Pierce concludes the report with facts he deems are not in dispute, including that Slatic and Asadoorian walked past the student, at which point he made a mocking comment to them, which caused them to turn. The student then used profanity and made another disrespectful comment, the report says.
After that, Slatic approached the student and more words were exchanged, including profanities from the student. Slatic then grabbed the student’s backpack, resulting in a struggle. After the backpack fell, the student threatened to beat and shoot Slatic.
“The most significant dispute and the primary fact that is at issue in this investigation is when the student threatened Mr. Slatic,” the report says, citing the student’s statement that he uttered the threats only after he and Slatic squared off, and Slatic’s account to a campus resource officer that the student had threatened him as the adults were walking past.
The investigator said the video released by the district doesn’t appear to support Slatic’s account that the student had ever reached into his backpack.
In answering those questions, Pierce said he considered the credibility and plausibility of the statements, and that the student did not appear to have any motive to lie about when he threatened Mr. Slatic, since he readily admitted to the threat, the original mocking remark, the extreme profanity and the use of marijuana. On Slatic, Pierce’s opinion was different.
“The fact that Mr. Slatic failed to answer my questions about the incident must also be considered,” the report says. “It is appropriate to consider his lack of cooperation when assessing his credibility.”
Slatic said Friday he found the investigator’s assessment laughable.
Pierce’s final conclusion is that the threat most likely took place as the two squared off to fight and not before Slatic grabbed the backpack.
The district’s release of the report includes a statement of what was withheld from the report, including records that implicated staff members, records protected by federal law and records “where on balance the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
“We note that this report is protected as confidential by the attorneyclient privilege,” the statement says. “Nonetheless, the district has decided to waive the privilege and produce the document in an effort to be fully transparent.”