LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

??You don't think the young man deserved due process?

I think this was handled terribly from the beginning. But, they could have handled it correctly and still given the kid due process. One does not exclude the other.

In this case, there was evidence that it was rape. Sounds like the perp admitted it.

And, none of us have any idea what the two prior "sexual encounters" were. It doesn't matter. It may have been mild foreplay or the same thing that happened that day without the "throwing to the floor."

Due process is key. DeVos put it into place. In some colleges, all it required before she changed it was an accusation by a woman. Guy was assumed guilty.

"Believe all women" is a stupid phrase. "listen to all women and investigate" is realistic.

[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.

And this is what has frustrated Stone Bridge parents from the beginning. I posted so many times here to try to get people to stop talking about any transgender aspect because it simply wasn't at play in the entire incident. The assailant had never identified as transgender.

I didn't add more specifics on how I knew this because everything I knew was "gossip" and "second hand" from my teens at the school. However, these teens know everything happening around them. They're not clueless and they know who is hooking up and, sadly, which areas of the school can be used for such activities without getting caught.

[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.

This is honestly the part we should be focusing on! Giving consent ONE time does not mean that blanket consent has been given. Both parties must consent each time. Teens need to know and fully understand this aspect of sex.

[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.

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.

What helped in this case is that the boy is a juvenile and was charged as a juvenile. Because of this, the judge was his jury. Each side only had to present their case to the judge and sway the one person.

Had this not been handled in juvenile court, the outcome could have (probably would have) been much different. I see it a lot because as you said, rape cases like this boil down to a he-said, she-said situation. Who presents the best evidence to cause reasonable doubt within the jury.

I had a case almost identical to this one. Two 20-somethings who had dated casually and hooked up on several occasions. She spent the night with him and didn't consent to sex that evening and he raped her. We had evidence from the rape kit, but the fact that these two had hooked up on several occasions created doubt. We had a hung jury and then the choice was made not to proceed with a retrial.

[Anonymous]

Can someone summarize what the principal and school board did (that was wrong)? I’m confused about why they need to resign. I’m confused because of all the surrounding talk about transgender this and blah blah that. It sounds like the school followed the rules and reported the abuse. The kid went through the legal process and I appreciate the coverage the girl had in admitting the consensual relationship while also stating what was not consensual — good on her for recognizing the difference. Is the issue that the SB kicked the father out of the SB meeting? If so, was the father trying to tie the rapper to the transgender issue? Is the issue that the kid was sent to another school? If so, was he legally entitled an education since he had not yet been convicted?

[Anonymous]

*courage, not coverage.

[Anonymous]

*rapist not rappper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bullshit. Even this rapist deserves due process. The people in wrong are the rapist, the school for transferring the offending student without any heads up to the next school thus allowing him to prey on another student and the SB for flat out lying about this attack when asked at the June meeting if there had been any history of bathroom attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bullshit. Even this rapist deserves due process. The people in wrong are the rapist, the school for transferring the offending student without any heads up to the next school thus allowing him to prey on another student and the SB for flat out lying about this attack when asked at the June meeting if there had been any history of bathroom attacks.

A “yes” from the SB response could have been misleading in the context of why the question was asked, but that’s what you wanted to hear. If the concern is that random guys will go into a bathroom and assault women, then the question is valid. What the principal knew was that a couple routinely went to the bathroom together to engage in sexual activity, but in one instance the activity was not consensual. That is not a valid data point with regard to random guys using transgender policies to enter bathrooms and rape women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize what the principal and school board did (that was wrong)? I’m confused about why they need to resign. I’m confused because of all the surrounding talk about transgender this and blah blah that. It sounds like the school followed the rules and reported the abuse. The kid went through the legal process and I appreciate the coverage the girl had in admitting the consensual relationship while also stating what was not consensual — good on her for recognizing the difference. Is the issue that the SB kicked the father out of the SB meeting? If so, was the father trying to tie the rapper to the transgender issue? Is the issue that the kid was sent to another school? If so, was he legally entitled an education since he had not yet been convicted?

Start on page one, this is all covered in all 49 pages ad nauseam.

[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.

And this is what has frustrated Stone Bridge parents from the beginning. I posted so many times here to try to get people to stop talking about any transgender aspect because it simply wasn't at play in the entire incident. The assailant had never identified as transgender.

I didn't add more specifics on how I knew this because everything I knew was "gossip" and "second hand" from my teens at the school. However, these teens know everything happening around them. They're not clueless and they know who is hooking up and, sadly, which areas of the school can be used for such activities without getting caught.

Do tell where these parts are so it stops happening again

[Anonymous]

Ziegler was asked if their had been any transgender bathroom attacks and he said no because there hasn’t been (and still haven’t been.) The boy in question is not transgender. Words matter. The question was specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ziegler was asked if their had been any transgender bathroom attacks and he said no because there hasn’t been (and still haven’t been.) The boy in question is not transgender. Words matter. The question was specific.

That's not what he asked. He asked about attacks in bathrooms. There were no qualifiers. The question was not about transgender bathroom attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NOBODY SAID IT WAS OK. It IS relevant to why this was not just a cut and dry incident that the school could have done anything differently about and it is relevant to the circumstances given it was testified in court. Does it mean he didn’t rape her this time? No obviously not. Does it mean that an investigation was necessary to determine what happened, whether it was consensual and at what point it became NON consensual? Yes.

[Anonymous]

The attempts to downplay and cover up this event - - from the principal, the school board, parents who tried to get Mr. Smith to shut up at the meeting, the media, even the moderator of this very website - - is astounding.