Reply to Thoreau Middle School in Vienna

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Thoreau Middle School in Vienna"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]He covered up for a child molester, that makes him scum. That makes him a direct enabler for the second offense.

Why is he still on the payroll.  In the real world he would have been gone a long time ago.

The letter from the school sounded like they felt sorry for him.  Not a mention of the poor victim.  FCPS is a straight up mess these days.
[/quote]

What is the timeline here?

Did the principal confront the teacher and then leave at that for a hour, a day, a week, more?  before the mandated reporting kicked in?  [/quote]

Based on the reports (published), it appears that when Mr. Azimi found out about Snell and Victim 1, he (Azimi) wasn't at the school, so an AP confronted Snell.  While they were waiting for police to arrive, Snell escaped and literally headed for the Mexico border.  In the following investigation, it was found that another student had been molested by Snell.  It sounds as though that second student (discovered in the investigation) had received some questionable texts that his/her parent had told Azimi about some months earlier.

Now, the prosecutor is trying to say that texts to Victim 2, which Azimi was informed of, were enough to suggest abuse, and therefore Azimi should have notified police of child abuse when he first heard of any texts b/t Snell and Victim2.   I'm going to bet that those texts from Snell to Victim2 (which happened before Thoreau called police re: Victim1), could be interpreted innocently or as poor judgment b/t Snell and Victim2, but not directly showing abuse, even if it turned out that they weren't innocent.    As a result, Azimi told his employee (Snell) to stop texting that student and thought it was handled.  If Mr. Azimi had, in fact, suspected abuse with the first texts (to Victim2), he would have called the police -- as they did when they had more obvious evidence (i.e. Victim1) and Snell absconded.

There is no motive for Mr. Azimi to just sweep someone else's abuse under the rug.  In fact, he showed that he knew to call police and did call police when presented with information that indicated abuse (Victim1's evidence/texts).  Why didn't he do it for the earlier texts?  Because those texts didn't raise any flags of abuse.  And in fact, Victim2 didn't admit to being abused until after Victim1 brought his abuse forward.

The issue in this case is whether someone should reasonably know that whatever was in the substance of texts to Victim2 should have been seen as evidence of abuse.  I'm guessing, that with hindsight it will look like  grooming.  But at the time, Mr. Azimi didn't have any inclination that there was abuse going on.  [/quote]

Thank you for this.

It all depends on what reasonable people think about the substance of the first text.  If it was so cut and dry then the police would not take a year to charge.  If it was so innocent then the police would not have charged - but the police go overboard a lot without repercussion so who knows.

I understand that teachers are required to report but where are the parents in all of this?

If I find a questionable text to my child at home I am going to the police, not the principal.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics