LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

So you bring in facts not related to this particular discussion and it's on topic but nothing else is?

The information is that a boy (not a trans woman) assaulted a girl in a bathroom. The policy wasn't in effect, so I guess the boy was in the bathroom and wasn't supposed to be, correct?

If the case has nothing to do with the rights of trans students or the bathroom policy, which I don't think it does, then why are you so hell-bent on attacking anyone who asks a question. The truth is that the only reason the policy is implicated is because of rabid people like you who would rather victim shame and disparage parents with legitimate concerns to support an agenda that isn't even implicated here.

It’s still off topic. Go start a new thread about safe spaces in LCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

So you bring in facts not related to this particular discussion and it's on topic but nothing else is?

The information is that a boy (not a trans woman) assaulted a girl in a bathroom. The policy wasn't in effect, so I guess the boy was in the bathroom and wasn't supposed to be, correct?

If the case has nothing to do with the rights of trans students or the bathroom policy, which I don't think it does, then why are you so hell-bent on attacking anyone who asks a question. The truth is that the only reason the policy is implicated is because of rabid people like you who would rather victim shame and disparage parents with legitimate concerns to support an agenda that isn't even implicated here.

It’s still off topic. Go start a new thread about safe spaces in LCPS.

What do you believe IS the topic of this thread then? I thought it's about a rape of a girl in a bathroom and what's going to be done about it ("accountability" - See title).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

So you bring in facts not related to this particular discussion and it's on topic but nothing else is?

The information is that a boy (not a trans woman) assaulted a girl in a bathroom. The policy wasn't in effect, so I guess the boy was in the bathroom and wasn't supposed to be, correct?

If the case has nothing to do with the rights of trans students or the bathroom policy, which I don't think it does, then why are you so hell-bent on attacking anyone who asks a question. The truth is that the only reason the policy is implicated is because of rabid people like you who would rather victim shame and disparage parents with legitimate concerns to support an agenda that isn't even implicated here.

It’s still off topic. Go start a new thread about safe spaces in LCPS.

What do you believe IS the topic of this thread then? I thought it's about a rape of a girl in a bathroom and what's going to be done about it ("accountability" - See title).

I'm sorry - "alleged" rape to be more specific. For which a boy has been arrested and charged

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
What do you believe IS the topic of this thread then? I thought it's about a rape of a girl in a bathroom and what's going to be done about it ("accountability" - See title).

Can you please restate exactly what you are asking? Your initial question was whether all schools have bathrooms with locking doors. That is an overly-broad and confusing question. As for what is being done, I posted the policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

This case involves a girl. The forcible sodomy rape allegedly happened in a bathroom on May 28th, for which the boy has been arrested. Mere "groping" allegedly occurred in a classroom. There's a HUGE difference!!!

Forcible sodomy vs. groping

So what do you want? Both incidents predate policy 8040. Are you saying perhaps that girls aren’t safe from male sexual predators in bathrooms or classrooms? If so, sure, we can agree. But a male sexual predator has nothing to do with policy 8040

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What do you believe IS the topic of this thread then? I thought it's about a rape of a girl in a bathroom and what's going to be done about it ("accountability" - See title).

Can you please restate exactly what you are asking? Your initial question was whether all schools have bathrooms with locking doors. That is an overly-broad and confusing question. As for what is being done, I posted the policy.

Actually, I'm the poster who asked about locking individual bathrooms. Thanks for the answer to my question, although I'm still upset about the aggressive tone of some of these posts.

The question above was asked by someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

This case involves a girl. The forcible sodomy rape allegedly happened in a bathroom on May 28th, for which the boy has been arrested. Mere "groping" allegedly occurred in a classroom. There's a HUGE difference!!!

