Thoreau Middle School in Vienna

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He covered up for a child molester, that makes him scum. That makes him a direct enabler for the second offense.

Why is he still on the payroll. In the real world he would have been gone a long time ago.

The letter from the school sounded like they felt sorry for him. Not a mention of the poor victim. FCPS is a straight up mess these days.

What is the timeline here?

Did the principal confront the teacher and then leave at that for a hour, a day, a week, more? before the mandated reporting kicked in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He covered up for a child molester, that makes him scum. That makes him a direct enabler for the second offense.

Why is he still on the payroll. In the real world he would have been gone a long time ago.

The letter from the school sounded like they felt sorry for him. Not a mention of the poor victim. FCPS is a straight up mess these days.

What is the timeline here?

Did the principal confront the teacher and then leave at that for a hour, a day, a week, more? before the mandated reporting kicked in?

Based on the reports (published), it appears that when Mr. Azimi found out about Snell and Victim 1, he (Azimi) wasn't at the school, so an AP confronted Snell. While they were waiting for police to arrive, Snell escaped and literally headed for the Mexico border. In the following investigation, it was found that another student had been molested by Snell. It sounds as though that second student (discovered in the investigation) had received some questionable texts that his/her parent had told Azimi about some months earlier.

Now, the prosecutor is trying to say that texts to Victim 2, which Azimi was informed of, were enough to suggest abuse, and therefore Azimi should have notified police of child abuse when he first heard of any texts b/t Snell and Victim2. I'm going to bet that those texts from Snell to Victim2 (which happened before Thoreau called police re: Victim1), could be interpreted innocently or as poor judgment b/t Snell and Victim2, but not directly showing abuse, even if it turned out that they weren't innocent. As a result, Azimi told his employee (Snell) to stop texting that student and thought it was handled. If Mr. Azimi had, in fact, suspected abuse with the first texts (to Victim2), he would have called the police -- as they did when they had more obvious evidence (i.e. Victim1) and Snell absconded.

There is no motive for Mr. Azimi to just sweep someone else's abuse under the rug. In fact, he showed that he knew to call police and did call police when presented with information that indicated abuse (Victim1's evidence/texts). Why didn't he do it for the earlier texts? Because those texts didn't raise any flags of abuse. And in fact, Victim2 didn't admit to being abused until after Victim1 brought his abuse forward.

The issue in this case is whether someone should reasonably know that whatever was in the substance of texts to Victim2 should have been seen as evidence of abuse. I'm guessing, that with hindsight it will look like grooming. But at the time, Mr. Azimi didn't have any inclination that there was abuse going on.

[Anonymous]

I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He covered up for a child molester, that makes him scum. That makes him a direct enabler for the second offense.

Why is he still on the payroll. In the real world he would have been gone a long time ago.

The letter from the school sounded like they felt sorry for him. Not a mention of the poor victim. FCPS is a straight up mess these days.

What is the timeline here?

Did the principal confront the teacher and then leave at that for a hour, a day, a week, more? before the mandated reporting kicked in?

Based on the reports (published), it appears that when Mr. Azimi found out about Snell and Victim 1, he (Azimi) wasn't at the school, so an AP confronted Snell. While they were waiting for police to arrive, Snell escaped and literally headed for the Mexico border. In the following investigation, it was found that another student had been molested by Snell. It sounds as though that second student (discovered in the investigation) had received some questionable texts that his/her parent had told Azimi about some months earlier.

Now, the prosecutor is trying to say that texts to Victim 2, which Azimi was informed of, were enough to suggest abuse, and therefore Azimi should have notified police of child abuse when he first heard of any texts b/t Snell and Victim2. I'm going to bet that those texts from Snell to Victim2 (which happened before Thoreau called police re: Victim1), could be interpreted innocently or as poor judgment b/t Snell and Victim2, but not directly showing abuse, even if it turned out that they weren't innocent. As a result, Azimi told his employee (Snell) to stop texting that student and thought it was handled. If Mr. Azimi had, in fact, suspected abuse with the first texts (to Victim2), he would have called the police -- as they did when they had more obvious evidence (i.e. Victim1) and Snell absconded.

There is no motive for Mr. Azimi to just sweep someone else's abuse under the rug. In fact, he showed that he knew to call police and did call police when presented with information that indicated abuse (Victim1's evidence/texts). Why didn't he do it for the earlier texts? Because those texts didn't raise any flags of abuse. And in fact, Victim2 didn't admit to being abused until after Victim1 brought his abuse forward.

The issue in this case is whether someone should reasonably know that whatever was in the substance of texts to Victim2 should have been seen as evidence of abuse. I'm guessing, that with hindsight it will look like grooming. But at the time, Mr. Azimi didn't have any inclination that there was abuse going on.

Thank you for this.

It all depends on what reasonable people think about the substance of the first text. If it was so cut and dry then the police would not take a year to charge. If it was so innocent then the police would not have charged - but the police go overboard a lot without repercussion so who knows.

I understand that teachers are required to report but where are the parents in all of this?

If I find a questionable text to my child at home I am going to the police, not the principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

No.

I told you what I suspect the situation is given the facts that have been reported and what I know of Mr. Azimi, and what logical conclusions we can make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

Agree.

There is more than just misjudgment of texts by Azimi. They were a red flag and he should have done more than just tell Snell to stop texting. He is the Principal and the kids are who he's supposed to be looking out for. If there is suspicion, you act on it, you don't just hope it goes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

No.

I told you what I suspect the situation is given the facts that have been reported and what I know of Mr. Azimi, and what logical conclusions we can make.

There’s no point in quibbling. You are sympathetic to Mr. Azimi, the defendant, and offered up a largely exculpatory explanation.

Neither of us will adjudicate the situation. He will take a plea or he will go to trial and have the outcome decided by a judge or jury. What we mostly know at this point is that prosecutors found the conduct sufficient to warrant charges.