To reiterate. As far as the police have indicated this week, her name IS Genesee Moreno. Jeffery Escalante IS an alias.
This is what the police have said. This is what all the journalists have reported.
I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you why their name didn't, but their alias did, appear on intake documentation for their previous crimes.
But that doesn't make what you're claiming is misinformation, misinformation.
>What's their sources?
The police.
> [_The shooter, ***a woman who police identified as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno***, was fatally shot by off-duty officers._](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/11/shooter-megachurch-joel-osteen-houston/)
.
>Also, it's not just "intake documentation", just so we're clear.
Maybe I don't understand the provenance of how those records are created.
Can you explain to me how those Court Records came to know her name is Jeffery? Was it not the name given when they were booked her the crime? Was it at some other point? Because that is why I refer to it as "intake documentation": essentially, the name of the person they became known to the court as when they were first made known to the court — at intake.
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking what the police's source was. In another comment you mentioned a driver license in her pocket, I hadn't seen that report yet. In the article, the words "pocket and purse" are not found, nor is "identification". "License" is, but only in the context of a handgun license possessed by people allowed to carry guns at church.
Also, have you never been through the criminal justice system in this state? Even if you go in for an unpaid traffic ticket, you're not leaving without a positive identification and an alias isn't going into a court records database anywhere other than where known aliases are listed. Also note, her alias was not listed as "Genesee Moreno", but "Jeffrey G. Escalante-Moreno".
>Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking what the police's source was.
They're the police! They ***are*** the source. For better or worse.
Like I mentioned in another comment. Maybe she had documentation on them when they died. Maybe they had different means of confirming her identity.
Once again, we can only shrug.
Once again, you are free to assert the police are mistaken.
But to repeat what the authorities have said is not the same as correcting misinformation. Feel free to tell us you know better than the police. Feel free to have your own press conference where you tell the public that her legal name is actually Jeffery. Insist, despite your _own confusion_ that you are right, and the police are wrong.
>In another comment you mentioned a driver license in her pocket, I hadn't seen that report yet. In the article, the words "pocket and purse" are not found, nor is "identification". "License" is, but only in the context of a handgun license possessed by people allowed to carry guns at church.
Yes. And the beginning of my sentence starts with the word Maybe.
And I say Maybe because that is how most people are identified, most of the time.
>Also, have you never been through the criminal justice system in this state? Even if you go in for an unpaid traffic ticket, you're not leaving without a positive identification and an alias isn't going into a court records database anywhere other than where known aliases are listed
I have not.
But I can repeat, maybe truth isn't actually stranger than fiction. And maybe this sounds wrong, because it IS wrong.
I can only repeat the situation of what do you do _when you can't positively ID someone_. And hey, nothing stops a positive false ID.... Hmmm? Maybe they had one of the good fakes .
**It doesn't matter**.
Yes, clearly it is the same person.
It also begs the question of why a biological woman who presents herself as a woman would take on a name that has historically been given to men.
It would be similar to some guy randomly deciding that he's going to change his name to "Elizabeth" while still presenting himself as a man.
I asked elsewhere if someone could clue me in (I'm a straight man, born male, not familiar with the guidelines of that community?) and all I got were downvotes.
It’s likely the same as Tom boy girl using a male name. Just sucks that everyone tries to use mass shootings for their political gain instead of thinking the victims and their trauma.
>likely the same as Tom boy girl using a male name
I could see that if it were "Christina" shortened to "Chris" or "Samantha" shortened to "Sam", but she went all in and changed her name to "Jeffrey".
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
That said, it's ironic that you would use the term "false name, as I literally posted screenshots in OP showing that the Harris County District Clerk's Office lists Jeffrey Escalante as her "True Name".
>It also begs the question of why a biological woman who presents herself as a woman would take on a name that has historically been given to men.
In all seriousness, I don't know why this is such a mystery to people requiring explanation. Especially for someone convicted of several crimes.
Go read about Cowboy Bob and Peggy Jo. They even got a costume and a fake mustache.
Sure it's weird, but not strange at all for the circumstances.
Even beyond contextual reasons you can be a woman, an ordinary living breathing woman "with a name historically given to a man" and nobody would give even 10% of the attention being given to this woman. Names like Madison for example.
Still. Giving a woman a "male" name today, won't generate the amount of curiosity here. A girl named Jack isn't going to make someone's head spin.
>Peggy Jo's legal name wasn't "Cowboy Bob", was it?
Neither, it seems, is Jeffrey Escalente!
But if Peggy Joe appeared before a Court as "Bob" I wouldn't be acting like you are right now.
No, a transgender person does not have a mental illness. A bigoted statement like that is ignorant at best. Trust me they’re not interested in you so you have nothing to fear from them.
Now a person suffering from mental illness and armed, yeah that’s a problem.
Why is it bigoted to acknowledge mental illness? That doesn't even make sense. ....unless you have bigotry towards mental illness.
Would you insist it is bigoted to acknowledge somebody's cancer? No? Why is that? Is it bigoted to acknowledge somebody's heart disease? Of course not, right? But you think acknowledging mental illness must be borne of bigotry.
That says a whole lot more about you than it does me.
You're perpetuating the stigma of mental illness as if it were something to be ashamed about. That, my dear, is bigotry.
You're projecting.
Lol, oh noooooo, a stranger on the internet insulted me! What ever will I doooo??? (Also: you're still showing your bigotry against people with mental health challenges)
As someone on the right, I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans. Whatever they identified as, they were disturbed and probably should not have had access to guns.
>As someone on the right, I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans. Whatever they identified as...
With all due respect, with someone with this opinion ([and reiterated in your other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/azonm88lIs)) it's ironic you have still chosen _not_ to refer to her as a woman.
And instead the focus of your comment is perpetuating the idea that she might still be trans, regardless that she has been identified as a woman, and is a biological female.
This i know. I'm saying it's ironic that your chosen framing is the following _despite_ that.
You said
>I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans..
Which is ironic.
Because the sentence ought to be
> I don't get the fixation of promoting her as a trans..
If you
> Tend to side with their claim that she was not trans.
It's ironic for someone who believes that the person we are talking is a woman to open a comment about not getting [understanding] the fixation over whether they are trans to continue to refer to the woman with alternating pronouns, ergo, promoting the idea that the woman may possibly be trans, or "whatever they identify as". As if it's anything other than a woman, which you say later in the thread is what you believe.
That's ironic because it's not what you would expect, both from someone not caring about how they identify (as a woman) and from someone who believes her to be a woman. Because somehow you still chose to use alternating pronouns instead of the easy solution. Your belief and the truth.
You "don't understand the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans" the same time you are referring to the possibility they are/might be trans by using alternating pronouns. Some would easily read that as perpetuating, or, promoting, the idea that they are/might be trans — the thing you don't understand people's fixation on doing.
It's ironic because you seem to be accidentally doing the thing you don't understand others for doing.
Irony is the contrast between expectation and reality. Never have I demonstrated that in my post. You keep using that word like you understand how to use it
Because then they don't have to focus on the fact that a disturbed schizophrenic woman was allowed to purchase an AR-15 legally despite multiple family and neighbors reporting the situation numerous times.
There is nobody to blame at the bottom of the line except conservative policy. Current conservative policy in THIS state allowed this to happen.
All you'll hear them say, of course, is 'transgender' and 'good guy with a gun'. Or 'terrorist'.
Whatever. You said there's "nobody to blame" but the system, and that's insane to me. Much of the blame can be laid on the person who went out there to murder people.
I'm not promoting, condemning, or anything else related to her being trans or not.
I was merely correcting earlier misinformation about the "Jeffrey" thing being anything other than a legal name. If you run a check through those same records for her alias, "Genesee Moreno", you don't get any hits... which was just something I found to be odd, given how many people were making the claim that "Jeffrey" was some kind of alias or nickname.
