Mass Shooting in Tumbler Ridge Canada

[fromorbit]

Looks like it was a man in a dress. Another tragedy. More lives lost. Boys with violent tendencies cannot be told they are actually girls. The violent background of trans activism is a problem.

REDUXX
https://x.com/reduxx/status/2021483339719311435

BREAKING

The identity of the Tumbler Ridge shooter can now be confirmed as Jesse “Jess” Strang.

Strang is a biological male who started to “identify” as a "girl" around 2023.

Strang was raised in a family that valued hunting, and began learning how to shoot rifles when he was just a child. Many guns were kept in the family's residence.

Facebook posts from his mother indicate he may have struggled with behavioral issues, including violent tendencies, from a very young age.

Strang fatally shot 10 people prior to taking his own life.

In 2021, Strang launched a YouTube channel that was promoted by his mother on her Facebook. The channel was dedicated to "hunting, self-reliance, guns" and his other interests. At some point, Strang deleted the content on the channel and changed his handle from "Jesse Boy" to "JessJessUwU." The only remaining post on the channel was made 6 months ago and reads "I've been pretty, um, aimless."

That was a very odd post. And also, Canadians do NOT have the "right to bear arms" which is more pertinent here. That crazy person does not seem to have come back yet so we haven't heard what their reason is for their post.

It is obvious from this that trans ideology is a real and present danger.

In an active shooter situation, people are unlikely to be able to indulge in mental gymnastics. Instinct takes over. People in general are very good at telling the sex of a person on sight, and women are even better.

To tell them that the murderer is a "female in a dress with brown hair" means that they won't necessarily understand a male as the danger. (They might only see his head and shoulders from their hiding places, not his stunning and brave feminine dress sense.) And if there are any vigilantes out there - and rural Canada has a lot of guns - you have to hope that no woman had decided to wear a dress that day.

@Slothtoesyour last paragraph 💯

This. You put it much better than I could. In a fast moving scenario such as a mass shooting, you go with whatever information you have that could potentially save lives. Lots of posters saying that when they heard the news their first thought was ‘it’s a man’. My first thought was God help all those involved.

I don't have time to read everything the BBC has written on the matter. Several people on here mentioned that they referred to "gender" and I was pointing out that this is a meaningless term. If the BBC did not say "gender" then OK...

If it were a genuine mistake, that's fine, though it still reduces trust and reduces the ability of people to act rationally based on misinformation (e.g. running towards rather than away from a man in a dress because you think it's a female shooter). However, I seriously doubt it was a genuine mistake.

I'm halfway through a reddit thread on this, and I've already read two comments about how he must have snapped because he was bullied. So... why are the vast majority of mass-murderers male? Do women hardly ever get bullied or abused?

That was nearly fifty years ago !
Yes, of course sometimes women can be violent, but as with family annihilators, school mass shooters are overwhelmingly male.

‘In a dress’= doublespeak for male, isn’t it.

Why slur dresses, I’ve got a lovely maxi on now. Silly men.

And 'person in a dress' really eliminates bias and would improve safety compared to 'female'.

The 'female' is political.

@Mmmnotsure I think very few actual women would have chosen to wear a dress in February in northern BC...

I understand that, none of us would have time to read all the reporting. I linked the one I was referring to. Joining in a BBC pile on without reading the source is almost an interesting example of exactly what we’re also worrying about here- spreading of misinformation and how we can verify facts.

Or if staging a fast-moving attack in a school. For a man, however, the wearing of a dress might be meaningful and important.

Here is a literal copy and paste from the bbc article:

What is known about the suspected attacker

Canadian authorities said they knew the identity of the suspect - but are yet to release further details.

The suspect was found dead inside the school with a self-inflicted injury following the shootings.

At a news conference, RCMP North District Commander Chief Supt Ken Floyd confirmed the suspect was the same person police described in an earlier alert sent to local residents.

That alert described a "female in a dress with brown hair" - but the person's name or gender are yet to be publicly released.

The police also said they were investigating the attacker's possible motives and whether the suspect had any connection to the school.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e98w35qyjo
——————
As you can see they put “female in a dress with brown hair” as what the alert said not how they describe the person. Then say their name and gender haven’t been publicly released. Obviously sex would be clearer.

If there were people calling in to the police and describing what they saw as a female in a dress, what are the police supposed to do ? They have that information and have a duty to impart it to the public ASAP to protect them. You don’t hang around to verify the sex of the perpetrator if you have a reliable description from eye witnesses that it’s a woman in a dress. The insistence here on the authorities being somehow at fault for that is astounding. You act on the information you have at the time, and the emphasis at that point is saving lives.

So in the middle of an ongoing emergency you want them to stop and ponder the language they are using ?

I seriously doubt if anyone saw a male bodied person in a dress they'd say 'female in a dress' - unless of course they live in a society where naming reality is punished.

As of course Amy Hamm has famously been punished.

See - it reduces safeguarding for EVERYONE this lying, this conditioning people to lie.

Yes I agree. I appreciate the concern that saying “female” could have potentially confused people on the ground, but surely worse still would be to delay making the shelter in place alert because of concerns about politicisation of language?

And in a society with genderwoo, really they should just say 'suspect in a dress'. The police KNOW that these crimes are predominantly male. They KNOW people are scared into lying. The safest thing would be not to specify sex.

And yet...

And of course most Canadians probably know not to trust this bit of the message, but that probably means they don't really trust the rest of it either.

But we don’t know what the police had seen! If it was grainy CCTV or if they had seen nothing, only heard reports from frightened people running away!

They can just say 'suspect in a dress' which would be safer all round. Just in case the 'female' bit is wrong, which it is likely to be given statistics.

I know :) I still remember a visit to northern Canada at Easter...

I was thinking, perhaps someone going to a special occasion?? [grasping at straws].

But prioritising the wishes and demands of men who id as women puts other people - particularly women and girls - at risk.

Yes. Lies never caught a mass murderer.

Lies help them kill/escape/repeat. You want that?

Police, public and press work with facts. This guy’s dead, so luckily the language liars aren’t responsible for endangering the public - this time.

If they're not sure they should say 'suspect in a dress' it's not fucking rocket science.

I see where you’re coming from. I’m going to refrain from saying “it’s not fucking rocket science”, given I’ve never been in a situation in which I’m making an emergency alert based on panicked reports. Their information may not have been correct but they may have had to make a split second decision about how to communicate that and what to include/omit.