LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LoCo parents to all you limousine liberals:

"It takes a considerable lack of soul to look parents concerned for their children’s bodily safety in the eye, and shrug them off as some contrived electoral tactic."

And by bodily safety, we mean the rape of our daughters. But yes, it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

You won't like the source, but evidently WaPo is okay, so maybe we should just be able to quote sources without shooting the messenger.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/28/dear-nbc-if-anyone-created-virginia-outrage-it-was-radical-school-boards/?fbclid=IwAR0F5HYCRq7HyETwMykAdnGlJ6KTckevTFMcNg6FJ_Wbi6PTJ0qJOnMcwOY

The problem is this whole event has been presented so dishonestly and with such an agenda by the right that I don’t believe you actually care about this student or any others. You don’t actually think kids are at risk. You just want to score political points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

TLDR, you can't support anything you say but we should just believe it because you use big words.

The content of Garland's memo is that threats and intimidation of elected officials is not acceptable and the FBI will meet with local law enforcement to coordinate a response. Sadly, you are siding with those making the threats.

All I have to say is, I hope you reflect on this when Youngkin wins on Tuesday. The day cannot come quickly enough for Democrats to grow up and realize they need to stop chasing social media trends and figure out what voters want and understand the blow-back of decayed 1st Amendment rights.

That POS probably will win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

TLDR, you can't support anything you say but we should just believe it because you use big words.

The content of Garland's memo is that threats and intimidation of elected officials is not acceptable and the FBI will meet with local law enforcement to coordinate a response. Sadly, you are siding with those making the threats.

All I have to say is, I hope you reflect on this when Youngkin wins on Tuesday. The day cannot come quickly enough for Democrats to grow up and realize they need to stop chasing social media trends and figure out what voters want and understand the blow-back of decayed 1st Amendment rights.

That POS probably will win.

He might but I just want to point out the PP should say that Democrats should figure out what white* voters want. GOP is great at making white people feel victimized and persecuted which is why their messaging does so well with white people.

[Anonymous]

The problem is this whole event has been presented so dishonestly and with such an agenda by the right that I don’t believe you actually care about this student or any others. You don’t actually think kids are at risk. You just want to score political points.

Curious. What is dishonest about it?

A girl alleged rape, Parent was called (not certain how quickly parents were called.) School did not believe her. Parent insisted on hospital trip. Investigation was done by law enforcement. Evidence supported her story. Charges were made. Kid was sent to a different school--AFTER charges were made to court.

Kid goes to different school. Assaults another girl. Charges are made.

Kid goes to court and is found guilty (or whatever the term is for a juvenile.

A month after first incident, at a School Board meeting, the superintendent denied any reports of assaults in the bathroom after being asked by a School Board member.

A parent gets angry at that meeting and is arrested. Later, we learn the parent was the dad of the girl who was assaulted.

Parent is prosecuted personally by the Commonwealth Attorney. This is highly unusual for her to personally prosecute anyone, much less someone charged with a misdemeanor. NOt only that, she asks for jail time which is also unusual. Judge refuses to give jail time.

Meanwhile, his daughter's assaulter has not yet been tried.

Kid --who is now in another school--assaults another girl.

First victim's dad goes public. Public becomes enraged that they did not know. about the first assault and that the dad who tried to speak was arrested.

School Board denies knowing anything about the first assault,
FOIA shows the School Board did know the day it happened. Superintendent had written School Board.

Kid is found guilty of first assault.

Parents call for resignations--one School Board member resigns. This SB member had begun an "enemies" list of parents before the first assault over other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoCo parents to all you limousine liberals:

"It takes a considerable lack of soul to look parents concerned for their children’s bodily safety in the eye, and shrug them off as some contrived electoral tactic."

And by bodily safety, we mean the rape of our daughters. But yes, it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

You won't like the source, but evidently WaPo is okay, so maybe we should just be able to quote sources without shooting the messenger.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/28/dear-nbc-if-anyone-created-virginia-outrage-it-was-radical-school-boards/?fbclid=IwAR0F5HYCRq7HyETwMykAdnGlJ6KTckevTFMcNg6FJ_Wbi6PTJ0qJOnMcwOY

The problem is this whole event has been presented so dishonestly and with such an agenda by the right that I don’t believe you actually care about this student or any others. You don’t actually think kids are at risk. You just want to score political points.

You mean by Ziegler?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Curious. What is dishonest about it?

Your timeline has some repetitions that almost make it sound like there were three assaults rather than two and that the student was convicted twice. Beyond that, you completely left out the controversy surrounding transgender bathroom access. The father chose to go public to a right-wing media outlet that framed his daughter's assault in the context the school board's vote to allow trans students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Much was made of the fact that the student was wearing a skirt. Therefore, the initial narrative was that rules allowing trans girls to use girls' bathrooms had allowed a male (or possibly trans girl) to enter a girls' bathroom and assault a female student and that the board had covered it up in order to pass their trans bathroom access policy. In reality, neither gender nor attire (or even the bathroom policy which hadn't been passed at the time of the assault) had anything to do with why the assailant was in the bathroom. It was an agreed upon meeting. The school board was required by state law to pass such a policy regardless of whether there had been prior assaults or not.

This thread alone has page after page of posts arguing that the school board is not keeping girls safe and the bathroom policy endangers them further. That may well be a legitimate argument, but this case has nothing to do with it. This was a case of two students agreeing to meet in a bathroom and would have happened whether there was a trans bathroom policy or not (and, in fact there wasn't at that time).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Curious. What is dishonest about it?

Your timeline has some repetitions that almost make it sound like there were three assaults rather than two and that the student was convicted twice. Beyond that, you completely left out the controversy surrounding transgender bathroom access. The father chose to go public to a right-wing media outlet that framed his daughter's assault in the context the school board's vote to allow trans students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Much was made of the fact that the student was wearing a skirt. Therefore, the initial narrative was that rules allowing trans girls to use girls' bathrooms had allowed a male (or possibly trans girl) to enter a girls' bathroom and assault a female student and that the board had covered it up in order to pass their trans bathroom access policy. In reality, neither gender nor attire (or even the bathroom policy which hadn't been passed at the time of the assault) had anything to do with why the assailant was in the bathroom (it was an agreed upon meeting). The school board was required by state law to pass such a policy regardless of whether their had been prior assaults or not.

This thread alone has page after page of posts arguing that the school board is not keeping girls safe and the bathroom policy endangers them further. That may well be a legitimate argument, but this case has nothing to do with it. This was a case of two students agreeing to meet in a bathroom and would have happened whether there was a trans bathroom policy or not (and, in fact there wasn't at that time).

This.

x1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Curious. What is dishonest about it?

Your timeline has some repetitions that almost make it sound like there were three assaults rather than two and that the student was convicted twice. Beyond that, you completely left out the controversy surrounding transgender bathroom access. The father chose to go public to a right-wing media outlet that framed his daughter's assault in the context the school board's vote to allow trans students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Much was made of the fact that the student was wearing a skirt. Therefore, the initial narrative was that rules allowing trans girls to use girls' bathrooms had allowed a male (or possibly trans girl) to enter a girls' bathroom and assault a female student and that the board had covered it up in order to pass their trans bathroom access policy. In reality, neither gender nor attire (or even the bathroom policy which hadn't been passed at the time of the assault) had anything to do with why the assailant was in the bathroom (it was an agreed upon meeting). The school board was required by state law to pass such a policy regardless of whether their had been prior assaults or not.

This thread alone has page after page of posts arguing that the school board is not keeping girls safe and the bathroom policy endangers them further. That may well be a legitimate argument, but this case has nothing to do with it. This was a case of two students agreeing to meet in a bathroom and would have happened whether there was a trans bathroom policy or not (and, in fact there wasn't at that time).