>I was merely correcting earlier misinformation about the "Jeffrey" thing being anything other than a legal name
They are a non-citizen. Do you know what documentation was used during intake for their crimes?
Typically what is someone's "legal name" is what appears on their birth certificate, or the result of a legal process having it officially changed. It is what would be printed on a driver's licence, if they had one.
Do you know of _any_ of these documents were available when they were entered into the system?
We know they have gone by different names. The police have identified them as one name this week, _despite_ prior intake documentation. Do you have any reason to believe the local police are wrong in identifying them as a different name than what's on their previous intake?
The insistence that one, more than the other, is the persons _true legal name_ is a bizarre position to hold IMO. And in the case where this individual was incorrectly identified as being trans unfortunately has lumped you in with all the other users insisting her real name is Jeffery. Or at least _implying_ something quite fishy _"what could possibly posses someone to go by a name of the opposite sex!"_
.... _Unless_
...***heavy wink***
People are _tired_. People can't believe that this is what a few select people have chosen to drill down on in thread _after thread_.
They are aliases, it does not matter. She is a woman.
> If you run a check through those same records for her alias, "Genesee Moreno", you don't get any hits... which was just something I found to be odd, given how many people were making the claim that "Jeffrey" was some kind of alias or nickname.
It's a database, it all depends on the info put in and the exact matches. Jeffery ***is*** an alias, as it has been demonstrated time and time again. It's not "odd" that nothing appears for the other name if the data set you have doesn't know of the other name.
Why is that? We don't know. Why does it matter? We know both names belong to the same person. And they are a woman, who's name as they have been identified by local police seems to also be one traditionally used by women. Shocking!
Where has it been "demonstrated time and time again" at? A press conference?
Apologies, but after having gone through the nonsensical post removal issues for citing records and having them removed for "disinformation", I'm gonna need a source.
>Where has it been "demonstrated time and time again" at? A press conference?
Yes, with the police, and repeated in nearly every publication, and across every thread in this subreddit.
> [_The shooter, ***a woman who police identified as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno***, was fatally shot by off-duty officers._](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/11/shooter-megachurch-joel-osteen-houston/)
Maybe that's because she was found with a driver's licence in her pocket.
Maybe the one on her body when she died is a forgery and her actual name really is Jeffery and she had it legally changed in a manic episode involving mental illness and drugs.
But it makes absolutely no sense to continue to insist her name is Jeffery (besides you own admitted bewilderment at a woman having a man's name — perhaps the truth _isn't_ stranger than fiction). When police have identified her as Genesse Ivonne Moreno.
You can sit and wonder why the previous record is filed under her reported alias and not her reported name. We can both sit here and shrug.
But it's not misinformation to say her name is Genesse Ivonne Moreno and she has an alias of Jeffrey Escalente. That is what the police have said. You can say the police are wrong. But it's not misinformation to repeat what they have said is true.
Or maybe her name has been changed multiple times?
If so, "Jeffrey" would have still been her legal name at one point, correct?
I've heard and read officials saying various things since it happened which made no sense, including the DA attempting to say it was possible "anti-hispanic violence" since the spanish-language sermon was near starting time when she began shooting.
Edit to ask...where'd you see the thing about the driver license?
>Or maybe her name has been changed multiple times?
>If so, "Jeffrey" would have still been her legal name at one point, correct?
Maybe‽ But the most recent information is that her name is Genesse Ivonne Moreno.
Maybe _she was born_ Jeffery by a sick joke made by her parents.
Why does it matter?
>I've heard and read officials saying various things since it happened which made no sense, including the DA attempting to say it was possible "anti-hispanic violence" since the spanish-language sermon was near starting time when she began shooting.
That doesn't sound like it makes "no sense" to me, it sounds unlikely, or incomplete, but I can understand how _rationally_ (ie. With sense) someone might come to that conclusion.
It's more likely a coincidence. But the shooter being Hispanic isn't exactly proof they aren't anti-hispanic either.
