Anonymous wrote:Every MCPS employee is fingerprinted and has a state and FBI background check done. So whoever keeps asking about checking MCPS employees, the answer is yes they do, every teacher, sub, para, itinerant, temporary, counselor, Principal, asst Principal, ASA, Secretary, et,. Everyone. What shows up is anything you've been convicted of, and going forward anything you are convicted of (once an employer does the FBI check, the FBI notifies the employer IF something comes up in the future). Can it predict what someone *might* do in the future if their background check comes up clean? No. But if someone figures out how to predict the future that accurately please let me know, because I would like to ask you about some lottery numbers....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Every MCPS employee is fingerprinted and has a state and FBI background check done. So whoever keeps asking about checking MCPS employees, the answer is yes they do, every teacher, sub, para, itinerant, temporary, counselor, Principal, asst Principal, ASA, Secretary, et,. Everyone. What shows up is anything you've been convicted of, and going forward anything you are convicted of (once an employer does the FBI check, the FBI notifies the employer IF something comes up in the future). Can it predict what someone *might* do in the future if their background check comes up clean? No. But if someone figures out how to predict the future that accurately please let me know, because I would like to ask you about some lottery numbers....
Oh like Mark Yantsos?
http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Richard-Montgomery-High-School-Security-Team-Leader-Arrested-for-Alleged-Sexual-Contact-with-Student/
They didn't bother to Google his name to find out that the _New York Times_ reported his arrest years earlier for drawing his gun on a waitress while drunk. It doesn't get more obvious than that, yet they either didn't turn this up, or overlooked it.
Anonymous wrote:Every MCPS employee is fingerprinted and has a state and FBI background check done. So whoever keeps asking about checking MCPS employees, the answer is yes they do, every teacher, sub, para, itinerant, temporary, counselor, Principal, asst Principal, ASA, Secretary, et,. Everyone. What shows up is anything you've been convicted of, and going forward anything you are convicted of (once an employer does the FBI check, the FBI notifies the employer IF something comes up in the future). Can it predict what someone *might* do in the future if their background check comes up clean? No. But if someone figures out how to predict the future that accurately please let me know, because I would like to ask you about some lottery numbers....
Anonymous wrote:Every MCPS employee is fingerprinted and has a state and FBI background check done. So whoever keeps asking about checking MCPS employees, the answer is yes they do, every teacher, sub, para, itinerant, temporary, counselor, Principal, asst Principal, ASA, Secretary, et,. Everyone. What shows up is anything you've been convicted of, and going forward anything you are convicted of (once an employer does the FBI check, the FBI notifies the employer IF something comes up in the future). Can it predict what someone *might* do in the future if their background check comes up clean? No. But if someone figures out how to predict the future that accurately please let me know, because I would like to ask you about some lottery numbers....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Lots of people. Consent to sex does not mean consent to all sex acts.
They had never met before. Sorry, the number one rule of online dating is meet in a public place the first time.
Tinder started as a hook up app, not a dating app. If someone wants to have sex with a person they just met, that is their choice. These women clearly went over with the intention of having sex. If that turns into something non-consensual, it is still sexual assault.
More details in the press release:
http://www.mymcpnews.com/2017/10/19/suspect-charged-with-committing-sexual-offenses-against-two-adult-female-victims/
So one victim he met once, then the second time (on New Year's Eve) they met at his house and had consensual sex, then he got kinky.
For the other victim, their first meeting was at his house and that's when the pattern repeated itself.
This guy is not going to be on the cover of a beauty magazine any time soon based on his mugshot.. I wonder what they saw in him?
I’m confused. Why was he not arrested after the March incident was reported? And why did the second victim (who really was the first) wait 9 months to report her incident?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Lots of people. Consent to sex does not mean consent to all sex acts.
They had never met before. Sorry, the number one rule of online dating is meet in a public place the first time.
Tinder started as a hook up app, not a dating app. If someone wants to have sex with a person they just met, that is their choice. These women clearly went over with the intention of having sex. If that turns into something non-consensual, it is still sexual assault.
More details in the press release:
http://www.mymcpnews.com/2017/10/19/suspect-charged-with-committing-sexual-offenses-against-two-adult-female-victims/
So one victim he met once, then the second time (on New Year's Eve) they met at his house and had consensual sex, then he got kinky.
For the other victim, their first meeting was at his house and that's when the pattern repeated itself.
This guy is not going to be on the cover of a beauty magazine any time soon based on his mugshot.. I wonder what they saw in him?
Anonymous wrote:So seems like they started having sex consensually, then he did something kinky stuff, and they didn't agree to that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Somebody who still doesn't deserve to be assaulted or raped.
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Lots of people. Consent to sex does not mean consent to all sex acts.
They had never met before. Sorry, the number one rule of online dating is meet in a public place the first time.
Tinder started as a hook up app, not a dating app. If someone wants to have sex with a person they just met, that is their choice. These women clearly went over with the intention of having sex. If that turns into something non-consensual, it is still sexual assault.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Lots of people. Consent to sex does not mean consent to all sex acts.
This.
Sorry but I don’t fault the women. Agreeing to some sex acts doesn’t automatically mean the other person can do anything they want.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sounds like both met him at his home for the first "date" and proceeded to have consensual sex, and then...
I mean, not to victim blame, but who goes to someone's house (from Tinder no less) to meet them for the first time and has sex.
Lots of people. Consent to sex does not mean consent to all sex acts.
They had never met before. Sorry, the number one rule of online dating is meet in a public place the first time.