This.

x1 million

Right. It was the cover up to allow a policy to go unchallenged and then a subsequent assault that is the problem. Having her dad arrested and seeking jail time looked vindictive. That's the problem. It's not a trans issue, it's the fact that our elected officials will hide information that isn't politically expedient and try to silence critics is the issue and leaves us wondering what else do they hide from us or lie about because it may run counter to their agenda that is the issue. And it is why we will elect a Republican Governor on Tuesday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoCo parents to all you limousine liberals:

"It takes a considerable lack of soul to look parents concerned for their children’s bodily safety in the eye, and shrug them off as some contrived electoral tactic."

And by bodily safety, we mean the rape of our daughters. But yes, it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

You won't like the source, but evidently WaPo is okay, so maybe we should just be able to quote sources without shooting the messenger.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/28/dear-nbc-if-anyone-created-virginia-outrage-it-was-radical-school-boards/?fbclid=IwAR0F5HYCRq7HyETwMykAdnGlJ6KTckevTFMcNg6FJ_Wbi6PTJ0qJOnMcwOY

The problem is this whole event has been presented so dishonestly and with such an agenda by the right that I don’t believe you actually care about this student or any others. You don’t actually think kids are at risk. You just want to score political points.

Can you link us to your comments on how bothered you were when the Left was using George Floyd to score political points?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Curious. What is dishonest about it?

Your timeline has some repetitions that almost make it sound like there were three assaults rather than two and that the student was convicted twice. Beyond that, you completely left out the controversy surrounding transgender bathroom access. The father chose to go public to a right-wing media outlet that framed his daughter's assault in the context the school board's vote to allow trans students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Much was made of the fact that the student was wearing a skirt. Therefore, the initial narrative was that rules allowing trans girls to use girls' bathrooms had allowed a male (or possibly trans girl) to enter a girls' bathroom and assault a female student and that the board had covered it up in order to pass their trans bathroom access policy. In reality, neither gender nor attire (or even the bathroom policy which hadn't been passed at the time of the assault) had anything to do with why the assailant was in the bathroom (it was an agreed upon meeting). The school board was required by state law to pass such a policy regardless of whether their had been prior assaults or not.

This thread alone has page after page of posts arguing that the school board is not keeping girls safe and the bathroom policy endangers them further. That may well be a legitimate argument, but this case has nothing to do with it. This was a case of two students agreeing to meet in a bathroom and would have happened whether there was a trans bathroom policy or not (and, in fact there wasn't at that time).

This.

x1 million

Right. It was the cover up to allow a policy to go unchallenged and then a subsequent assault that is the problem. Having her dad arrested and seeking jail time looked vindictive. That's the problem. It's not a trans issue, it's the fact that our elected officials will hide information that isn't politically expedient and try to silence critics is the issue and leaves us wondering what else do they hide from us or lie about because it may run counter to their agenda that is the issue. And it is why we will elect a Republican Governor on Tuesday.

This is exactly the point. It was a cover up to continue enabling the social justice crusade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoCo parents to all you limousine liberals:

"It takes a considerable lack of soul to look parents concerned for their children’s bodily safety in the eye, and shrug them off as some contrived electoral tactic."

And by bodily safety, we mean the rape of our daughters. But yes, it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

You won't like the source, but evidently WaPo is okay, so maybe we should just be able to quote sources without shooting the messenger.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/28/dear-nbc-if-anyone-created-virginia-outrage-it-was-radical-school-boards/?fbclid=IwAR0F5HYCRq7HyETwMykAdnGlJ6KTckevTFMcNg6FJ_Wbi6PTJ0qJOnMcwOY

The problem is this whole event has been presented so dishonestly and with such an agenda by the right that I don’t believe you actually care about this student or any others. You don’t actually think kids are at risk. You just want to score political points.

Can you link us to your comments on how bothered you were when the Left was using George Floyd to score political points?

The two aren’t equal. George Floyd was murdered by a cop which a jury agreed and found him guilty for.
There was no rape coverup to protect trans kids as you want to believe there was. In fact, trans kids, the Republican boogeyman, aren’t even related to this.

