LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 43995
Online
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.

I knew nothing about the case until the recent WaPo article. And based on it, the analysis above sounds spot on. What this is NOT is a trans issue. What it IS is a school district not having a good policy on what to do about alleged date rapists pending adjudication.

[Anonymous]

FWIW I'm in California (just love DCUM) and this case made the news here. Not so much for the transphobia, which hasn't resonated where I live (blue part of CA, not red). But the part about parents feeling they can't trust the schools, the board, etc. to keep their kids safe has resonated. Distrust is high now. I've never seen as many kids move to private school as I have in the last two years. There is skepticism of the public school institution that wasn't there before. So in this story, people are already primed to sympathize with the dad and disbelieve the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 43995
Online
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.

I knew nothing about the case until the recent WaPo article. And based on it, the analysis above sounds spot on. What this is NOT is a trans issue. What it IS is a school district not having a good policy on what to do about alleged date rapists pending adjudication.

That's not how the Rs have been spinning it. You missed the deleted thread, but you can go back and read the beginning of this thread. Or Twitter.

Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
Good going, Democrats.

".. the boy took advantage of the school's trans policies to get into the girls' bathrooms and assault her.


Or even the girl's dad:
“The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms”

[Anonymous]

And, didn't Ziegler state that there were no reports of sexual assault?

These people need to resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 43995
Online
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.

I knew nothing about the case until the recent WaPo article. And based on it, the analysis above sounds spot on. What this is NOT is a trans issue. What it IS is a school district not having a good policy on what to do about alleged date rapists pending adjudication.

That's not how the Rs have been spinning it. You missed the deleted thread, but you can go back and read the beginning of this thread. Or Twitter.

Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
Good going, Democrats.

".. the boy took advantage of the school's trans policies to get into the girls' bathrooms and assault her.


Or even the girl's dad:
“The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms”

Why did the assaulter wear a skirt?

[Anonymous]

So if it's date rape that excuses the schools board response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 43995
Online
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.

I knew nothing about the case until the recent WaPo article. And based on it, the analysis above sounds spot on. What this is NOT is a trans issue. What it IS is a school district not having a good policy on what to do about alleged date rapists pending adjudication.

That's not how the Rs have been spinning it. You missed the deleted thread, but you can go back and read the beginning of this thread. Or Twitter.

Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
Good going, Democrats.

".. the boy took advantage of the school's trans policies to get into the girls' bathrooms and assault her.


Or even the girl's dad:
“The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms”

Why did the assaulter wear a skirt?

Because he wanted to wear one?

He wasn’t transgender and the bathroom was their agreed location to meet. This wasn’t their first meeting in the bathroom. The trans policy wasn’t in plAce yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 43995
Online
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.

I knew nothing about the case until the recent WaPo article. And based on it, the analysis above sounds spot on. What this is NOT is a trans issue. What it IS is a school district not having a good policy on what to do about alleged date rapists pending adjudication.

That's not how the Rs have been spinning it. You missed the deleted thread, but you can go back and read the beginning of this thread. Or Twitter.

Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
Good going, Democrats.

".. the boy took advantage of the school's trans policies to get into the girls' bathrooms and assault her.


Or even the girl's dad:
“The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms”

Why did the assaulter wear a skirt?

Because he wanted to wear one?

He wasn’t transgender and the bathroom was their agreed location to meet. This wasn’t their first meeting in the bathroom. The trans policy wasn’t in plAce yet.

Right, the policy wasn't in place and was being discussed. That is why they covered this up because it presented a difficult fact pattern for them. He wasn't trans by all accounts, but wearing a skirt and being in the girls bathroom was a very tough narrative to explain away so they chose to hide it. That is the problem and you don't seem to get it.

[Anonymous]

The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

And started having sex at 13. “ Accidentally” had anal sex with the Stone Bridge victim. I guarantee that kid has been watching p@rn online for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

And started having sex at 13. “ Accidentally” had anal sex with the Stone Bridge victim. I guarantee that kid has been watching p@rn online for years.

I would urge the mother not to engage with the press any longer. There is obvious pain there, but I think her anger is misplaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

'My son's going to be going on the sexual registry and be committed to Meghan's Law for the rest of his life because he had 15-year-old hormones.'

And yet she wonders why when she asked him recently if he knew what he'd done, he still said no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Daily Mail has a fairly in-depth interview with boy's mother posted this morning:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html

Yikes. There's so much to unpack there. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

This is clearly a very troubled boy with a history of behavior issues. When he was 11 years old he sent nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. The police got involved but the girl's parents decided not to pursue charges as long as he was kept away from their daughter.

And started having sex at 13. “ Accidentally” had anal sex with the Stone Bridge victim. I guarantee that kid has been watching p@rn online for years.

I would urge the mother not to engage with the press any longer. There is obvious pain there, but I think her anger is misplaced.

Yeesh. This x a million