how? like this should have been a massive manhunt for a guy who up and starts murdering people left and right and yet nobody heard of this
Law enforcement plans to charge Ortiz with aggravated kidnapping and murder, Alaniz said, adding that his office will pursue four first-degree murder indictments against Ortiz.
thank fuck, the murders were cold blooded and cowardly.
In the article they mention 4 women, and later the 4 filings mention 3 women and a man. So are they purposefully neglecting to respect the transgender woman who was murdered?
You can sure bet that.
By the looks of it, the agent targeted prostitutes. Probably the reason why this shit went under the radar until the fifth victim was able to alert the authorities.
Might very well be some dumb antiquated quirk of the legal system of how charges need to be filed.
I dont know any details on the trans woman but she probably still had male genitals which is why the report states it as a man. Its not done to disrespect her, its just whats on the coroner's report.
It was hardly knee jerk, I asked a question, and the person answered it.
No, it might have to be due to the law. They may have to refer to her by her original gender due to legal reasons.
It's a pretty knee jerk reaction considering how little information you needed to jump to that conclusion
Someone maybe disrespecting the dead because they're transgender has nothing to do with the case and everything to do with the reporting. In this case it looks like the reason for the distinction might've been required to do accurate reporting (e.g. the coroner's report lists them as male even if they're known to identify as female) - but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the thread - and also the source itself doesn't state the reason why it did so, which is suspicious in and of itself.
It also wasn't "omg did you assume her gender", it appeared to be more 'I recognize that this dead person is trans and now will call them their sex because I reject their trans'. Disrespect shown to the dead does often get people's hackles up and people have a right to be offended by someone maligning the dead if they're refusing to respect them; see people's opinions on McCain's death vs. Trump's response.
I don't get why you think it's "funny" either. You seem to be laughing because 'haha, someone's so bent out of shape about a trans-person's identifier being rejected that they ignored the murders and instead posted their outrage' but that's not funny at all and, if it was done maliciously, it is outrageous. Also, obviously, they didn't ignore the murders as they read the article; further, why do you seem to be implying that it's unreasonable for it to be brought up here when it's directly relevant to the thread? Every news thread is about both the reporting and the reporter/source; normally the latter doesn't come up unless there's some issue with the reporting.
Maybe because the author was more interested in reporting on a serial killer instead of gender politics.
Or maybe because they thought they could get away with smearing the dead. We can't tell either way without that clarification.
Did you write the article?
Source, please.
The reporter absolutely does have time to wonder - which is part of the potential problem here. They had all the time they could want to vet this article - and the writer knows they were transgender but still refers to them with both gender labels. So it is either purposeful and required for accuracy, their failing to properly edit their article, or purposeful and intentionally disrespectful; we can't tell which of those it was because the reporting doesn't specify why it chose to do what it did.
But it is relevant to this thread - and in fact it may be relevant to the case; how would you know affirmatively one way or the other if that wasn't part of this killer's selection criteria? They were already going after hookers, which is a crime of morality, and a lot of people think that transgender folk are 'immoral'. Again, you seem to be making big leaps without any evidence here.
This isn't "gender politics", it's "have some basic respect for dead people and don't be a cunt".
You know, the same way that you'd respect any other minority while writing.
There is literally no indication that the author, or anyone else, is disrespecting the deceased. Youre completely fabricating this problem so you can have something to be outraged about. How about be outraged that an authority figure turned out to be a murderer.
To your second comment, no. No where in any of my posts did I make a statment like that or insinuate that. I was pretty clear in my wording.
No its definitely gender politics. The author of this article is basing his information off of affidavits provided to them by the district attorney covering the case. The police who found the corpse of the trans woman identified her as an "unidentified male". This isn't done to disrespect her, this is done because despite her gender alignment, she still has male genetalia, I'm assuming. This is done for the same reason a transwoman should select "male" on a medical form despite identifying as female.
Except for the part where there literally is an indication. You can't just dismiss the fact that the language is there because you refuse to believe it possibly ill-intent'd.
If you want to prove me wrong, literally just quote where the author stated that the reason they referred to them in another gender form is 'because that's how it was listed on the coroner's report, which I am including here for accuracy'. It's literally just a line they could write or edit in - so why didn't they?
How about we can be outraged about multiple things at the same time and that doesn't diminish the outrage on any of the things we're being simultaneously outraged about?
Lol quote for me where the author was disrespectful.
My point is youre fabricating a problem to be mad about. Its dumb.
I'm either missing something or youre full on making shit up.
You appear to be missing the entire point, yes. Maybe you should re-read what people said instead of 'full on making shit up'?
When you: (a) Know that a person is transgender and then (b) refer to them in both genders you are (c) being disrespectful unless you have good cause to do so (e.g. were just quoting the coroner's report for the sake of journalistic accuracy). That thing which undermines C is that there is no acknowledgment in the article that that is the reason why they did both A and B; a journalist has plenty of time to edit their articles and if they're quoting something to be accurate then it is standard practice to note that they're quoting something to be accurate. For instance, if someone was being quoted and they made a mistake in their grammar, you would see a (sic) next to the part which appears grammatically wrong, which is a note from the author/editor that they didn't poorly edit/transcribe what the person said, they're just writing exactly what they said.
I can always rely on this subforum to turn a tangential comment into a full blown sperg out. By the way, the hell is happening at the US border? How does it have so little oversight?
The larger problem is that it has a huge amount of oversight. It isn't that there aren't organizations above them which are authorized and tasked with keeping them in line, it's that they're failing to do so and absconding from their duties to do so -- much like our Congress vs. our President.
How many years has it been like this? This can't be just a Trump thing, it's obviously worse now but there must have been signs for years.
so do you wake up in the morning and decide to be a scumbag all day, or does it come naturally to you?
Ive read it, its nonsensical gender politics that you completely fabricated for no real reason.
I asked you to quote the disrespectful bit in the article, could you do that for me?
I'm dismissing it because its not a problem. As i explained earlier, the point of a police report and corriners report is to be ojective, plain, and unbiased. Part of that includes discerning details of victims, including their sex. Not including in that report that the victim identifies differently than their born sex is not disrespectful, nor is reporting it in that fashion disrespectful. Its done for the same reason medical forms ask you for your born sex, not the gender you identify as.
They also might not have gathered from examing a corpse that that corpse identified as female. Incorrectly reporting on a investigative press release to play gender politics is silly. Implying this is disrespectful is just retarded. Being factual and objective is not disrespectful or oppressive.
So again, youre fabricating an issue for no real reason.
It was a definite issue under obama as well but trump took everything way further.
I wonder if Trump's presidency will end before he gets the chance to pardon this guy.
Why would Trump pardon him?
because he is a bad boy
also wtf at this first page guys
i'm assuming the article has been updated? because if not then i have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
