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."

Well it seems to have been confirmed the individual was transgender. I wonder what the story is.

We have no idea what the eye witnesses, if there were any outside of the school, said. He wasn't walking around the town swinging his guns, was he? He probably drove from his house, where he had killed his mother and sister, to the school.

Nope. All up for a in depth discussion about all the issues mentioned here. But the fact is the immediate aftermath of the killing of innocent people is neither the time nor the place. Neither is the ridiculously self serving criticism of the police for their immediate description of the killer, which was based on eye witnesses calls. The sex or gender identity of the killer won’t be the uppermost thing in the minds of the victims’ families tonight. Several posts saying that posters immediate thoughts on hearing the news was ‘it’s a man’. Only on MN. In the real world the immediate thought is ‘God help the victims and their families’.

“But the fact is the immediate aftermath of the killing of innocent people is neither the time nor the place”.

In your opinion.

“The sex or gender identity of the killer won’t be the uppermost thing in the minds of their families tonight.”

Why is this relevant to this discussion here ?

Are you saying it doesn't matter that the vast majority of violence in the world is carried out by men?

No. I said what I meant. Nothing more.

Only on MN. In the real world the immediate thought is ‘God help the victims and their families’.

Yes, it is well known that people on MN do not exist in the real world. We float around in the ether.

They do have to quote what was said by other governments and agencies like ICE, yes. They usually then oppose it for balance by critics of regimes. I expect the rules are quite different as they pertain to individuals suspected of a crime.

Regarding waiting, they have guidelines you can look up about accuracy in reporting and their aims. I can see your point about unambiguous language. When I saw “identity” instead of “sex” I didn’t mind it as it seemed like a catch all regarding the suspect’s details, but it obviously impacted some on here, as they saw it as a lack of refutation that the shooter was female.

I did not see any reputable sources reporting the sex of the shooter, and anecdotal evidence and stats would leave them wide open for a potential future lawsuit, which is not a great use of public funds.

You may be right that, if people cannot interpret or understand the need for quotes, we may need to have even more clear language.

that's pretty vile, that poor girl is in the hospital with bullet wounds to her neck and head. just how low will these people go, it's so utterly vile.

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.

No.

This is a rather irresponsible straw man.

It's pretty simple. We think it's better, in the face of even the slightest uncertainty (and here, the uncertainty was likely somewhat greater than that) that something cautious and accurate is released, than something definitively inaccurate.

Cautious and accurate safeguards against errors regarding the perpetrator's sex, putting people on their guard in all possible scenarios.

Definitively inaccurate doesn't, as it actively encourages potential victims to relax their guard in the presence of the very individual who presents the threat.

It seems fairly obvious to me which of the two is safer for the public.

OK. We shall talk about it later.

Except if we wait to do that most people will forget about it.

Convenient.

Interesting. I agree they were in an invidious position, but still think there were better ways through than the one they took, and that, by now, they could be doing better still. They're effectively misleading the public. This can't be right.

Some thoughts...

In the above, you seem to have shifted from suggesting in the post I was responding to that they were limited to the information provided by the police, to the very different "They do have to quote what was said by [the police]". There's an obvious difference here.

I've read the guidelines on accuracy with a fairly fine toothcomb, as part of making a number of complaints about this kind of thing to them. (These may not have been upheld at the time, but I think have been validated since, in the fairly clear changes we've seen since the recent whistle-blowing memo that blew up with the doctoring of Trump's speech).

I'm not convinced by the suggestion that "anecdotal evidence and stats would leave them wide open for a potential future lawsuit". I admit I don't know much about it, but am pretty sure I've seen eyewitness reports and stats quoted by reputable outlets in carefully qualified ways in these contexts, as opposed to these being straightforwardly beyond the pale. I'd imagine there's rather more nuance to this, or we wouldn't be seeing all the interviews with witnesses, fact-checks etc. that we do.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "You may be right that, if people cannot interpret or understand the need for quotes, we may need to have even more clear language". I don't think anyone here is unable to "interpret" a quote, far less "understand the need for" quotes(!!!) This does seem, though, at least to support my argument that their use of the word "gender" as opposed to "sex" to qualify the "known" information was at best irresponsible (and at worst cynical) in the current context of heated debate over what the former even means.

I've no doubt there are differences regarding individuals and regimes - this is a good point, but I'm not sure is entirely relevant in the light of my arguments above?

I watched German news twice this evening, both on the same channel, ARD. They talked about a female shooter (Schützin). After having a bit of a day I just sent them a feedback form and asked for clear language, stating that it was a TiM and definitely #notourcrimes.

And for the first time, I used my real name, too.

The police update from Canada live on BBC- reporters keep referring to Jesse as “he” and the police keeps saying “she”.

Well I guess they have to do what’s legal in Canada

It's abusive to call men women.
Women are very rarely mass shooters.

Everyone knows from the description "woman in a dress" that it's a man.
No journalist mentions the fact that a woman was wearing a dress unless it's a fashion article. The only time a dress is noteworthy is if a man is wearing one.

This teenage boy was abused when he was led to believe he was the opposite sex. He was over six foot tall and there was no way people would ever accept he was a woman. Whoever sold him this lie was incredibly cruel or mixed up.

Encouraging.

Channel 4 News have just reported it clearly and factually, describing the initial reports and then saying the suspect was a biological boy, gave his name and said he started to identify as trans two years so. If C4 news can do it, then everyone else has no excuse.

The also said the whole town population is just over 2000 and the school has 180 pupils. The school staff who called the police would have known exactly who he was, probably half the town knows him. I imagine the local police had a moment of “oh shit how do we describe Jesse in an urgent public safety alert when we can’t name him” and ended up with the mangled “female in a dress” because they needed to get that alert out and none of them are PR/HR experts on language.

The name the police gave is a different surname than that reported by the Daily Mail and other non-Uk news outlets?

It has been confirmed he was male and as identifying as a woman. No such thing as transgender.

And as predicted, the Canadian police are too frit to say that this violent act against mainly young women and children was perpetrated by a man. Shame on them.

He actually said that Jesse is a female.

Utterly shameful.
.

Same first name, Jesse, different surname ( Strang)...maybe that is to do with divorced parents ( different surnames)?

Media and police false reporting have made it a central story. If the truth had been reported accurately then the main focus would, naturally, have been on the victims.

It wasn't the eyewitnesses who described him as female, it was the police.