Man Accused of Raping Girl Was Working ‘Unauthorized’ at Montgomery Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, there's no suggestion the contractor was "in the school." He was working on an under-construction athletic field, where no students were. He met the victim on a neighborhood street. The assault occurred in his car, in front of the her house.

Someone is working overtime to spin this scenario.

School was in session and the athletic field is on school property. MCPS should be checking who is on school grounds at all times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, there's no suggestion the contractor was "in the school." He was working on an under-construction athletic field, where no students were. He met the victim on a neighborhood street. The assault occurred in his car, in front of the her house.

Someone is working overtime to spin this scenario.

School was in session and the athletic field is on school property. MCPS should be checking who is on school grounds at all times.

Seems to me if there's an active construction site on school grounds, MCPS staff should focus on keeping students away from the construction area and construction workers away from student areas. The construction company should focus on making sure only cleared workers enter the construction site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, there's no suggestion the contractor was "in the school." He was working on an under-construction athletic field, where no students were. He met the victim on a neighborhood street. The assault occurred in his car, in front of the her house.

Someone is working overtime to spin this scenario.

School was in session and the athletic field is on school property. MCPS should be checking who is on school grounds at all times.

Person A, who was employed by Entity B, which was under contract to Entity C to do work at Location D, assaulted Person E in Location F.

And you're saying that Entity C is to blame.

[Anonymous]

MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

It's not irrelevant. The contractor did not pass the background check yet he was working at a MCPS school. The case shows that MCPS is not checking who is on site at their schools. A simple solution is for school security to check who is on site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

Yes, they are responsible for school security, in other words, securing the school property. The incident occurred outside the school property and it was by someone who was employed by a third party contractor of mcps. Victim was not a student of the school. Should MCPS be accountable for every action that is conducted by parent volunteers (school visitors) outside of school property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

It's not irrelevant. The contractor did not pass the background check yet he was working at a MCPS school. The case shows that MCPS is not checking who is on site at their schools. A simple solution is for school security to check who is on site.

Or an even simpler solution is that contractor should've adhered to the policies in the first place and not hire the person which MCPS said shouldn't be working in their property. I don't get why the contractor isn't getting blamed for this first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

MCPS put him in the neighborhood with easy access to small children. They gave him clearance to be around children. Just because the victim did not go to this particular school doesn't mean she wasn't a neighborhood child. She was too young to be in high school, but not too young to live across the street.

No, they did not. He did not pass the background check, he was not clear to work on any MCPS projects.
Stop spreading lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

It's not irrelevant. The contractor did not pass the background check yet he was working at a MCPS school. The case shows that MCPS is not checking who is on site at their schools. A simple solution is for school security to check who is on site.

Or an even simpler solution is that contractor should've adhered to the policies in the first place and not hire the person which MCPS said shouldn't be working in their property. I don't get why the contractor isn't getting blamed for this first and foremost.

Because it's DCUM. It's full of MCPS haters.
The thing most of them don't even have kids in MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

It's not irrelevant. The contractor did not pass the background check yet he was working at a MCPS school. The case shows that MCPS is not checking who is on site at their schools. A simple solution is for school security to check who is on site.

Or an even simpler solution is that contractor should've adhered to the policies in the first place and not hire the person which MCPS said shouldn't be working in their property. I don't get why the contractor isn't getting blamed for this first and foremost.

Because blaming the contractor is unsatisfying, whereas blaming MCPS is one of DCUM's favorite hobbies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is responsible for school security. Contractors are no different than any other visitor to a school.

That is true. It's also entirely irrelevant to the rape.

It's not irrelevant. The contractor did not pass the background check yet he was working at a MCPS school. The case shows that MCPS is not checking who is on site at their schools. A simple solution is for school security to check who is on site.

It is relevant to school security - to what extent is MCPS responsible for verifying that the contractor is doing what the contract says about the contractor's employees, and what does MCPS do if it turns out that the contractor is not doing what the contract says about the contractor's employees?

But it is irrelevant to the rape. The rape had nothing to do with MCPS.

[Anonymous]

The contractor was not cleared to work at Wheaton HS yet he was working on school grounds. MCPS knew he had felony convictions. The contractor was working there anyway because MCPS doesn’t check who is working at their schools. MCPS should be checking. MCPS should also put the construction company on a do not hire list.

I don't understand why you think MCPS should be given a pass for a lapse in school security? Both the contractor and MCPS bare the responsibility for not preventing a convicted felon from working at Wheaton HS. However, MCPS could easily close this security gap if it valued protecting students. Just confirm who is working at schools that have students present. Issue work badges so school security can check who is allowed to be on school grounds and who is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The contractor was not cleared to work at Wheaton HS yet he was working on school grounds. MCPS knew he had felony convictions. The contractor was working there anyway because MCPS doesn’t check who is working at their schools. MCPS should be checking. MCPS should also put the construction company on a do not hire list.

I don't understand why you think MCPS should be given a pass for a lapse in school security? Both the contractor and MCPS bare the responsibility for not preventing a convicted felon from working at Wheaton HS. However, MCPS could easily close this security gap if it valued protecting students. Just confirm who is working at schools that have students present. Issue work badges so school security can check who is allowed to be on school grounds and who is not.

Nobody has said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contractor was not cleared to work at Wheaton HS yet he was working on school grounds. MCPS knew he had felony convictions. The contractor was working there anyway because MCPS doesn’t check who is working at their schools. MCPS should be checking. MCPS should also put the construction company on a do not hire list.

I don't understand why you think MCPS should be given a pass for a lapse in school security? Both the contractor and MCPS bare the responsibility for not preventing a convicted felon from working at Wheaton HS. However, MCPS could easily close this security gap if it valued protecting students. Just confirm who is working at schools that have students present. Issue work badges so school security can check who is allowed to be on school grounds and who is not.

Nobody has said that.

Nobody is saying that. What doesn't make sense is why people on here seem to only be pointing the fault at MCPS when there are at least 2 other parties that should bare the bigger responsibility. Also since the occurrence didn't happen on school grounds, I'm not really sure if the the rapist's place of work is relevant here.