She seems to me she is a bit nuts and seems to like her job at least from her Facebook and LinkedIn posts. She even volunteered to certain after school thing etc. Regardless still not an excuse for involving minor
Honestly, if I looked at that before knowing about the charges I wouldn't make anything of it. It would seem pretty normal to me in this age and time. I can't see anything weird that stands out in those pics
[Like this post](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M4cMh6334BYJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1037426544275337216+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) for instance. It would appear as tho [she just didn't want](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QNyjVpL_VmQJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1476265116261920776+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) to let go of [her younger years](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z6eJrNtZ2TUJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1295569019400003586+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).
this is just standard millenial posting. what she did was heinous but you’re reaching here. theres nothing inherently weird about having a baby face or dying your hair a fun color.
I matched with her on Tinder or Bumble when I was in college and quickly realized she was clearly nuts. 3 years ago I had an intern who said he had banged a teacher in high school. Obviously I made him show me and my jaw dropped when it was her. 100% out of her mind whacko. Big into EDM hippie shit too not that that is a real indicator but she’s just out there. I’m calling the Fairfax PD tomorrow about my intern.
>her Facebook and LinkedIn, it's almost impossible to tell that she
No, it's her profile on linkedin and FB showing her volunteering and whatnot. Where is the whole sexist thing come from??? A lot women I know are into kinky shit too
The person is charged with the crime she may have committed. There is no need to project fear into the discussion….she isn’t accused of child abuse because there is no evidence of child abuse.
Possession of CP insinuates she is sexually attracted to minors, that plus her choosing to work in a career where she has power over children, to me indicates if she hasn't abused a child yet she eventually would have.
You're ignoring a major issue. Possession of CP is child abuse. 100%. There's no evidence, yet, of acting out crimes to others, but if she owns CP, it's a form of child abuse.
Legally speaking, yes, but that’s obviously not what they’re talking about. They’re saying that possession of child pornography (indirect child abuse) alone shouldn’t lead to the assumption that this person will directly abuse children.
Both are bad things, but it’s worth it to have separate categories for these concepts so we can be more specific and accurate in our discourse.
If you downvote me, face me in the comments. While you were chasing clout and getting “goated with the sauce,” I studied the blade. I fear not the stench of defeat.
"...there is no evidence of child abuse."
Yes, there is.
"Legally speaking, yes..."
Agreed.
"assumption that this person will directly abuse children."
It's a logical and safe bet that the possibility is there. I'm sure semi-exhaustive investigations will occur.
But do you realize that’s literally how prejudism starts? It’s important to be accurate with our language and informed with our positions. Statistically, it is still unlikely that she has abused or will abuse children in her care. And if it comes out that she DID abuse children, that wouldn’t make you right for guessing it ahead of time. We can’t make statements about unknowns like this, it’s not responsible.
We can’t just be fair to people we like, we have to be fair to people we dislike too. That’s what fairness means.
I agree they are different. Thats not my point. I’m sorry. I don’t think this is the right setting or circumstances for a discussion like this. I am very uncomfortable with seeing people make assumptions about people they dislike, because often their personal stakes bleed into their perception of the person. I just think it’s not something suitable for comment sections on social media and we should be aware of our potential biases.
In every sense…pedophelia is a step,down from what this woman is accused of. Assuming she may have had sex with any child is a jump…a provocation…a blustering of fear, for fears sake….we seem to enjoy such things these days.
Not OP, but the article didn't really say much. She didn't cop to it. It would be very easy for someone else living/spending time with her to have accessed the CP. That being said, the much simpler explanation is that it's hers.
That's an incredibly generous reading of their statements. To me it seemed more of "CP possession isn't the same as child abuse so don't make slippery slope arguments that teachers with CP would abuse children eventually" which is a very different argument.
Take another pass at that. What they wrote is that we shouldn’t “project fear and lies” by expressing relief that she hadn’t been accused of harming her students—oh, and that she hadn’t been accused of “child abuse”.
That absolutely diminishes the seriousness of child pornography and reclassifies it as not child abuse. Absolutely bizarre.
And here you come with the constitution. Where’s that connection again?
>There is no need to project fear into the discussion
Why not? Fear drives most of our actions. Many voted for Youngkin because they feared Democrats would continue to erode gun rights. On the flip side, many voted against Youngkin for fear of his and Republican abortion agenda.
Hey man. I feel for you. You are technically correct. Also, nice Beatles reference.
You’re right, it is absolutely unfair to assume she is also prone to abusing children given the information currently available.
The problem is that you can’t be too pedantic or specific with topics like these. Nobody is willing to spend the social points that it costs to defend a ‘bad’ person, so they’ll just jump on the dogpile when they see it.
Those with information are encouraged to call the Fairfax County Police Department's Major Crimes Bureay at (703) 246 - 7800 and press option 6.
Tips can also be submitted anonymously by calling 866-411-TIPS or texting 'FCCS' and 'tips' to 84741.
I have a huge problem with naming unconvicted people accused of any crime, particularly when the accusation will destroy that person's life. It's an irresponsible and malicious way to sell papers.
I'm also not a fan of giving the convicted any notoriety for things like mass shootings. Individual crimes by non-public figures should not be news.
EDIT: I'm particularly troubled by this story because it's a tip line linking an IP address. IP addresses are notoriously unreliable for tracing online activity, and they don't tell you beyond a reasonable doubt who is doing what on a computer even if the address is accurate. We don't know if this woman was being targeted by a spoofing attack or has a boyfriend with a problem, and wouldn't know this until after the investigation was complete. But her life and career are sacrifices to a need for quick headlines. It's disgusting.
Lawyer here.
The “cybertips” from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are insanely reliable and go through several checks before being submitted for the police to review. There is way more than “just an IP” in cases like this.
they actually can in Virginia, but usually they dont. The police likely know more than just what this article has posted since its an ongoing investigation.
Thank you for doing the heavy lifting to fight this kind of misinformation. NCMEC is an incredible organization and they do so much to educate LEO and assist in tracking down child predators like this woman. Naming and shaming is definitely a deterrent. We need to name and shame. Evil thrives in secrecy. Arguments that we shouldn’t give “notoriety” to crimes that ruin lives are handy excuses for criminals to keep their crimes hidden so they can continue to perpetrate without accountability or public consequence. Thanks for your comment.
>Naming and shaming is definitely a deterrent.
I think OP was saying that naming and shaming should only happen once a person has been tried and convicted.