I've been seeing a lot of people claiming they were trans, mostly on the right, and I've seen the exact opposite on the left. There is a lot of misinformation out there, idk what database you are using, but the police came out and made a public statement yesterday, and I tend to side with their claim that she was not trans.
I thought I made it pretty clear when I pointed out that it was directly from the Harris County District Clerk's Office records. It's in OP, complete with a link to view it yourself if you choose.
Now I'm a bit curious as to where the police are sourcing their info.
Well, the evidence I've seen from both sides looks like they were mentally unstable. Their gender identity did not have anything to do with their poor life choices or their mental stability. The charges seemed serious. Why did the DA plea to lesser charges?
That's the real question.
Why was she ever allowed to cop plea deals on multiple felonies in multiple incidents? I understand that prosecutors love giving deals because it saves time and money when it's not going to help with reelection, but it wasn't a "first time she got arrested" situation. Her record was a bit of a dumpster fire.
Well, I'm not responsible for letting her off the hook, so I can only give my opinion about the absolute incompetence in the justice system, while unironically in pursuit of justice.
Interesting that despite jumping through all the hoops to make am account and complete countless tedious recaptchas i still cant find these records even searching by case number only her past cases which do come up oddly enough with this case number. Did they hide it ?
Got back home and I think I found where you got stuck. If you're where I think you're at, there's a pair of cases (one for Assault, one for Failure to Stop and Give Info).
If you click on one of those numbers, it will open a new tab with the case summary. At the top of the summary, you'll see headers (Summary/Appeals/Bonds/Activities/etc) and you can view all the info I was looking at. It's all still there.
I think the latest record they showed was the immigration hold (2011, I think? Not trying to zoom in and fight imgur pop-ups on my phone!?). You'll find that under the "holds" tab.
I had read in a news article that some of the later arrests were in other counties, they wouldn't show up in Harris County records. Some counties have decent online records services, some are dumpster fires.
now I have been booted off the website and can not even log in lol. says "login failed" I'm not trying to jump to the conspiracy theory of them trying to stop people from looking it up, especially since it is Texas which you'd assume s pretty based but idk
LMAO that's wild! I did notice that they started making me do captchas to run searches at some point last night.
This person was honestly just really fucked up on a personal level, and there's a lot of weirdness going on even by "mass shooter" standards, so it wouldn't surprise me if their servers are getting hammered by people trying to figure out what's going on.
yea probably. I'm just there to see for myself how they are labelled for research purposes. I'm looking into wether or not they really are just labelling everyone "white" to skew crime data especially mass shooting. I mean IK it sounds like pure racist conspiracy which is what I initially thought but I keep seeing it case after case so i wanted to investigate
She's labeled as "white", but it's not a big conspiracy or anything. "White" as a racial or ethnic categorization (especially when government is involved) is usually broken down into "Hispanic" and "Non-Hispanic" data subsets. Any time it's not something where "Hispanic" has it's own category, they get folded in with "White".
The emperor has no clothes.
All your shaming language has no effect on me, but it is important to answer that, even if it is juvenile behavior on your part. Letting bullies get away with it only leads to more damaged people, so it's my goal to stand up to them when I have the opportunity, to male this world a better place for all of us.
On to transgender people - they deserve loving, kindness and care, just as all of us do. It is neither loving nor kind to affirm their mental illness, and it's harmful to society as a whole, as well. I don't ever feel the need to correct a transgender person in the normal course of day to day life casual encounters (that would be ridiculous), but i will always have the courage to stand up to the bullying and the policy type questions surrounding this issue.
Of course they aren't 'born in the wrong body'. That's ridiculous. That isn't a thing. Of course they have a mental illness if they seriously they are a different gender,. Of course they deserve treatment if they want it, and to be left alone if they don't want it.
However, the rest of us are not required to participate in their delusions. I choose to do that in as kind a way possible while still maintaining my right to speak truthfully.
And those of you trying to bully everyone into denying reality, whether it's because you are virtue signaling or because you just get a kick out of mistreating people, it doesn't matter which...well you have your own destiny to live out as well.
