LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's original question - Terry McAuliffe.

Yes, clearly it was all his fault.

[Anonymous]

I’ll bet the girl wasn’t disciplined for having consensual sex at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The girl was troubled as well.

So she deserves to be raped? What in the hell is wrong with you?

No but she is exhibiting some troubling behavior. Having sex in the bathroom, meeting a boy in the bathroom you go to for sex when she supposedly didn’t want sex, and even being attracted to a guy who dresses like someone in the photo. I’d say she needed some type of therapy even before the rape.

That may be true. Doesn’t change the fact that she was raped.

If she was raped, yes. This case was sort of tried in the media. And according the mom, sounds like the rape was due to the young man going in the wrong hole for a few seconds during a consensual sexual encounter. If that’s true most guys will tell you it’s possible in a situation where you can’t see and women have had the same experience. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t call it rape.

No women deserves to be raped. I wasn’t there so I truly wouldn’t know, but this story just doesn’t sit well from the information I’ve received.

No, it was tried in court before a judge…who decided it was rape. Thanks for your completely useless input about how it sits with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll bet the girl wasn’t disciplined for having consensual sex at school.

This is about rape.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

You have a perspective I do not agree with. As a teenage girl, I would not have wanted to share a bathroom with the boy pictured on this thread. I believe he should have a private bathroom made available to him.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

You have a perspective I do not agree with. As a teenage girl, I would not have wanted to share a bathroom with the boy pictured on this thread. I believe he should have a private bathroom made available to him.

That is a separate discussion that is not on-topic for this thread. Your complaint is not with the school board or the school, but rather the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With current policies in place, no one would stop him from going into the girls bathroom at school. He has as much right to be there as anyone else.

He and the victim met in bathrooms multiple times before the current policy was approved. The current policy is irrelevant to this assault.

Current policies provide an easy way for kids to have sex in school, consensual or otherwise. Many parents are not okay with this.

The old policy appears to have made it pretty easy as well. Are parents okay with that?

Stop trying to scapegoat trans kids for something they had nothing to do with.

You have a perspective I do not agree with. As a teenage girl, I would not have wanted to share a bathroom with the boy pictured on this thread. I believe he should have a private bathroom made available to him.

He does. Every school has single stall restrooms for privacy. Those are all gender. The main bathrooms are still gendered. Many students use the single stall ones for privacy. ALL of my students who are trans or have a different gender identity use the single stalls for privacy and because they are much more likely to be targeted and victimized in gendered restrooms than cis kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They want supremacy. That’s what they are voting for with Youngkin

Well, as an Asian, I can tell you I voted R because of the slide towards socialism and far left policies. Please come back to middle left before its too late.

You live in Loudoun. Crying about socialism here is… delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s too late. That party left you in the center years ago.

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.

They want supremacy. That’s what they are voting for with Youngkin

Well, as an Asian, I can tell you I voted R because of the slide towards socialism and far left policies. Please come back to middle left before its too late.

[Anonymous]

So...no one is getting fired over this? No one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll bet the girl wasn’t disciplined for having consensual sex at school.

This is about rape.

And neither student should have been having any sex at school. If it wasn't the bathroom, it would have been someplace else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The girl was troubled as well.

That's one reason why schools shouldn't put gasoline anywhere near fire.

Confused by your metaphor . What exactly was the gasoline?

Giving a teenage boy with a long history of sexually inappropriate behavior access to troubled girls in the school setting is a recipe for disaster. He should have been in a much more restrictive placement. In this situation gasoline= access to vulnerable students.

By your definition, the existence of school generally is just a problem. All kids are vulnerable because they’re kids. Many are troubled. Many have issues going on at home. Many have personal stressors and difficulties. In your comparison, basically no kids should ever be put into large groups with each other where they outnumber supervising adults. But that … is… school.

No. Students who have a history of sexually inappropriate behavior or multiple disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior towards others should not be in the same setting as the students who don’t. I have no idea why people keep trying to make this work. It doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The girl was troubled as well.

That's one reason why schools shouldn't put gasoline anywhere near fire.

Confused by your metaphor . What exactly was the gasoline?

Giving a teenage boy with a long history of sexually inappropriate behavior access to troubled girls in the school setting is a recipe for disaster. He should have been in a much more restrictive placement. In this situation gasoline= access to vulnerable students.

By your definition, the existence of school generally is just a problem. All kids are vulnerable because they’re kids. Many are troubled. Many have issues going on at home. Many have personal stressors and difficulties. In your comparison, basically no kids should ever be put into large groups with each other where they outnumber supervising adults. But that … is… school.

No. Students who have a history of sexually inappropriate behavior or multiple disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior towards others should not be in the same setting as the students who don’t. I have no idea why people keep trying to make this work. It doesn’t.

Ok but that would (for real) exclude a significant portion of the population of each school. A lot of kids have discipline infractions for a lot of reasons, some justified and some not. They also have a right, an actual right via federal law to Free Appropriate Public Education. What you propose is kids who have been disciplined eventually just … don’t get school? There’s also not really any evidence he had tons of discipline issues at school. His mom saying he sent another girl nude pictures when he was in 5th grade likely happened outside of school. Not in. Bottom line you’re not rational.