LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

I’ve had sex with my husband for decades. But the night I told him no because I was exhausted due to taking care of my sick mother and he didn’t want to hear no because he was leaving the next day for a couple weeks? He raped me. Doesn’t matter that we were married. Doesn’t matter how many times we’d had sex prior. I said no. He would not take that for an answer. It’s disgusting to think that if my husband works skirts, people would be arguing for pages about it.

Can a native explain the bolded? Tia!

Sorry, I meant WORE skirts

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

No, it's NOT COMPLICATED. Being discussed this his act on May 28th, right? He "threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts." What's complicated about that?

[Anonymous]

How is Scott Ziegler still superintendent of LCPS? Mind boggling. And why haven’t more LCPS school board members resigned?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

In fact, it is a complicated case and it explains why school based staff initially didn’t know what had happened. If they had caught these same 2 students having sex in the bathrooms before, how could they have known the 3rd time may have started as consensual but devolved into rape? They couldn’t, which is why an investigation had to occur. I can’t see where they could or should have made any different decisions . The student was found guilty after receiving due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

I’ve had sex with my husband for decades. But the night I told him no because I was exhausted due to taking care of my sick mother and he didn’t want to hear no because he was leaving the next day for a couple weeks? He raped me. Doesn’t matter that we were married. Doesn’t matter how many times we’d had sex prior. I said no. He would not take that for an answer. It’s disgusting to think that if my husband works skirts, people would be arguing for pages about it.

The question is, how would a 3rd party be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened? In your case, unfortunately it would be close to impossible, because it would be a he said/she said situation unless you had physical evidence of your husband forcing you. Fortunately, in this case, it was possible and they got the conviction. But the two prior consensual encounters did confuse matters and were in fact brought up in court a defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

In fact, it is a complicated case and it explains why school based staff initially didn’t know what had happened. If they had caught these same 2 students having sex in the bathrooms before, how could they have known the 3rd time may have started as consensual but devolved into rape? They couldn’t, which is why an investigation had to occur. I can’t see where they could or should have made any different decisions . The student was found guilty after receiving due process.

They would have known because the victim would have presented like a girl 'flipped over' and sodomized. I imagine she was in a state of shock, not to mention pain. This clearly wasn't a repeat of what had been done before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

In fact, it is a complicated case and it explains why school based staff initially didn’t know what had happened. If they had caught these same 2 students having sex in the bathrooms before, how could they have known the 3rd time may have started as consensual but devolved into rape? They couldn’t, which is why an investigation had to occur. I can’t see where they could or should have made any different decisions . The student was found guilty after receiving due process.

They would have known because the victim would have presented like a girl 'flipped over' and sodomized. I imagine she was in a state of shock, not to mention pain. This clearly wasn't a repeat of what had been done before.

Is it clear? Did they say that the previous sex acts were not an@l sex?

[Anonymous]

He was charged. So there’s that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was charged. So there’s that

Yes, it was non-consensual so he was rightfully charged/convicted, but PP was making assumptions about what they did before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was charged. So there’s that

Yes, it was non-consensual so he was rightfully charged/convicted, but PP was making assumptions about what they did before.

PP and justin jouvenal at the Washington Post. So glad we've decided to slut-shame minors, as long as it suits our political agenda. No means no, unless they've been intimate before. Which party is the party of toxic masculinity again?

[Anonymous]

Sorry I thought the link was already posted:

https://twitter.com/jjouvenal/status/1452809719534469127

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was charged. So there’s that

Yes, it was non-consensual so he was rightfully charged/convicted, but PP was making assumptions about what they did before.

PP and justin jouvenal at the Washington Post. So glad we've decided to slut-shame minors, as long as it suits our political agenda. No means no, unless they've been intimate before. Which party is the party of toxic masculinity again?

WTF are you talking about?

It’s ok that they had sexual encounters before - even @nal. Most kids are sexually active. No shame there at all.

It’s not ok that he raped her.

PP shouldn’t make assumptions about what they did before or not.

[Anonymous]

The only person who did anything wrong here was the perpetrator and Betsy Davos for changing the Title IX regulations. The conservative mob fails again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

I’ve had sex with my husband for decades. But the night I told him no because I was exhausted due to taking care of my sick mother and he didn’t want to hear no because he was leaving the next day for a couple weeks? He raped me. Doesn’t matter that we were married. Doesn’t matter how many times we’d had sex prior. I said no. He would not take that for an answer. It’s disgusting to think that if my husband works skirts, people would be arguing for pages about it.

There is literally nobody saying that what happened wasn’t a crime. But it is absolutely the case that you treat a case between two previously consenting people different that a stranger rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I have mixed feelings about posting this and if anyone feels this is inappropriate, use the "report" button to tell me I'm being an a-hole, but this is what the Washington Post is reporting regarding the court proceeding today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

I think this is worth posting for two reasons:

1) it shows why the authorities found the case "complicated", and

2) this was obviously not a case of a female-appearing student entering the girls' bathroom to conduct an assault. Rather, it was a pre-arranged meeting and gender doesn't really play a role.

Also, just to be clear, I strongly agree that a consensual encounter can turn non-consensual and result in sexual assault. In such cases, these charges are appropriate.

In fact, it is a complicated case and it explains why school based staff initially didn’t know what had happened. If they had caught these same 2 students having sex in the bathrooms before, how could they have known the 3rd time may have started as consensual but devolved into rape? They couldn’t, which is why an investigation had to occur. I can’t see where they could or should have made any different decisions . The student was found guilty after receiving due process.

They would have known because the victim would have presented like a girl 'flipped over' and sodomized. I imagine she was in a state of shock, not to mention pain. This clearly wasn't a repeat of what had been done before.

Is it clear? Did they say that the previous sex acts were not an@l sex?

According to WaPo, this is what the defendant said in his interviews with police:

The defendant did not testify during the trial, but prosecutors played interviews he gave detectives investigating the case during which he acknowledged “messing up” and said he did not intend to perform one sex act with the victim and said he stopped once he realized he was hurting the girl.

The defendant initially told detectives the second sexual act did not occur, but later said it may have happened briefly and accidentally when a knee-length skirt he was wearing got caught on his watch as the pair were fumbling around in the bathroom stall.
------------------------
Also according to WaPo, this is what their previous conversations were about on Discord:

Zweig said the boy repeatedly asked the girl to engage in a particular sex act, but she rebuffed him each time. The day before the assault Zweig said the victim had been hospitalized because of a health condition that made her weak and the defendant “utilized her physical helplessness” to take advantage of her.
------------------------
It sounds to me like the defendant asked her multiple times for an@l, she said no and then he said he claims he accidentally(??) did it anyway, but stopped when he realized he was hurting the girl. I'm not clear on what happened when he claimed his skirt was caught on his watch -- oral?

The skirt thing distracts from the far larger issue, which is that a government body was willing to try and destroy a father trying to get justice for his daughter who was raped, just because the optics didn't fit with their agenda. Now that these details are out, it's even more appalling. I still don't care that the boy was wearing a skirt and I've never cared. I care that government officials thought it might look bad and tried to cover it up to the extent the dad was prosecuted by the head Commonwealth Attorney. You'll notice she didn't prosecute the rapist.