LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not sure the moon isn’t made of cheese, but that doesn’t mean it is.

[Anonymous]

The boy has due process rights. The girl also has a right to an education in a safe environment. Placing a known rapist in her school probably violates her title IX rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The boy has due process rights. The girl also has a right to an education in a safe environment. Placing a known rapist in her school probably violates her title IX rights

Do you have any legal support for your theory?

[Anonymous]

Sorry if I missed this being addressed previously, but how did Scott Smith manage to stay silent on the true motivations of his SB outburst until after the Oct 6 assault hit the media?

As an LCPS parent, I have watched all of this with horror and conflicting emotions. I believe trans students should be acknowledged and made to feel safe. I believe female students should not be vulnerable to assault. I'm disappointed in LCPS to say the least, but I stop short of aligning myself with the MAGA parents who want to oust the school board.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The police were there that day, yes , because the school called on the father. From Rosiak’s latest story:

“But an email from Stone Bridge Principal Tim Flynn, which was sent to the entire community at 4:48 pm the day of the alleged rape, told students and parents that “There was an incident in the main office area today that required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to dispatch deputies to Stone Bridge. The incident was confined to the main office and the entrance area to the school. There was no threat to the safety of the student body… Students might have noticed Sheriff’s Office personnel on campus and I wanted to let you know that something out of the ordinary happened at school today.” There was no mention of the alleged attack.

This corresponds to the story offered by Scott Smith, the victim’s father, who told The Daily Wire that police arrived because the school called them on him for making a scene about his impression that it was not treating the incident seriously.“

This is how the district gets away with covering up incidents. The district says the police were called that day. But they don’t finish the sentence.
Police were immediately called that day… to calm down a distraught parent.
Police were immediately called that day… to report a possible sexual assault.

Technically the SRO is a police officer. So the principal isn’t lying that police were immediately notified if he called the SRO to come to the school office.

The more important question is did the principal contact the police (not just the school resource officer) so members of the sexual crimes investigation team could quickly arrive at the school. Was the bathroom closed off as a potential crime scene? Doesn’t sound like it.

Yes, see when I pressed my LCPS friend, she parroted what the district said. She won’t believe the news sources.

For those of you who claim that activists were bussed in, please start recording that stuff. There is serious covering up of information and we need people to do the job that some journalists won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boy has due process rights. The girl also has a right to an education in a safe environment. Placing a known rapist in her school probably violates her title IX rights

Do you have any legal support for your theory?

it's not often known rapists are put on a campus. This one is going to trial now https://wacotrib.com/news/local/education/judge-issues-trial-orders-in-jane-does-vs-baylor-title-ix-cases/article_8878a43a-bcc1-11eb-9f01-3f8e66db6fca.html

[Anonymous]

SB member Beth Barts has resigned.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She was dealing with a pretty brutal recall effort. Doubt her resignation is truly related to this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Agree iwth this. Even if they could not discipline the kid yet, they had a responsibility to protect others.

[Anonymous]

Why ANYONE would want that job is beyond me. It pays $22k/year to out up with all those looney constituents? Hard pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I understand that, but that is what is required. See Goss v. Lopez if you want to see the required due process set down by the supreme court for a suspension of 10 days or less. What is described above is a hearing as set forth there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She was dealing with a pretty brutal recall effort. Doubt her resignation is truly related to this

Icing on the cake.