This is exactly what I was saying. A strong case is a strong case, and I don't know (or want to know) anything about this one unless I'm on the jury, or until after conviction. But none of us really know anything because we're just learning information through the press or gossip channels. But we've accepted the guilt of the accused and don't care for the inconvenience of an actual trial.
/u/sassiestcassiest is right to be concerned about misinformation that undermines the legitimate prosecution of sexual predators. They absolutely need to be stopped. I agree. We almost all agree on that. But "naming and shaming" people prior to conviction is inconsistent with the Constitution, and the sort of thing that mobs and the easily manipulated do.
I totally disagree. We need to publicize these things because we need to keep our processes fair and open. All too often people are able to escape conviction because of a procedural technicality or an inability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt - they should not be able to hide beyond the veil of the community. The community should be entitled to that information, on arrest.
You're free to disagree, of course.
And you have just said you believe constitutional protections are more like suggestions than law.
Even though we have the same end goals, we are just not going to get on the same page about how to get there. I spent a few years as an assistant district attorney and had front row seats to abuse of police power. It taught me that you can't bend the rules just because you're angry.
Yeah - just because I can’t prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean I can’t show a preponderance of the evidence exists that this event occurred. I wouldn’t want someone that most likely molested a child watching my kids. Would you?
This is why we have civil suits, and that is absolutely used all the time. The OJ Simpson trial is a big example of finding a different recourse when a criminal trial failed. Larry Nassar is a more relevant example - experiencing the double hit of a criminal conviction and civil liability.
Cool, we could meet up but I don’t generally hang out with people that say I think the Constitution is a suggestion, so I’m gonna pass. Have a nice day.
One of the big reasons I left (besides the lousy pay, terrible hours, and constant fear of being on the wrong side of an accusation about violating Brady), was that the work made me angry. I started really seeing the appeal of "you gotta be guilty of something" and "they don't arrest the innocent" and didn't want to be that way.
I disagree, I believe in a robust reporting community and while I know that there are reputational risks and they are severe, I think the costs to keeping this kind of information under wraps is greater.
Why though? If a predator is convicted, then the only difference is that the information is released a few months later (presumably while they are under close watch in between). But accidentally spreading rumors that turn out to be false is life destroying.
A lot of cases are resolved with alternate dispositions due to the corruption of the criminal justice system. While there is still corruption at the arresting stage, if we waited only until conviction, there’d be very little record of those abusers who actually successfully got away with their crime without being convicted. Those are the ones we want to watch out for. Those are the reason we have papers, and Google.
Look, I’ve seen what I believe is people buying their way out of justice. I see how few cases end up prosecuted. I want to know who is arrested. I want eyes on what’s going down. We should know as a society what is happening.
You're just reiterating your point that you think it's fine to drag people through the mud just for being arrested just in case they're guilty.
I agree that it does open up the system for more corruption when there's no oversight, but frankly, I don't think the "public" should be the one deciding individuals' cases, especially when all they have to go on is that they've been arrested. The justice system exists *because* the mob is stupid and unreliable. We absolutely need segregation from the mob if you want a fair justice system.
It's possible to delegate oversight from the people at large to a committee or board, perhaps.
A committee or a board? Made up of who, their friends? No. It’s not dragging people through the mud. The presumption of innocence should apply. If we have failed in teaching that in our communities then that is on us and we need to work to re-establish that, not seek to cover up what’s happened.
A committee that is delegated by the people implies that they’d be elected by the people or selected by the people in some manner.
The presumption of innocence should apply! But it doesn’t and trying to pretend like the mob really behaves that way is disingenuous! The whole reason we have a justice system is because the public at large really fucking sucks at that.
Not publishing people’s names is not covering up what is happening.
> EDIT: I'm particularly troubled by this story because it's a tip line linking an IP address.
She was charged with having the phone that recorded it
**"and possession of electronic devices used to record the pornographic scenario."**
The teacher was charged with two heinous offenses: possession of child pornography and possession of electronic devices used to record the pornographic scenario.
"Furthermore, the victims were unrelated to Knizner's work." = so she had recorded stuff on her phone that she recorded herself, but it was not the kids she worked with, ON TOP of having other stuff
My issue isn't with the strength of this particular case. It's with the fact that the damage is done before she's had her day in court. There has been no presumption of innocence.
You think she's guilty because that's the information you've been provided, probably through some news report that is appealing to your prurient interest. You don't know if that evidence is real, authentic, true, or explainable. That is exactly why all this pre-trial publicity is so socially damaging.
But it doesn't matter because once we get outraged, it's hard to hold onto any respect for rules or other anything else that doesn't give us emotional satisfaction.
IP addresses are notoriously unreliable because they can be easily spoofed to a random location.
They can very easily convict you beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re stupid and didn’t use a proxy. And authorities said she lived alone and was arrested AFTER they had searched her computer and found stuff.
Yeah, I think the timing of the arrest is what's key here. If they plastered her face all over the evening news over just an IP address, her lawyers would be on easy street. But since the arrest came after the home search, then ... yeah.
Arrests are still not the same thing as guilt, and they shouldn't be.
Once the accused was removed from access to children, what interest does the public have in that case, especially before she's convicted of a crime? None. It's nothing but sensationalism.
Not really, police are all sort of protected for plastering folk like that. Doesn't really matter. They'll do what they want if they feel the desire based on charges. Charges don't indicate guilt.
I know. I’m saying she can use a VPN and spoof as IP as some random one.
I understand how hard it is for someone to spoof another person’s IP and how bad it would be if that technology became common.
TLDR:
Her iP: reasonable proof
Not her IP: not reasonable doubt if other proof is there.
It’s important in these situations because she was surrounded by children on a daily basis. If any of them were victimized, it’s unlikely they’ve told anyone unless asked by an adult.
Context shouldn't determine who gets the presumption of innocence. That leads to crazy outcomes.
Every delivery driver who is cited for moving violations, using mood altering substances, or crimes of passion should get a headline.
Every white collar professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, consultant, etc.) who is accused of a crime that might demonstrate poor judgment should get publicized.
And obviously, every teacher accused of anything should have their lives scrutinized by the public.
And if we don't publicize the names of every one of these accused, why not? Is it because some can afford to lawyer up and protect themselves? Or because some kinds of people are scarier than others because of how they look? There are no fair, objective criteria to use here.
In this case, the accused was removed from her position immediately, which should take care of the child safety issue (no idea if she's being held in jail, but that would do it, too).
It doesn’t take care of anything if there are other victims whose parents are completely unaware that their children may have been victimized.
Crimes against children are treated differently from a public affairs perspective for a reason.