Forcible sodomy vs. groping

So what do you want? Both incidents predate policy 8040. Are you saying perhaps that girls aren’t safe from male sexual predators in bathrooms or classrooms? If so, sure, we can agree. But a male sexual predator has nothing to do with policy 8040

I don't care what any policy was May 28th, June 28th, or Oct 16th (today). We need to consider what protections we can give girls in bathrooms tomorrow. Solve, not blame.. What will be done moving forward in light of the alleged forcible sodomy in the girls bathroom.

What, if anything, will be done to prevent this from happening

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

This case involves a girl. The forcible sodomy rape allegedly happened in a bathroom on May 28th, for which the boy has been arrested. Mere "groping" allegedly occurred in a classroom. There's a HUGE difference!!!

Forcible sodomy vs. groping

So what do you want? Both incidents predate policy 8040. Are you saying perhaps that girls aren’t safe from male sexual predators in bathrooms or classrooms? If so, sure, we can agree. But a male sexual predator has nothing to do with policy 8040

I don't care what any policy was May 28th, June 28th, or Oct 16th (today). We need to consider what protections we can give girls in bathrooms tomorrow. Solve, not blame.. What will be done moving forward in light of the alleged forcible sodomy in the girls bathroom.

What, if anything, will be done to prevent this from happening

One happened in a CLASSROOM
Others happen in BOYS LOCKER ROOMS

You need to raise your SONS to NOT BE RAPISTS if we want to prevent boys and girls being sexually assaulted by them

[Anonymous]

What, if anything, will be done to prevent this from happening

1. Report to the police. (Appears to have been done in this case. But, was this because the dad insisted or not? He said the school wanted to handle it 'in house.")
2. Report to the parents.
3. If it is an alleged rape, then a medical exam is required with the appropriate tests.

Now comes the hard part. What to do if the attack is "questionable." In this instance, it seems to me that there was enough evidence (the results of the rape test) to indicate that the "attacker" should have been removed from school. So far, so good.

My question is why it took so long to bring him to trial. That falls on the prosecution.

But, given that trial had not happened, what should the school have done?
Alternative school seems logical.
Homebound school? possibly
In this case, it seems that he could have been enrolled in Virginia virtual.

Certainly, though, the school he was transferred to should have been told and proper supervision should have been in place It apparently was not. Did the school know he was awaiting trial? Did he have a monitor?

I guess we "beleive all women" unless her dad is a plumber.

[Anonymous]

Required medical exam?!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:As I and other posters have repeatedly pointed out, the two sexual assaults being discussed in this thread do not involve transgender students. The repeated posts about transgender issues are distracting from the main topic of discussion. Due to these repeated disruptions, I am going to start removing all posts addressing transgender topics. Feel free to start a thread to discuss those topics, but do no do it in this thread.

Why? The “cover up” is directly due to the transgender bathroom debate. The problem is not with transgender students using the bathroom but with the fact that any male can claim that they are transgender and use the bathroom. By removing any posts referencing transgender issues you are suppressing the debate on exactly how liberal these bathroom policies are. If a boy enters the girls bathroom and a girl feels uncomfortable she may not feel comfortable raising this with the administration lest the boy claim that he is transgender (even if he isn’t) and she is labeled anti-trans. The new bathroom policy effectively desegregates bathrooms. Girl bathrooms are no longer female safe spaces. Any boy can now enter and just claim that he is transgender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, in a discussion about accountability for an assault that happened in a BATHROOM, you won't allow a question about whether all students have access to private locked bathroom at every school? How is that off topic?

You’re ignoring that other assaults have taken place on boys by boys in boys locker rooms (Tuscarora) and this student assaulted the 2nd victim in a classroom. Bathrooms aren’t the issue.

So you bring in facts not related to this particular discussion and it's on topic but nothing else is?

The information is that a boy (not a trans woman) assaulted a girl in a bathroom. The policy wasn't in effect, so I guess the boy was in the bathroom and wasn't supposed to be, correct?

If the case has nothing to do with the rights of trans students or the bathroom policy, which I don't think it does, then why are you so hell-bent on attacking anyone who asks a question. The truth is that the only reason the policy is implicated is because of rabid people like you who would rather victim shame and disparage parents with legitimate concerns to support an agenda that isn't even implicated here.

