO did not believe the victim because the perp was "gender fluid." And, did that influence the school system, as well?

Lots of unanswered questions.

I'm not sure the transgender/bathroom issue is finally settled law. SC did not hear the Grimm case--that does not mean they will not decide to hear one in the future.

No question, it is a complicated issue. I predict that we will have more self-contained unisex bathrooms in the future. But, that will mean lots and lots more $$$.

Unless and until SCOTUS overturns it, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Grimm is binding precedent that Virginia public schools must follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically, a trans guy would not rape a girl. This disturbing boy is obviously not really trans. It is so unfortunate that the ultra right wings are trying to use this terrible incident against the LGBT community. Any boy, even wearing pants, can easily walk into a high school girl’s bathroom without anyone in the hallways doing anything about it. The hallways are either chaotic or empty and everyone is too busy getting to their classes on time.

I agree the trans part is irrelevant. I just can’t believe they just simply enrolled him in another school nearby!!!

Of course it’s relevant, girls are now expected to be comfortable with boys in bathrooms and locker rooms with them and are shamed if they speak about their discomfort.

This student/assailant is a sexual predator. The same exact thing could have happened 5 years ago.

Yes… feminists don’t want to make it easier for sexual predators to access safe spaces… there is no way for the average person to know who is a sexual predator pretending to be trans versus who is “legitimately” trans… therefore keeping sex-segregated spaces safe for women is one guard against predators.

Glad we agree.

The second assault happened in an empty classroom. How are you going to keep trans kids out of there?

Exactly. And this kid isn't even trans! He's nonbinary. He sometimes wears clothes to present as more masculine and sometimes wears clothes to present as more feminine.

I think people need to educate themselves more. Nonbinary does not equal trans. Wearing a skirt does not equal trans for a guy anymore than a girl wearing pants would make her trans.

Making this all about the trans bathroom bill is distracting from the important fact that two young women were SA at school and no one was told anything for months.

The problem is the current policies allow male-bodied students to use the same bathroom as female-bodied students. As I said upthread, this removes a layer of protection for the girls. A teacher can’t stop a male-bodied student from using the girls bathroom. A peer can’t call out a male-bodied student for using the girls bathroom. Girls are expected to share their bathrooms with male-bodied students and see it as normal. This makes them vulnerable to this type of assault.

There is a compromise option of allowing students who have a gender identity that differs from their sex at birth to use a private bathroom. That solution has been shot down repeatedly, because of concerns for the transgender student’s feelings. I think it’s time that we prioritize the feelings of girls who feel vulnerable in school bathrooms because of incidents such as this. Private bathrooms for students not comfortable using the restroom that matches their birth sex is a reasonable middle ground.

Protection from forcible sodomy should be more important than protecting feelings.

It’s more insidious than hurt feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The first case is definitely a felony accusation. And to the pp the SRO is a policeman so reporting this to the SRO is what principals do. The SRO then takes it from there, the principal does not then call other law enforcement. I guess they could, but the SRO would be the one who would then contact whoever is the right law enforcement folks to handle a case beyond his/her scope.

Unless you know your big boss will try and smear and fire you for doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

It’s different in this case because law enforcement was involved and LCPS was prohibited from taking further action until the criminal investigation was complete, due to the risk that LCPS’s investigation/disciplinary process could compromise the criminal investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

It’s different in this case because law enforcement was involved and LCPS was prohibited from taking further action until the criminal investigation was complete, due to the risk that LCPS’s investigation/disciplinary process could compromise the criminal investigation.

We'll see how that excuse fairs with a civil jury. Personally, I think the we had to return the accused rapist to school so that they could rape again angle will be enough that the board won't actually risk a jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

It’s different in this case because law enforcement was involved and LCPS was prohibited from taking further action until the criminal investigation was complete, due to the risk that LCPS’s investigation/disciplinary process could compromise the criminal investigation.

I'm the PP who said this was grossly mismanaged. I understand due process rights. I'm not sure due process rights mean LCPS could not have put some procedures in place to monitor the kid as he moves through the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

For school disipline, telling the accused of what he is accused of, telling them generally what the school has been told or knows, and allowing the student to say his side of the story is due process. That is a hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why LCPS needs an alternative school again.

It used to be when a kid did something like this the first time, the kid was sent to Douglas School.

When I was growing up in the LCPS system, kids got sent there who started lots of fights, fought with teachers physically, groped a fellow student, got caught with drugs, etc.

Two girls got caught snorting pixie sticks in middle school and got sent to Douglas until they started high school. A teacher caught a boy grope a cheerleader until her skirt and was sent there when I was in 10th grade to finish out his high school career.

Bringing back the Loudoun County (sub)urban legends of my youth. I remember the pixi stix girls well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The dad alleges the perp sometimes wears a skirt. I am skeptical of this claim.

+1 - I find it a little too convenient that this exact right wing scenario played out at this exact time.

That said, LCPS has grossly mismanaged this, period. This kid should not have been allowed to roam the school freely while he was under investigation.

The kid has due process rights that LCPS legally cannot ignore. I get why that’s not a satisfying answer, but unless you want to move to a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of criminal justice, this stuff will happen.

School discipline is almost always punishment followed by due process. The principal suspends a kid and then they have appeal rights. I’ve never seen it where the school have to have any kind of actual hearing prior to a suspension

For school disipline, telling the accused of what he is accused of, telling them generally what the school has been told or knows, and allowing the student to say his side of the story is due process. That is a hearing.

That 'hearing' falls very short of what most people would actually consider due process