LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

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.

Getting in a fight is one thing. Pulling a knife or sexually assaulting another student is different. Problem is, for example, that schools must be consistent, and infractions are not always consistent. And, then they swing from one extreme to another. For example, in FCPS a few years ago, they were accused of racism--not applying rules to all kids the same. So, they went to zero tolerance and there were claims of suicides based on expulsions. The severity of the infraction and the troubling backgrounds of some students was not taken into consideration. So, then the pendulum swung back in the other direction.

I've no idea what goes on behind closed doors in the hearings for these kids, but it is a problem.

I don't have the answer. It appears that common sense should be applied, but "rules are rules."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s perfectly rationale. They have a right to an education, they don’t have to have it in the same environment as non-troubled children. Kids who have been disciplined for high level offenses ( repeatedly) should be forced to attend some kind of appropriate counseling in addition with parents for an extended period of time. As far as who pays for that, some of the cost should come from the family. And before someone complains, that solution seems to be the best middle ground. You don’t want the child remove from the general population, fine. But it’s unfair to everyone else if they continue to be a problem and frankly, it’s probably better for them in the long term.

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. The kids who get disciplined for this type of thing have every right to get school. They don't have every right to get school in the same setting as everyone else. There used to be alternative schools for exactly this sort of situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please also stop referring to the boy as "transgender" or "gender fluid" - he isn't.

Why? What do you call a boy who wears a skirt and chooses to use the girls bathroom?

OMG you people are so dumb. He wasn't choosing to use the girl's bathroom for bathroom purposes - he was there to meet the girl for a sexual encounter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s perfectly rationale. They have a right to an education, they don’t have to have it in the same environment as non-troubled children. Kids who have been disciplined for high level offenses ( repeatedly) should be forced to attend some kind of appropriate counseling in addition with parents for an extended period of time. As far as who pays for that, some of the cost should come from the family. And before someone complains, that solution seems to be the best middle ground. You don’t want the child remove from the general population, fine. But it’s unfair to everyone else if they continue to be a problem and frankly, it’s probably better for them in the long term.

You have no proof this kid has been punished by school before this for high level offenses. If he was punished for being caught having sex in the bathroom twice before maybe that would count but the victim of the assault who met him in the bathroom would also have been punished for those 2 offenses if so. You truly don’t know that any policy like you’ve dreamt up would have applied to him because you don’t have his entire academic discipline record.

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

It doesn’t because a) the policy wasn’t in place when this assault happened and b) he and the victim agreed to meet there . They broke the rules. This was not a random trans kid sneaking in a bathroom OR waltzing in by a policy and then attacking at random.

[Anonymous]

Stupid question but how do kids get away with meeting up in the bathroom for sex?! It’s so ballsy. Are their whereabouts not accounted for? Do other kids notice? I know I’m old but jeez.

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

It doesn’t because a) the policy wasn’t in place when this assault happened and b) he and the victim agreed to meet there . They broke the rules. This was not a random trans kid sneaking in a bathroom OR waltzing in by a policy and then attacking at random.

You can’t tell me this kid wasn’t abused at a young age.

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

It doesn’t because a) the policy wasn’t in place when this assault happened and b) he and the victim agreed to meet there . They broke the rules. This was not a random trans kid sneaking in a bathroom OR waltzing in by a policy and then attacking at random.

You can’t tell me this kid wasn’t abused at a young age.

I would have no reason for speculating nor would it be relevant here

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

My understanding is that this information has not been corroborated by any reliable source.

[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.

So she could have met him there instead? He wasn't in the bathroom because he's trans (which by the way is only gossip at this point). He was there because she arranged to meet him there for sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s perfectly rationale. They have a right to an education, they don’t have to have it in the same environment as non-troubled children. Kids who have been disciplined for high level offenses ( repeatedly) should be forced to attend some kind of appropriate counseling in addition with parents for an extended period of time. As far as who pays for that, some of the cost should come from the family. And before someone complains, that solution seems to be the best middle ground. You don’t want the child remove from the general population, fine. But it’s unfair to everyone else if they continue to be a problem and frankly, it’s probably better for them in the long term.

You have no proof this kid has been punished by school before this for high level offenses. If he was punished for being caught having sex in the bathroom twice before maybe that would count but the victim of the assault who met him in the bathroom would also have been punished for those 2 offenses if so. You truly don’t know that any policy like you’ve dreamt up would have applied to him because you don’t have his entire academic discipline record.

His own mom discusses his discipline record in the article. Examples:

"At the same time, she concedes her son is deeply troubled, acknowledging his extensive history of misbehavior that included sending nude photos of himself to a girl in fifth grade. "

"The mother made no secret of the fact her son had been repeatedly suspended for misbehavior, including fist fights with classmates."

[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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

It doesn’t because a) the policy wasn’t in place when this assault happened and b) he and the victim agreed to meet there . They broke the rules. This was not a random trans kid sneaking in a bathroom OR waltzing in by a policy and then attacking at random.

You can’t tell me this kid wasn’t abused at a young age.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous]

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

I’m dying at this picture. At first I thought it was a joke. Yeah, this absolutely relates to transgender bathroom policy.

It doesn’t because a) the policy wasn’t in place when this assault happened and b) he and the victim agreed to meet there . They broke the rules. This was not a random trans kid sneaking in a bathroom OR waltzing in by a policy and then attacking at random.

You can’t tell me this kid wasn’t abused at a young age.

I was thinking the same thing.

The boy and the girl at Stonebridge probably.