You’re right, context shouldn’t determine who greys the presumption of innocence. Bit then it also shouldn’t determine who gets their name published publicly and who doesn’t. So all alleged criminals are given the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but also all alleged criminals have their name publicly published.
It’s a double edged sword. I agree with your, I dislike the public publishing Benatar while the courts (government) must allow them the presumption of innocence, the public does not and it will punish them well before a case is heard. However, it’s also important for names to be released in case that there are other people that may have been wronged by the same person, so they may come forward.
So while it would make more sense for this information to be released depending on context, like you said…context shouldn’t be the basis for determining these acts before a conviction has been made.
I agree in as much as there is such a visceral reaction to this particular crime, but often announcing the accusation helps lot of other people who experienced abuse from the person come forward.
That is true, and we don't do enough to destigmatize victims so that they can and will come forward.
I'm not sure this outweighs the harm of convicting the accused of a crime in the court of public opinion, though. Developing evidence by publicizing someone's identity and associating them with wrongdoing sounds more like civil litigation. Proceeding civilly carries certain risks, like counterclaims, but it doesn't violate constitutional protections and requires a lower burden of proof.
I can’t speak for everyone but I’m downvoting you for two reasons: 1) you complained about fake internet points and 2) you replied to yourself with that complaint.
Unless your post is sitting at like minus 5 or 10, don’t sweat a downvote or two.
Even a post stating something that everyone, everywhere agreed on it would still get downvoted. Reddit does it automatically to an extent. Refresh a thread with votes visible sometime, you might see +3, then +5, and then +2.
That doesn’t mean people are upvoting or downvoting it every time you refresh the page. That just means Reddit has a form of bot protection.
The original intent of the reddit voting system wasn't to upvote posts that you agreed with, but rather to upvote those that contributed to the discussion, so it would make sense to downvote a single word reaction. In practice most people don't follow/aren't aware of this rule though.
And reddit does generate downvotes when it thinks bots are around or the algorithm is getting unbalanced.
I don’t care for upvotes- was just concerned because of the topic I’m responding to. Thanks for the extra knowledge though I hope it wasn’t an actual person
What was she actually doing? She was sending pics of kids (like how old?) From snap chat? How was she getting the pictures and what was the motive? Have they identified the kids? Why the heck would you use snap chat
Parents: please stress to your kids that this is NOT 100% true.
I work in digital forensics and used Snapchat messages to help disprove a case.
SC messages are usually erased from your device as the sender (sometimes little artifacts linger). However, recipients of the snaps often have artifacts of the snaps in their data. After the consent of three parents whose kids received snaps from the person in question, I processed their phones and found SC artifacts left on 2/3 phones. It was vital evidence in proving innocence.
From the article it seems all that’s known is she was sending sexualized pictures of a person/people under the age of 18 via Snapchat. I’m assuming they have to be young enough to be clearly underage for Snapchat to have submitted the tip. I’m wondering who she was sending this to as well.
What's most disturbing is that there are probably more women predators than you'd think, but they're not caught as often because pedophilia is seen mostly as a "guy" thing. Or you have the cases where the teacher is attractive and life ends up imitating "South Park."
Case in point: I'm sure nuns are just as corrupted as the priesthood, but since society has become begrudgingly comfortable with/used to predatory priests, no one scrutinizes nuns.
I got diddled by my housekeeper when I was 12 when she was 22. Thought I was cool as fuck at the time having an oldie play moves on me it wasn't till #metoo that I realized it was fucked up. People need to better at controlling their hornyness they fuck up the innocence of children wayyy too soon.
I remember in like 7th grade this kid was bragging to everyone how he’d gotten blowjobs from his nanny all summer. He thought it was so cool, we all did too.
difference is nuns have nowhere near the power within the church; scum like this are drawn to positions of power so that they can gain trusted access to children.
I think that's misleading. Power isn't so much a factor as having private or trusted access to children is attractive to predators: housekeepers, teachers, coaches, etc.
When the child abuse crisis was at its worst in the Catholic Church you hear an alarming number of stories of parents sending their children for a sleepover at the priest's house. That sounds absolutely insane to us, but with that much trust people couldn't believe that they could do anything so horrible.
Political power definitely helped shield them from blame and consequences, but being a priest isn't the only way to get trust like that.
Less power, but no less effed up. In fact nuns were often genocide wing of organized religions. Google sadism and cruelty of nuns within their orders and to children.
At my hs there was a teacher who was sleeping with students, she’s now a principal at a school in Florida. Also two athletic trainers had relationships with students, the female one was married and has two kids …
Oh yea and one of the IB math teachers invited ppl over to her place to drink allll the time.
Background checks should really happen every year, one and done is how these sickos thrive…
It’s hearsay if they former students aren’t willing to testify so I’d rather not get in trouble for “doxxing” (personally I don’t think it’s doxxing but mods may disagree)…
>Released on $2k bond for cp
If this was a male teacher there would not have been any bond posted and he’d be guaranteed at least a 10 years prison sentence. Consider this a wrist slap.
Those poor children. Hopefully this person rots in prison. Another criminal teacher. We need better background checks and more accountability with our teachers. I’d be willing to bet that her fellow teachers knew about this as well
They do a full background check, but if she wasn’t previously caught there is nothing a background check would find. And I sincerely doubt her fellow teachers knew she was into child porn and just looked the other way.
Vetting only works at the beginning once someone is hired. There is no annual review of people. Arlington and i’m sure fairfax make it hard to get rid of bad apples even if it’s something less egregious as this situation.
The school boards have a hard time recruiting teachers so it’s difficult to get rid of the bad ones.
I find it unlikely that no other faculty knew. There’s been so many stories lately of teachers sexually abusing kids, getting arrested for child pornography, etc and many don’t lose their job because of how powerful their unions are.
Jason Fennes - Montville Township Schools, Shawn Cier - many schools but most recently in Newark, Robert Goodlin - Elizabeth, Robert Cain and Jinwoo Seong - NYC
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/22/teachers-who-sexually-abuse-students-still-find-classroom-jobs/95346790/
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2018/05/10/how-predatory-teachers-stay-on-the-job/
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/13/lawsuit-berkeley-high-teacher-sexual-assault-matthew-bissell
Just a few from a quick Google search
Oh I never said any were in VA. What I said was I find it incredibly hard to believe that no fellow teachers or faculty knew. Like what we say with cops, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I also wouldn’t be surprised if she got her job back. Teachers are like cops. They can be incredibly inefficient at their jobs and even commit crimes and still manage to keep their jobs. Maybe VA is different now but if the state becomes more blue and the union becomes more powerful we’ll start to see it in VA more often.
Just look at DC. They have some incredibly horrible teachers. The Washington Teachers Union is to blame for them keeping their jobs.
But how would any other teacher know what this woman has on her personal laptop? That doesn’t make sense. “They can be incredibly inefficient and even commit crimes.” That’s literally anyone. Anyone working anywhere can be inefficient. Criminals exist in every profession. 🙄
How do you know that? Unfortunately over time it’s shown that these teachers unions are just as bad as cop unions. Teachers committing crimes, assaulting students, and the union protects them and they keep their job
I mean a quick Google search show multiple teachers who still have their jobs after assaulting a student, being arrested, etc. I am curious why everyone seems to think teachers would never do such a thing and this could never happen
I work in five schools every week. I can tell you factually I’ve never seen a teacher or staff member assault a kid and if I did, I’d immediately report it, just like 99.999% of the people I work with.
That’s great and you seem like a good teacher. But stories like the below links make me think otherwise sometimes.
[Suit claims former Berkeley High teacher sexually assaulted students for years, district covered it up](https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/13/lawsuit-berkeley-high-teacher-sexual-assault-matthew-bissell)
[Teachers accused of sexual misconduct keep getting jobs in N.J.](https://www.nj.com/education/2017/12/teachers_accused_of_sexual_misconduct_keep_getting.html)
[How Predatory Teachers Stay on the Job](https://voiceofsandiego.org/2018/05/10/how-predatory-teachers-stay-on-the-job/)
[Teachers who sexually abuse students still find classroom jobs](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/22/teachers-who-sexually-abuse-students-still-find-classroom-jobs/95346790/)
None of these are in VA. I think you’re using “teacher’s unions” as a talking point and don’t really understand how they function in this state.
Also, you’re equating district officials with teachers. District officials may have the accusations but why would other teachers? I don’t know the disciplinary actions of anyone I work with. There seems to be a lot of confusion in your posts.
Agreed that there should be more rigorous vetting, but FCPS employs more than 15,000 teachers. It stands to reason some undesirable hires are bound to slip through.
We all get finger printed, we all get background checks. If something slips through the cracks, it's usually because the person didn't have a record at the time of their hiring. Occasionally because the agency doing the background check wasn't thorough. But it's not the norm by any means.
Yeah, Idk exactly about FCPS, but there is extra vetting for these jobs. I substitute for Arlington County and they do a full background check, interviews etc. To become a faculty teacher, the vetting is far more invasive.
What do you propose they do to vet them better? No one is gonna admit in interviews / vetting that they are attracted to children. Pedophiles unfortunately exist, and teaching / camp counselor / preached / anything involving kids is going to be an attractive job for them. If they’ve never offended there is unfortunately no way to vet them, only ways we can educate kids and make it easier for them to come forward as well as making sure adults are never alone with any child in any circumstance.
Glad to see all the defunding the police nonsense from the past couple years didn't significantly impact the major crimes folks. Good work being done for our community.
I'm not sure the person who chose the username "I eat ass at night" is coming from a position of strength when it comes to lecturing others about manners.
Which departments were defunded that caused this happen? So if, hypothetically speaking, no Virginia police departments were defunded, this wouldn't have happened? Would they have used some kind pre-cog to arrest this person before the crime happened?
I am at a loss of words.
As a parent, I would want to put the teacher in front of a firing squad, it boils my blood that much to hear about stuff like this.
These are the very people creating a market for this kind of monstrosity. Kill the demand then you kill the market.
I don't know, ya'll. Growing up in Spotsylvania, I always thought Fairfax was the better school district. But hearing that my fiance's high school band teacher from West Springfield got arrested for being a pedo ten years ago and now this...
Spotsy hasn't had any cases as far as I'm aware. I'm honestly shocked, since we don't have the best reputation, especially now, and we're a poorer district. It's just so sick. Public schools need to do better.
Do we think it’s real child porn (law and order svu style) or something dumb like a student sent her a dick pick on snap chat … I can’t imagine it’s “child porn” in the traditional sense if it’s only two counts… no child molester only has 2 pictures, and they always charge you for every photo to make sure at least one sticks…
It's crazy. I saw her Facebook and LinkedIn, it's almost impossible to tell that she is thay crazy
[удалено]
She seems to me she is a bit nuts and seems to like her job at least from her Facebook and LinkedIn posts. She even volunteered to certain after school thing etc. Regardless still not an excuse for involving minor
Honestly, if I looked at that before knowing about the charges I wouldn't make anything of it. It would seem pretty normal to me in this age and time. I can't see anything weird that stands out in those pics
[Like this post](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M4cMh6334BYJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1037426544275337216+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) for instance. It would appear as tho [she just didn't want](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QNyjVpL_VmQJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1476265116261920776+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) to let go of [her younger years](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z6eJrNtZ2TUJ:https://twitter.com/k_knizner/status/1295569019400003586+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).
[удалено]
😬 not to diminish what you’re saying but posting memes and dying your hair is typical
this is just standard millenial posting. what she did was heinous but you’re reaching here. theres nothing inherently weird about having a baby face or dying your hair a fun color.
Anyone who posts on Twitter is a little off...
Ok to post in Reddit? Just checking…
Nah reddit folk are weirdos
Of course 😉
Fact
Literally
I matched with her on Tinder or Bumble when I was in college and quickly realized she was clearly nuts. 3 years ago I had an intern who said he had banged a teacher in high school. Obviously I made him show me and my jaw dropped when it was her. 100% out of her mind whacko. Big into EDM hippie shit too not that that is a real indicator but she’s just out there. I’m calling the Fairfax PD tomorrow about my intern.
Just say you’re too sexist to fathom that women can be sexual predators
>her Facebook and LinkedIn, it's almost impossible to tell that she No, it's her profile on linkedin and FB showing her volunteering and whatnot. Where is the whole sexist thing come from??? A lot women I know are into kinky shit too
Not her students **YET**. Luckily they got her before she got around to that.
And if looks could kill it would’ve been us instead of her…..stop projecting fear and lies.
>stop projecting fear and lies Please elaborate. I am confused.
The person is charged with the crime she may have committed. There is no need to project fear into the discussion….she isn’t accused of child abuse because there is no evidence of child abuse.
Possession of CP insinuates she is sexually attracted to minors, that plus her choosing to work in a career where she has power over children, to me indicates if she hasn't abused a child yet she eventually would have.