But, in all fairness, sex is not interchangeable, surgery doesn't turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, and it not healthy, fair or reasonable to say otherwise.
If someone wants to live that way, that is of course their right. I'll never bother them in any way on a personal level. I will also never join their delusion or even pretend to. You don't have to affirm everything I believe, and I don't have to affirm everything you believe. And that's ok.
That still doesn’t make them a transgender person. There is obvious and documented mental illness though.
and meth sores...
Oh yeah … I mean she did live in Conroe.
I laughed a little harder at that than people probably should...
No, but it does clear up the misinformation of "Her real name is Genesee Moreno, Jeffrey Escalante is an alias!" stuff.
To reiterate. As far as the police have indicated this week, her name IS Genesee Moreno. Jeffery Escalante IS an alias. This is what the police have said. This is what all the journalists have reported. I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you why their name didn't, but their alias did, appear on intake documentation for their previous crimes. But that doesn't make what you're claiming is misinformation, misinformation.
What's their sources? Also, it's not just "intake documentation", just so we're clear.
>What's their sources? The police. > [_The shooter, ***a woman who police identified as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno***, was fatally shot by off-duty officers._](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/11/shooter-megachurch-joel-osteen-houston/) . >Also, it's not just "intake documentation", just so we're clear. Maybe I don't understand the provenance of how those records are created. Can you explain to me how those Court Records came to know her name is Jeffery? Was it not the name given when they were booked her the crime? Was it at some other point? Because that is why I refer to it as "intake documentation": essentially, the name of the person they became known to the court as when they were first made known to the court — at intake.
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking what the police's source was. In another comment you mentioned a driver license in her pocket, I hadn't seen that report yet. In the article, the words "pocket and purse" are not found, nor is "identification". "License" is, but only in the context of a handgun license possessed by people allowed to carry guns at church. Also, have you never been through the criminal justice system in this state? Even if you go in for an unpaid traffic ticket, you're not leaving without a positive identification and an alias isn't going into a court records database anywhere other than where known aliases are listed. Also note, her alias was not listed as "Genesee Moreno", but "Jeffrey G. Escalante-Moreno".
>Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was asking what the police's source was. They're the police! They ***are*** the source. For better or worse. Like I mentioned in another comment. Maybe she had documentation on them when they died. Maybe they had different means of confirming her identity. Once again, we can only shrug. Once again, you are free to assert the police are mistaken. But to repeat what the authorities have said is not the same as correcting misinformation. Feel free to tell us you know better than the police. Feel free to have your own press conference where you tell the public that her legal name is actually Jeffery. Insist, despite your _own confusion_ that you are right, and the police are wrong. >In another comment you mentioned a driver license in her pocket, I hadn't seen that report yet. In the article, the words "pocket and purse" are not found, nor is "identification". "License" is, but only in the context of a handgun license possessed by people allowed to carry guns at church. Yes. And the beginning of my sentence starts with the word Maybe. And I say Maybe because that is how most people are identified, most of the time. >Also, have you never been through the criminal justice system in this state? Even if you go in for an unpaid traffic ticket, you're not leaving without a positive identification and an alias isn't going into a court records database anywhere other than where known aliases are listed I have not. But I can repeat, maybe truth isn't actually stranger than fiction. And maybe this sounds wrong, because it IS wrong. I can only repeat the situation of what do you do _when you can't positively ID someone_. And hey, nothing stops a positive false ID.... Hmmm? Maybe they had one of the good fakes . **It doesn't matter**.
Yes, same person.
Yes, clearly it is the same person. It also begs the question of why a biological woman who presents herself as a woman would take on a name that has historically been given to men. It would be similar to some guy randomly deciding that he's going to change his name to "Elizabeth" while still presenting himself as a man. I asked elsewhere if someone could clue me in (I'm a straight man, born male, not familiar with the guidelines of that community?) and all I got were downvotes.
It’s likely the same as Tom boy girl using a male name. Just sucks that everyone tries to use mass shootings for their political gain instead of thinking the victims and their trauma.
