Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

No.

I told you what I suspect the situation is given the facts that have been reported and what I know of Mr. Azimi, and what logical conclusions we can make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Indeed. The 16:34 post read as an acquittal before the case had been tried.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Let's wait until we see the evidence and the facts. You know -- presumed innocent until proven guilty? It's not just a catchy slogan.

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to assume the prosecution feels the facts are less favorable to the principal than portrayed above, or Azimi would not have been charged. Cut it out doesn’t cut it when it is a teacher abusing a student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Anonymous wrote: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.