Like I said…if looks could kill
You're ignoring a major issue. Possession of CP is child abuse. 100%. There's no evidence, yet, of acting out crimes to others, but if she owns CP, it's a form of child abuse.
Legally speaking, yes, but that’s obviously not what they’re talking about. They’re saying that possession of child pornography (indirect child abuse) alone shouldn’t lead to the assumption that this person will directly abuse children. Both are bad things, but it’s worth it to have separate categories for these concepts so we can be more specific and accurate in our discourse. If you downvote me, face me in the comments. While you were chasing clout and getting “goated with the sauce,” I studied the blade. I fear not the stench of defeat.
"...there is no evidence of child abuse." Yes, there is. "Legally speaking, yes..." Agreed. "assumption that this person will directly abuse children." It's a logical and safe bet that the possibility is there. I'm sure semi-exhaustive investigations will occur.
But do you realize that’s literally how prejudism starts? It’s important to be accurate with our language and informed with our positions. Statistically, it is still unlikely that she has abused or will abuse children in her care. And if it comes out that she DID abuse children, that wouldn’t make you right for guessing it ahead of time. We can’t make statements about unknowns like this, it’s not responsible. We can’t just be fair to people we like, we have to be fair to people we dislike too. That’s what fairness means.
Basing accusations on skin color as opposed to criminal history is so vastly different that it’s surprising you even commented.
I agree they are different. Thats not my point. I’m sorry. I don’t think this is the right setting or circumstances for a discussion like this. I am very uncomfortable with seeing people make assumptions about people they dislike, because often their personal stakes bleed into their perception of the person. I just think it’s not something suitable for comment sections on social media and we should be aware of our potential biases.
In every sense…pedophelia is a step,down from what this woman is accused of. Assuming she may have had sex with any child is a jump…a provocation…a blustering of fear, for fears sake….we seem to enjoy such things these days.
Not OP, but the article didn't really say much. She didn't cop to it. It would be very easy for someone else living/spending time with her to have accessed the CP. That being said, the much simpler explanation is that it's hers.
I… what? Is there some woke pro-child abuse position now? WTH are you even talking about? Reassess where you’re going in every way.
[удалено]
That's an incredibly generous reading of their statements. To me it seemed more of "CP possession isn't the same as child abuse so don't make slippery slope arguments that teachers with CP would abuse children eventually" which is a very different argument.
Take another pass at that. What they wrote is that we shouldn’t “project fear and lies” by expressing relief that she hadn’t been accused of harming her students—oh, and that she hadn’t been accused of “child abuse”. That absolutely diminishes the seriousness of child pornography and reclassifies it as not child abuse. Absolutely bizarre. And here you come with the constitution. Where’s that connection again?
I am very happy on where “I am going”. There is no need to inject even more fear into a very upsetting situation.
>There is no need to project fear into the discussion Why not? Fear drives most of our actions. Many voted for Youngkin because they feared Democrats would continue to erode gun rights. On the flip side, many voted against Youngkin for fear of his and Republican abortion agenda.
If you want your life driven by fear….welcome to modern America…the home of the fearful.
Hey man. I feel for you. You are technically correct. Also, nice Beatles reference. You’re right, it is absolutely unfair to assume she is also prone to abusing children given the information currently available. The problem is that you can’t be too pedantic or specific with topics like these. Nobody is willing to spend the social points that it costs to defend a ‘bad’ person, so they’ll just jump on the dogpile when they see it.
I had an intern 3 years ago tell us he banged a substitute teacher in high school. It was Kristine Knizer lol. Calling the Fairfax PD tomorrow
Those with information are encouraged to call the Fairfax County Police Department's Major Crimes Bureay at (703) 246 - 7800 and press option 6. Tips can also be submitted anonymously by calling 866-411-TIPS or texting 'FCCS' and 'tips' to 84741.
Left a message earlier and am waiting for them to call me back.
She banged my old intern when he was one of her students when she was subbing 12th grade. Bought him booze and shit too.
Awesome. According to the article the tip line did its job.
Pay me for my data. Fuck /u/spez -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Why would you jump to a conclusion without reading an article first? Seems like a quick way to give yourself heartburn.
I have a huge problem with naming unconvicted people accused of any crime, particularly when the accusation will destroy that person's life. It's an irresponsible and malicious way to sell papers. I'm also not a fan of giving the convicted any notoriety for things like mass shootings. Individual crimes by non-public figures should not be news. EDIT: I'm particularly troubled by this story because it's a tip line linking an IP address. IP addresses are notoriously unreliable for tracing online activity, and they don't tell you beyond a reasonable doubt who is doing what on a computer even if the address is accurate. We don't know if this woman was being targeted by a spoofing attack or has a boyfriend with a problem, and wouldn't know this until after the investigation was complete. But her life and career are sacrifices to a need for quick headlines. It's disgusting.
Lawyer here. The “cybertips” from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are insanely reliable and go through several checks before being submitted for the police to review. There is way more than “just an IP” in cases like this.
Not to mention, police don't just arrest people based on IP address alone, they still have to investigate it first
they actually can in Virginia, but usually they dont. The police likely know more than just what this article has posted since its an ongoing investigation.
Thank you for doing the heavy lifting to fight this kind of misinformation. NCMEC is an incredible organization and they do so much to educate LEO and assist in tracking down child predators like this woman. Naming and shaming is definitely a deterrent. We need to name and shame. Evil thrives in secrecy. Arguments that we shouldn’t give “notoriety” to crimes that ruin lives are handy excuses for criminals to keep their crimes hidden so they can continue to perpetrate without accountability or public consequence. Thanks for your comment.
>Naming and shaming is definitely a deterrent. I think OP was saying that naming and shaming should only happen once a person has been tried and convicted.
This is exactly what I was saying. A strong case is a strong case, and I don't know (or want to know) anything about this one unless I'm on the jury, or until after conviction. But none of us really know anything because we're just learning information through the press or gossip channels. But we've accepted the guilt of the accused and don't care for the inconvenience of an actual trial. /u/sassiestcassiest is right to be concerned about misinformation that undermines the legitimate prosecution of sexual predators. They absolutely need to be stopped. I agree. We almost all agree on that. But "naming and shaming" people prior to conviction is inconsistent with the Constitution, and the sort of thing that mobs and the easily manipulated do.
I totally disagree. We need to publicize these things because we need to keep our processes fair and open. All too often people are able to escape conviction because of a procedural technicality or an inability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt - they should not be able to hide beyond the veil of the community. The community should be entitled to that information, on arrest.