It’s still off topic. Go start a new thread about safe spaces in LCPS.

What do you believe IS the topic of this thread then? I thought it's about a rape of a girl in a bathroom and what's going to be done about it ("accountability" - See title).

It’s not about PP’s ongoing issues with certain types of spaces that developed after her own rape.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As I and other posters have repeatedly pointed out, the two sexual assaults being discussed in this thread do not involve transgender students. The repeated posts about transgender issues are distracting from the main topic of discussion. Due to these repeated disruptions, I am going to start removing all posts addressing transgender topics. Feel free to start a thread to discuss those topics, but do no do it in this thread.

Why? The “cover up” is directly due to the transgender bathroom debate. The problem is not with transgender students using the bathroom but with the fact that any male can claim that they are transgender and use the bathroom. By removing any posts referencing transgender issues you are suppressing the debate on exactly how liberal these bathroom policies are. If a boy enters the girls bathroom and a girl feels uncomfortable she may not feel comfortable raising this with the administration lest the boy claim that he is transgender (even if he isn’t) and she is labeled anti-trans. The new bathroom policy effectively desegregates bathrooms. Girl bathrooms are no longer female safe spaces. Any boy can now enter and just claim that he is transgender.

There was no cover-up. At the time of the school board meeting, the police investigation was still going on and no charges had been filed. If any school or board officials at the meeting were aware of the alleged attack, it might have been good to mention that one case was under investigation. However, school officials were trying to maintain the integrity of the investigation which was in the hands of the police.

Even if the fact of an ongoing investigation had been announced, the school boards would still have had to approve a policy because it was required by law. That would not have changed.

Finally, if you want to discuss the issue of bathroom safety, please start a thread on that topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As I and other posters have repeatedly pointed out, the two sexual assaults being discussed in this thread do not involve transgender students. The repeated posts about transgender issues are distracting from the main topic of discussion. Due to these repeated disruptions, I am going to start removing all posts addressing transgender topics. Feel free to start a thread to discuss those topics, but do no do it in this thread.

Why? The “cover up” is directly due to the transgender bathroom debate. The problem is not with transgender students using the bathroom but with the fact that any male can claim that they are transgender and use the bathroom. By removing any posts referencing transgender issues you are suppressing the debate on exactly how liberal these bathroom policies are. If a boy enters the girls bathroom and a girl feels uncomfortable she may not feel comfortable raising this with the administration lest the boy claim that he is transgender (even if he isn’t) and she is labeled anti-trans. The new bathroom policy effectively desegregates bathrooms. Girl bathrooms are no longer female safe spaces. Any boy can now enter and just claim that he is transgender.

You don't know that AT all. Sexual assaults/raps are covered up every single day by educational institutions. The cover up is not unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As I and other posters have repeatedly pointed out, the two sexual assaults being discussed in this thread do not involve transgender students. The repeated posts about transgender issues are distracting from the main topic of discussion. Due to these repeated disruptions, I am going to start removing all posts addressing transgender topics. Feel free to start a thread to discuss those topics, but do no do it in this thread.

Why? The “cover up” is directly due to the transgender bathroom debate. The problem is not with transgender students using the bathroom but with the fact that any male can claim that they are transgender and use the bathroom. By removing any posts referencing transgender issues you are suppressing the debate on exactly how liberal these bathroom policies are. If a boy enters the girls bathroom and a girl feels uncomfortable she may not feel comfortable raising this with the administration lest the boy claim that he is transgender (even if he isn’t) and she is labeled anti-trans. The new bathroom policy effectively desegregates bathrooms. Girl bathrooms are no longer female safe spaces. Any boy can now enter and just claim that he is transgender.

You don't know that AT all. Sexual assaults/raps are covered up every single day by educational institutions. The cover up is not unusual.

Not even cover up by the poor handling. Welcome to the world of sex crimes and being a woman