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."

I must’ve missed the gender part. When people were saying this hours ago, the BBC app used the word “identity”, which I took to mean both name and sex. One of the posters insisted they’d said “gender” then admitted they hadn’t read it.

Someone copy and pasted it for you up thread.

Daily Mail is reporting it as breaking news. States name and describes the killer as “gunman”.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15549577/jesse-strang-tumbler-ridge-school-shooting.html

Me too. I read in the newspapers it was a female and thought there's no way that's accurate reporting and came on here to see if there was any further info. As I suspected, it's a transwoman.

Mainstream news has picked up on the name Jesse Strang. Is there any doubt now?

The bbc app news feed just now but placed at 7:30 am

Here’s another thought. If members of the public were ringing in to the police reporting a female doing the shooting, how long do you think they should have waited to issued a shelter in place order based on that description ? How many people do you think would have been shot while they were finding out how the shooter identified ?

Case in point: the irresponsible reporting here makes it look like the photo of the injured girl is in fact the shooter. Aided by the fact it was reported to be ‘carried out by a girl/woman’.

Do you really think the families of the victims give a flying fuck what sex or gender the shooter was at this point ?

I doubt very much that people were reporting an actual woman was doing the shooting.

Can you really not separate the narrow tunnel of intense grief versus the wider perspective of risk and public safety?

From the young trans I know, it starts from being on Discord, they’re all gamers, they’re all into anime, they think an anime girl is what female looks like, they encourage each other. There’s also a darker element at play because these autistic boys are also being told they must get on CSHs as soon as possible before it’s too late to pass. Probably told to go on PBs first now.

Then crushingly abandoned by adult healthcare professionals rushing to shine their halos by affirming. A recipe for disaster. And we all knew it’d be a boy/young man. Incredibly tragic.

And all the damn headlines screaming "female" shooter. As if they want it to be women who are as violent as men.

I didn't exactly "insist" that the BBC had said gender, I just said they should have said sex. From later posts it seems they did say gender. The story has oddly slipped right down the headlines in the BBC, Guardian and Irish Times. The latest BBC article says nothing whatsoever about the shooter. Funny that...

People fleeing an attack? People far away? Older people who see a man in a dress but decide it might be a slightly unfortunate looking woman? I think we shouldn’t judge people for panicking and getting it wrong, or panicking communicating a preference because they’ve been led to believe that is the correct thing to do. We can certainly criticise the wider landscape which has contributed to people’s uncertainty and unwillingness to offend.

Depends on how far away they were and how the shooter presented doesn’t it ?

This.

@DotAndCarryOne2 the newspaper articles are not reporting for the benefit of the families, presumably they have other things to do right now rather than read media articles. For the rest of us, accurate reporting is in fact important.

Oh come off it. There's a visual difference between a man marauding around in a dress carrying a gun(s), and a woman.

And the RCMP have not changed their description nowo they know the truth, have they? So it's on them.

Not when so many posters are insisting that the eye witnesses would have been able to distinguish between a female in a dress and a male, in the midst of panic, no. The police did the best they could with the information they had from eye witnesses. What would you prefer, that they held off issuing the description in the public alert until they had established the sex of the perpetrator ? So more people would have died ? Really ? Common sense has gone out of the window on this thread.

Common sense has gone out of the window in Canadian law, you mean.

Come off it yourself. In the midst of a panic when a school shooter is loose in a small community, you really think people will be able to make that distinction ? The eye witnesses ringing the police to report the shooting certainly didn’t.

There are always people who will attempt to shame and control when discussions about the needs of other people, usually female people, can and can’t happen.

It is necessary for the world to have accurate information about this horrific incident. It is also necessary that emergency services does not continue to make similar mistakes where they describe a male person as being ‘female’.

However, the same group of posters will use the same tactics to stop discussion they don’t agree with using the ‘now is not the time for this discussion’. Whether it is because a tragedy has occurred, or because there are more urgent and bigger issues to discuss, or because the wrong people are having the discussion … the angles are numerous but the result is still the same. A group of posters wish to control when these discussions are to be had .. and usually that will be never.

No, I don’t. I mean on this thread.

yes. There will be people who will easily make the distinction. Particularly in a small community school where the shooter was likely to be known and the sex of the shooter was highly likely to be known. Particularly by teachers at the school who were responsible for the locking down for security.

Do they, though? Have to wait?

If there's an abuse of power by the Afghan authorities, do they "have to wait for", and limit themselves to, the official reports those authorities put out? Or by ICE?

Or do they, rather, have a responsibility to acknowledge potential ambiguities and inconsistencies; to prioritise the truth, even if the truth is that we don't know the truth?

Their early use of the word "gender" didn't do this, because it was a (I'd argue deliberate) distortion of the truth: the issue was clearly one of sex, not gender. They know the difference. I mean, that difference has sometimes felt like their raison d'être in recent years - it's certainly something in relation to which they've faced serious accusations of bias in recent months, leading them to clarify more recent reports on similar issues with the commonly accepted language of biological sex.

I do recognise that investigative and news reporting are different realms - and that I know little about either - but think it's hard to argue that, where there's a clear conflict between the information provided by the authorities and the likely truth (here, statistics - we all as good as knew the shooter was male; anecdotal evidence; a minority of other similarly reputable mainstream sources' approaches etc.), they have a responsibility to, at the very least, use accurate and unambiguous language to reflect that uncertainty. And a lack of availability of resources to do so is no excuse, either. These things matter, as this thread and wide-ranging social media outrage demonstrate.