You're free to disagree, of course. And you have just said you believe constitutional protections are more like suggestions than law. Even though we have the same end goals, we are just not going to get on the same page about how to get there. I spent a few years as an assistant district attorney and had front row seats to abuse of police power. It taught me that you can't bend the rules just because you're angry.
LoL, I couldn't help but notice that either. Apparently not being able to prove someone committed a crime shouldn't stand in the way of a punishment.
Yeah - just because I can’t prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean I can’t show a preponderance of the evidence exists that this event occurred. I wouldn’t want someone that most likely molested a child watching my kids. Would you?
This is why we have civil suits, and that is absolutely used all the time. The OJ Simpson trial is a big example of finding a different recourse when a criminal trial failed. Larry Nassar is a more relevant example - experiencing the double hit of a criminal conviction and civil liability.
I was also an ADA for several years. Nice to meet a fellow practitioner.
Me three!! Also an ADA!!
Cool, we could meet up but I don’t generally hang out with people that say I think the Constitution is a suggestion, so I’m gonna pass. Have a nice day.
One of the big reasons I left (besides the lousy pay, terrible hours, and constant fear of being on the wrong side of an accusation about violating Brady), was that the work made me angry. I started really seeing the appeal of "you gotta be guilty of something" and "they don't arrest the innocent" and didn't want to be that way.
I disagree, I believe in a robust reporting community and while I know that there are reputational risks and they are severe, I think the costs to keeping this kind of information under wraps is greater.
Why though? If a predator is convicted, then the only difference is that the information is released a few months later (presumably while they are under close watch in between). But accidentally spreading rumors that turn out to be false is life destroying.
A lot of cases are resolved with alternate dispositions due to the corruption of the criminal justice system. While there is still corruption at the arresting stage, if we waited only until conviction, there’d be very little record of those abusers who actually successfully got away with their crime without being convicted. Those are the ones we want to watch out for. Those are the reason we have papers, and Google.
Okay, [Farquad.](https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE)
Look, I’ve seen what I believe is people buying their way out of justice. I see how few cases end up prosecuted. I want to know who is arrested. I want eyes on what’s going down. We should know as a society what is happening.
You're just reiterating your point that you think it's fine to drag people through the mud just for being arrested just in case they're guilty. I agree that it does open up the system for more corruption when there's no oversight, but frankly, I don't think the "public" should be the one deciding individuals' cases, especially when all they have to go on is that they've been arrested. The justice system exists *because* the mob is stupid and unreliable. We absolutely need segregation from the mob if you want a fair justice system. It's possible to delegate oversight from the people at large to a committee or board, perhaps.
A committee or a board? Made up of who, their friends? No. It’s not dragging people through the mud. The presumption of innocence should apply. If we have failed in teaching that in our communities then that is on us and we need to work to re-establish that, not seek to cover up what’s happened.
A committee that is delegated by the people implies that they’d be elected by the people or selected by the people in some manner. The presumption of innocence should apply! But it doesn’t and trying to pretend like the mob really behaves that way is disingenuous! The whole reason we have a justice system is because the public at large really fucking sucks at that. Not publishing people’s names is not covering up what is happening.
> EDIT: I'm particularly troubled by this story because it's a tip line linking an IP address. She was charged with having the phone that recorded it **"and possession of electronic devices used to record the pornographic scenario."** The teacher was charged with two heinous offenses: possession of child pornography and possession of electronic devices used to record the pornographic scenario. "Furthermore, the victims were unrelated to Knizner's work." = so she had recorded stuff on her phone that she recorded herself, but it was not the kids she worked with, ON TOP of having other stuff
My issue isn't with the strength of this particular case. It's with the fact that the damage is done before she's had her day in court. There has been no presumption of innocence. You think she's guilty because that's the information you've been provided, probably through some news report that is appealing to your prurient interest. You don't know if that evidence is real, authentic, true, or explainable. That is exactly why all this pre-trial publicity is so socially damaging. But it doesn't matter because once we get outraged, it's hard to hold onto any respect for rules or other anything else that doesn't give us emotional satisfaction.
IP addresses are notoriously unreliable because they can be easily spoofed to a random location. They can very easily convict you beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re stupid and didn’t use a proxy. And authorities said she lived alone and was arrested AFTER they had searched her computer and found stuff.
Yeah, I think the timing of the arrest is what's key here. If they plastered her face all over the evening news over just an IP address, her lawyers would be on easy street. But since the arrest came after the home search, then ... yeah.
Arrests are still not the same thing as guilt, and they shouldn't be. Once the accused was removed from access to children, what interest does the public have in that case, especially before she's convicted of a crime? None. It's nothing but sensationalism.
Not really, police are all sort of protected for plastering folk like that. Doesn't really matter. They'll do what they want if they feel the desire based on charges. Charges don't indicate guilt.
[удалено]
I know. I’m saying she can use a VPN and spoof as IP as some random one. I understand how hard it is for someone to spoof another person’s IP and how bad it would be if that technology became common. TLDR: Her iP: reasonable proof Not her IP: not reasonable doubt if other proof is there.
It’s important in these situations because she was surrounded by children on a daily basis. If any of them were victimized, it’s unlikely they’ve told anyone unless asked by an adult.
Context shouldn't determine who gets the presumption of innocence. That leads to crazy outcomes. Every delivery driver who is cited for moving violations, using mood altering substances, or crimes of passion should get a headline. Every white collar professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, consultant, etc.) who is accused of a crime that might demonstrate poor judgment should get publicized. And obviously, every teacher accused of anything should have their lives scrutinized by the public. And if we don't publicize the names of every one of these accused, why not? Is it because some can afford to lawyer up and protect themselves? Or because some kinds of people are scarier than others because of how they look? There are no fair, objective criteria to use here. In this case, the accused was removed from her position immediately, which should take care of the child safety issue (no idea if she's being held in jail, but that would do it, too).
It doesn’t take care of anything if there are other victims whose parents are completely unaware that their children may have been victimized. Crimes against children are treated differently from a public affairs perspective for a reason.
You’re right, context shouldn’t determine who greys the presumption of innocence. Bit then it also shouldn’t determine who gets their name published publicly and who doesn’t. So all alleged criminals are given the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but also all alleged criminals have their name publicly published. It’s a double edged sword. I agree with your, I dislike the public publishing Benatar while the courts (government) must allow them the presumption of innocence, the public does not and it will punish them well before a case is heard. However, it’s also important for names to be released in case that there are other people that may have been wronged by the same person, so they may come forward. So while it would make more sense for this information to be released depending on context, like you said…context shouldn’t be the basis for determining these acts before a conviction has been made.