[Anonymous]

The two aren’t equal. George Floyd was murdered by a cop which a jury agreed and found him guilty for.

There was no rape coverup to protect trans kids as you want to believe there was. In fact, trans kids, the Republican boogeyman, aren’t even related to this.

DP. I agree that this is not equal. It is true that George Floyd's horrendous death was politicized. But, that's another issue.

This is about a cover-up. Whether it was covered up to protect the transgender issue or not, does not matter.

The dad was not there to protest the transgender issue. Others may have been. The dad was there to protest the fact that an "alleged" rapist (now convicted of the charge) was sent to another school where he assaulted another girl.

I do not know if the fact that the rapist was wearing a skirt had anything to do with the cover-up. But, the fact is that the assault WAS covered up. And, that, no matter the motive, is egregious.

FOIA'd emails indicate that the Superintendent and school board members knew about the assault. And, as a PP said, it appears vindictive that the dad was charged and that the prosecutor asked for jail time--while allowing the rapist to attend another school.

[Anonymous]

I don’t agree being charged for public disturbance is vindictive. The school board nor superintendent charged him. The state attorney did. We can argue was his anger justified over what happened to his daughter and whether that anger was appropriate to bring to a public venue but the fact is, the dad DID create a public disturbance. My mom always used to tell us if anyone raped us, she’d kill them. And accept whatever consequences came. So maybe the dad showed his anger and maybe it was even righteous anger. But it doesn’t mean in the process he didn’t create a public disturbance he was then charged for in accordance with the law.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Right. It was the cover up to allow a policy to go unchallenged and then a subsequent assault that is the problem. Having her dad arrested and seeking jail time looked vindictive. That's the problem. It's not a trans issue, it's the fact that our elected officials will hide information that isn't politically expedient and try to silence critics is the issue and leaves us wondering what else do they hide from us or lie about because it may run counter to their agenda that is the issue. And it is why we will elect a Republican Governor on Tuesday.

I agree that this interpretation is not without support. The denial of assaults at the June school board meeting and the father's arrest look bad in hindsight and support your conclusions. However, I will argue that there is another equally valid analysis.

When school officials were informed of the May assault, they were faced with what was essentially a date rape case with the usual he-said, she-said of such incidents. Neither school officials nor law enforcement immediately believed that an assault had occurred. We don't know the specific details that led to that reaction and it could easily be the same disregard for and unwillingness to believe women that we have seen elsewhere. But, we simply don't know what led to this uncertainty. At any rate, it took the police until July to complete their investigation and for prosecutors to charge the assailant.

At the June meeting, the May incident was still being investigated and the fact that it was an assault had not yet been concluded. Ziegler has claimed that he misunderstood the question about assaults to mean assaults involving transgender students. Since the May incident did not involve transgender students, his response that there were no such incidents would be accurate. However, his explanation seems like a stretch to me and I think undermines his credibility whether it is true or not. But, the fact that no determination had yet been made about whether an assault had occurred and the fact that LCPS has a policy of not commenting on on-going investigations leaves room for doubt that there was an actual cover-up.

The Loudoun Sheriff has said that Smith was not arrested at the behest of school officials, but rather as a result of interactions involving Smith and another parent that officers observed. He subsequently resisted his arrest, leading to the highly-publicized video of him being dragged out with a bloody lip.

Between legal restrictions on detention and Title IX obligations, school officials had limited recourse about what to do with the assailant while he was waiting adjudication of his case. There is a discussion to be had about whether sending him to another school with electronic monitoring was appropriate. Again, this is a situation where we don't know all the details. But, this response obviously blew up in school officials' faces when the assailant allegedly committed a second assault.

In sum, I believe that it can be argued that school officials did not attempt a cover-up and that many of their decisions were influenced by circumstances outside their control. It is unfortunate that this occurred in the midst of a hyped-up political atmosphere because it is a situation that could really benefit from calmer minds.

[Anonymous]

^ I agree with all that