He flat out denied his daughter’s sexual attack, which is what rightly motivated the father’s response. He was then arrested and again…the superintendent did nothing except encourage the arrest. That very well could be argued that it was a false arrest? There also arguably could be a civil case against the superintendent. You may see nothing wrong in all of this but either the superintendent was aware or ignorant of the attack. If he was aware, are there grounds for a charge or minimally…a lawsuit?
A few things. There’s no indication or reporting that the father directly interacted with the Superintendent during the meeting or even heard the Superintendent’s comments about if a sexual assault occurred.
The father’s own account of that night describes an altercation with another parent who questioned if his daughter was assaulted. It was that altercation with the parent that eventually led to the father’s arrest, not the superintendent.
I’m not entirely sure what the father would sue for. The circumstances might provide basis for a lesser charge or even dropping the charges altogether. But holding the Superintendent liable for the Father’s actions that night seems hard to prove? IDK, someone more familiar with the law would need to chime in on if the Superintendent could be sued for anything related to the arrest.
I wonder why the Examiner mentions the transgender/skirt stuff that turned out to have nothing to do with the situation but the WTOP article doesn’t. Actually I don’t wonder, I know why.
1 Like
Had everything to do with it.
How could that be argued as a “false arrest”?
What do you think he could be charged with? He didn’t commit a crime, even if he was aware of the attack.
There’s no civil liability either.
The rapist wasn’t wearing a skirt nor did they get into the bathroom because of a policy allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choosing.
Yes Xi was.
My bad, he allegedly was, but it wasn’t used to get into the bathroom.
Why are you assuming the rapist is named Xi?
For the same reason he assumes the President’s name is Brandon. 
Yes it was.
Respecting pronouns.
1 Like
Nope. Try again.
Based on what? The policy hadn’t been enacted yet, nobody of credibility has said he did, and his mother flat out denies it.
It’s well known the rapist is a guy who uses he/him pronoun, so clearly you must be doing it to mock non-binary people. Also unless its at the beginning of a sentence, you don’t capitalize pronouns… that’s why I wonder if you were using the name “Xi”.
The “policy” is a law and irrelevant in this incident.
The mother is lying
1 Like
Are you talking about me?
How is it not relevant if you are claiming its how he got into the bathroom?
According to which credible person who would know?
Xi, not he.
She is protecting Xi.
Understood. I’ve deleted the posts.
I didn’t know you personally knew the rapist… this puts things in a whole new perspective.
I didn’t know she was a Chinese sympathizer.
I was under the impression that the individual controlling the mic was the superintendent? The whole school board knew of the rape accusation but denied it in that meeting, inciting the father to act out and rightfully so. This isn’t my area but IMO…if possible, they should charged for that.
1 Like
Uh oh.
1 Like