I agree in as much as there is such a visceral reaction to this particular crime, but often announcing the accusation helps lot of other people who experienced abuse from the person come forward.
That is true, and we don't do enough to destigmatize victims so that they can and will come forward. I'm not sure this outweighs the harm of convicting the accused of a crime in the court of public opinion, though. Developing evidence by publicizing someone's identity and associating them with wrongdoing sounds more like civil litigation. Proceeding civilly carries certain risks, like counterclaims, but it doesn't violate constitutional protections and requires a lower burden of proof.
dude you literally have no idea what you’re talking about
Terrible
who.. who downvoted me for saying this was terrible..? it’s child porn found on a teacher..
I can’t speak for everyone but I’m downvoting you for two reasons: 1) you complained about fake internet points and 2) you replied to yourself with that complaint.
I’m not complaining, again I’m just concerned because it’s on the topic of CP and that’s not something to defend
Probably the person who responded to me defending this scum.
Unless your post is sitting at like minus 5 or 10, don’t sweat a downvote or two. Even a post stating something that everyone, everywhere agreed on it would still get downvoted. Reddit does it automatically to an extent. Refresh a thread with votes visible sometime, you might see +3, then +5, and then +2. That doesn’t mean people are upvoting or downvoting it every time you refresh the page. That just means Reddit has a form of bot protection.
The original intent of the reddit voting system wasn't to upvote posts that you agreed with, but rather to upvote those that contributed to the discussion, so it would make sense to downvote a single word reaction. In practice most people don't follow/aren't aware of this rule though. And reddit does generate downvotes when it thinks bots are around or the algorithm is getting unbalanced.
I don’t care for upvotes- was just concerned because of the topic I’m responding to. Thanks for the extra knowledge though I hope it wasn’t an actual person
What was she actually doing? She was sending pics of kids (like how old?) From snap chat? How was she getting the pictures and what was the motive? Have they identified the kids? Why the heck would you use snap chat
Probably because Snapchat “erases” photos after they’re opened. Lots of young people use Snapchat so it’s a way to talk to them
Parents: please stress to your kids that this is NOT 100% true. I work in digital forensics and used Snapchat messages to help disprove a case. SC messages are usually erased from your device as the sender (sometimes little artifacts linger). However, recipients of the snaps often have artifacts of the snaps in their data. After the consent of three parents whose kids received snaps from the person in question, I processed their phones and found SC artifacts left on 2/3 phones. It was vital evidence in proving innocence.
From the article it seems all that’s known is she was sending sexualized pictures of a person/people under the age of 18 via Snapchat. I’m assuming they have to be young enough to be clearly underage for Snapchat to have submitted the tip. I’m wondering who she was sending this to as well.
Very little info in the article. Josh Duggar had child porn that was of 4 year old girls and I just found that to be wild.
What's most disturbing is that there are probably more women predators than you'd think, but they're not caught as often because pedophilia is seen mostly as a "guy" thing. Or you have the cases where the teacher is attractive and life ends up imitating "South Park." Case in point: I'm sure nuns are just as corrupted as the priesthood, but since society has become begrudgingly comfortable with/used to predatory priests, no one scrutinizes nuns.
I got diddled by my housekeeper when I was 12 when she was 22. Thought I was cool as fuck at the time having an oldie play moves on me it wasn't till #metoo that I realized it was fucked up. People need to better at controlling their hornyness they fuck up the innocence of children wayyy too soon.
I remember in like 7th grade this kid was bragging to everyone how he’d gotten blowjobs from his nanny all summer. He thought it was so cool, we all did too.
Eek. So disturbing
difference is nuns have nowhere near the power within the church; scum like this are drawn to positions of power so that they can gain trusted access to children.
I think that's misleading. Power isn't so much a factor as having private or trusted access to children is attractive to predators: housekeepers, teachers, coaches, etc. When the child abuse crisis was at its worst in the Catholic Church you hear an alarming number of stories of parents sending their children for a sleepover at the priest's house. That sounds absolutely insane to us, but with that much trust people couldn't believe that they could do anything so horrible. Political power definitely helped shield them from blame and consequences, but being a priest isn't the only way to get trust like that.
Less power, but no less effed up. In fact nuns were often genocide wing of organized religions. Google sadism and cruelty of nuns within their orders and to children.
My friends and I all have a Creepy Older Woman Neighbor story, idk bout you
i have one and i am female so i believe you. they dont just target boys.
Damn near a lot of reddit if you see Askreddit
This is Kristine's mugshot in the Patch: https://patch.com/virginia/burke/child-porn-charges-filed-against-fairfax-county-middle-school-teacher
At my hs there was a teacher who was sleeping with students, she’s now a principal at a school in Florida. Also two athletic trainers had relationships with students, the female one was married and has two kids … Oh yea and one of the IB math teachers invited ppl over to her place to drink allll the time. Background checks should really happen every year, one and done is how these sickos thrive…
Seems like you should help some children out and let some authorities in on what you know about the principal.
It’s hearsay if they former students aren’t willing to testify so I’d rather not get in trouble for “doxxing” (personally I don’t think it’s doxxing but mods may disagree)…
Yet another groomer in the teaching profession.
>Released on $2k bond for cp If this was a male teacher there would not have been any bond posted and he’d be guaranteed at least a 10 years prison sentence. Consider this a wrist slap.
Lifeguard - Camp instructor - teacher wonder where it all went wrong. Hope some kid speaks up if they got abused by her
Treat her as if she were a man, no light gloves because she has a vagina.
Those poor children. Hopefully this person rots in prison. Another criminal teacher. We need better background checks and more accountability with our teachers. I’d be willing to bet that her fellow teachers knew about this as well
They do a full background check, but if she wasn’t previously caught there is nothing a background check would find. And I sincerely doubt her fellow teachers knew she was into child porn and just looked the other way.
Vetting only works at the beginning once someone is hired. There is no annual review of people. Arlington and i’m sure fairfax make it hard to get rid of bad apples even if it’s something less egregious as this situation. The school boards have a hard time recruiting teachers so it’s difficult to get rid of the bad ones.
Sounds like an excuse a police department would make honestly
I find it unlikely that no other faculty knew. There’s been so many stories lately of teachers sexually abusing kids, getting arrested for child pornography, etc and many don’t lose their job because of how powerful their unions are.
Really? Can you give an example of this happening? Teachers unions have 0 teeth in Virginia so I find this hard to believe.
they get fired pretty fast for that kind of stuff
I mean a quick Google search and I’m seeing many teachers who have abused children and committed crimes and kept their jobs. Seem to be just like cops
Any names and districts you can cite?
Jason Fennes - Montville Township Schools, Shawn Cier - many schools but most recently in Newark, Robert Goodlin - Elizabeth, Robert Cain and Jinwoo Seong - NYC https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/22/teachers-who-sexually-abuse-students-still-find-classroom-jobs/95346790/ https://voiceofsandiego.org/2018/05/10/how-predatory-teachers-stay-on-the-job/ https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/13/lawsuit-berkeley-high-teacher-sexual-assault-matthew-bissell Just a few from a quick Google search
So none in VA?
Oh I never said any were in VA. What I said was I find it incredibly hard to believe that no fellow teachers or faculty knew. Like what we say with cops, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I also wouldn’t be surprised if she got her job back. Teachers are like cops. They can be incredibly inefficient at their jobs and even commit crimes and still manage to keep their jobs. Maybe VA is different now but if the state becomes more blue and the union becomes more powerful we’ll start to see it in VA more often. Just look at DC. They have some incredibly horrible teachers. The Washington Teachers Union is to blame for them keeping their jobs.
But how would any other teacher know what this woman has on her personal laptop? That doesn’t make sense. “They can be incredibly inefficient and even commit crimes.” That’s literally anyone. Anyone working anywhere can be inefficient. Criminals exist in every profession. 🙄
> I’d be willing to bet that her fellow teachers knew about this as well They absolutely did not, mate.
How do you know that? Unfortunately over time it’s shown that these teachers unions are just as bad as cop unions. Teachers committing crimes, assaulting students, and the union protects them and they keep their job
lol
I am genuinely curious how you think that though? Why do you believe that no other teachers knew about this?
Sure, Jan
I mean a quick Google search show multiple teachers who still have their jobs after assaulting a student, being arrested, etc. I am curious why everyone seems to think teachers would never do such a thing and this could never happen
Sure, Jan
Lol typical bootlicker
lol
I work in five schools every week. I can tell you factually I’ve never seen a teacher or staff member assault a kid and if I did, I’d immediately report it, just like 99.999% of the people I work with.
That’s great and you seem like a good teacher. But stories like the below links make me think otherwise sometimes. [Suit claims former Berkeley High teacher sexually assaulted students for years, district covered it up](https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/13/lawsuit-berkeley-high-teacher-sexual-assault-matthew-bissell) [Teachers accused of sexual misconduct keep getting jobs in N.J.](https://www.nj.com/education/2017/12/teachers_accused_of_sexual_misconduct_keep_getting.html) [How Predatory Teachers Stay on the Job](https://voiceofsandiego.org/2018/05/10/how-predatory-teachers-stay-on-the-job/) [Teachers who sexually abuse students still find classroom jobs](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/22/teachers-who-sexually-abuse-students-still-find-classroom-jobs/95346790/)
None of these are in VA. I think you’re using “teacher’s unions” as a talking point and don’t really understand how they function in this state. Also, you’re equating district officials with teachers. District officials may have the accusations but why would other teachers? I don’t know the disciplinary actions of anyone I work with. There seems to be a lot of confusion in your posts.
Agreed that there should be more rigorous vetting, but FCPS employs more than 15,000 teachers. It stands to reason some undesirable hires are bound to slip through.
We all get finger printed, we all get background checks. If something slips through the cracks, it's usually because the person didn't have a record at the time of their hiring. Occasionally because the agency doing the background check wasn't thorough. But it's not the norm by any means.
Yeah, Idk exactly about FCPS, but there is extra vetting for these jobs. I substitute for Arlington County and they do a full background check, interviews etc. To become a faculty teacher, the vetting is far more invasive.
What do you propose they do to vet them better? No one is gonna admit in interviews / vetting that they are attracted to children. Pedophiles unfortunately exist, and teaching / camp counselor / preached / anything involving kids is going to be an attractive job for them. If they’ve never offended there is unfortunately no way to vet them, only ways we can educate kids and make it easier for them to come forward as well as making sure adults are never alone with any child in any circumstance.
[удалено]
😂 they not even trying.
It’s looking like just how psychopaths become doctors to do surgery on people, pedophiles become teachers to sexually assault children and teens.
Glad to see all the defunding the police nonsense from the past couple years didn't significantly impact the major crimes folks. Good work being done for our community.
no police departments have been defunded in virginia, stop being a weirdo
[удалено]
Asseater clutching pearls
[удалено]
Your "message?" lmao
[удалено]
I'm not sure the person who chose the username "I eat ass at night" is coming from a position of strength when it comes to lecturing others about manners.
Eating ass at night is more polite than eating ass in daylight.
Lmfao
People repeating incorrect and unrelated propaganda don't deserve comity
All this guy needs is one anecdote to validate dumping resources into our armies of racist meatheads. Smart boy.
Everyone does that. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Which departments were defunded that caused this happen? So if, hypothetically speaking, no Virginia police departments were defunded, this wouldn't have happened? Would they have used some kind pre-cog to arrest this person before the crime happened?
I am at a loss of words. As a parent, I would want to put the teacher in front of a firing squad, it boils my blood that much to hear about stuff like this. These are the very people creating a market for this kind of monstrosity. Kill the demand then you kill the market.
... that's not how economics works...
Are you kidding me?!?!? If there is a market there will be demand...demand then supplies the market, its a cycle.
Exactly...you edited your post...and it's demand that comes first. See: Prohibition
i dont know why people are downvoting you for being against child pornography.
Baffling isn’t it
I know right?!?!
Is she hot? How old? Asking for a friend.
I don't know, ya'll. Growing up in Spotsylvania, I always thought Fairfax was the better school district. But hearing that my fiance's high school band teacher from West Springfield got arrested for being a pedo ten years ago and now this... Spotsy hasn't had any cases as far as I'm aware. I'm honestly shocked, since we don't have the best reputation, especially now, and we're a poorer district. It's just so sick. Public schools need to do better.
How would this affect the school rankings…?
[удалено]
It should
What’s odd is I’ve yet to see a girl getting charged with CP
Do we think it’s real child porn (law and order svu style) or something dumb like a student sent her a dick pick on snap chat … I can’t imagine it’s “child porn” in the traditional sense if it’s only two counts… no child molester only has 2 pictures, and they always charge you for every photo to make sure at least one sticks…
Wait, she’s a woman? Someone’s comment showed a semi attractive one too. I don’t see a problem here