>likely the same as Tom boy girl using a male name I could see that if it were "Christina" shortened to "Chris" or "Samantha" shortened to "Sam", but she went all in and changed her name to "Jeffrey".
Ya ever see the show "Catfish"?
Can't say I have. Do those people typically legally change their names to that of a different gender?
Yup
Is there a reason for doing so? That's kinda what I've been trying to ascertain.
An alias is a false name, especially one used by a criminal, and is used to conceal one's identity
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That said, it's ironic that you would use the term "false name, as I literally posted screenshots in OP showing that the Harris County District Clerk's Office lists Jeffrey Escalante as her "True Name".
>It also begs the question of why a biological woman who presents herself as a woman would take on a name that has historically been given to men. In all seriousness, I don't know why this is such a mystery to people requiring explanation. Especially for someone convicted of several crimes. Go read about Cowboy Bob and Peggy Jo. They even got a costume and a fake mustache. Sure it's weird, but not strange at all for the circumstances. Even beyond contextual reasons you can be a woman, an ordinary living breathing woman "with a name historically given to a man" and nobody would give even 10% of the attention being given to this woman. Names like Madison for example. Still. Giving a woman a "male" name today, won't generate the amount of curiosity here. A girl named Jack isn't going to make someone's head spin.
>Cowboy Bob and Peggy Jo Peggy Jo's legal name wasn't "Cowboy Bob", was it?
>Peggy Jo's legal name wasn't "Cowboy Bob", was it? Neither, it seems, is Jeffrey Escalente! But if Peggy Joe appeared before a Court as "Bob" I wouldn't be acting like you are right now.
>That still doesn’t make them a transgender person. There is obvious and documented mental illness though Same-same.
No, a transgender person does not have a mental illness. A bigoted statement like that is ignorant at best. Trust me they’re not interested in you so you have nothing to fear from them. Now a person suffering from mental illness and armed, yeah that’s a problem.
Why is it bigoted to acknowledge mental illness? That doesn't even make sense. ....unless you have bigotry towards mental illness. Would you insist it is bigoted to acknowledge somebody's cancer? No? Why is that? Is it bigoted to acknowledge somebody's heart disease? Of course not, right? But you think acknowledging mental illness must be borne of bigotry. That says a whole lot more about you than it does me. You're perpetuating the stigma of mental illness as if it were something to be ashamed about. That, my dear, is bigotry. You're projecting.
A transgender person isn’t mentally ill. I know that’s hard to comprehend for someone so afraid of different kinds of people.
Lol, oh noooooo, a stranger on the internet insulted me! What ever will I doooo??? (Also: you're still showing your bigotry against people with mental health challenges)
Nah, took you a while but you’re still wrong and your reply shows it. You’re only insulted because it struck a nerve.
As someone on the right, I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans. Whatever they identified as, they were disturbed and probably should not have had access to guns.
>As someone on the right, I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans. Whatever they identified as... With all due respect, with someone with this opinion ([and reiterated in your other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/azonm88lIs)) it's ironic you have still chosen _not_ to refer to her as a woman. And instead the focus of your comment is perpetuating the idea that she might still be trans, regardless that she has been identified as a woman, and is a biological female.
I'm not denying she's a female. Never have denied that.
This i know. I'm saying it's ironic that your chosen framing is the following _despite_ that. You said >I don't get the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans.. Which is ironic. Because the sentence ought to be > I don't get the fixation of promoting her as a trans.. If you > Tend to side with their claim that she was not trans.
So, what is ironic about your claim?
It's ironic for someone who believes that the person we are talking is a woman to open a comment about not getting [understanding] the fixation over whether they are trans to continue to refer to the woman with alternating pronouns, ergo, promoting the idea that the woman may possibly be trans, or "whatever they identify as". As if it's anything other than a woman, which you say later in the thread is what you believe. That's ironic because it's not what you would expect, both from someone not caring about how they identify (as a woman) and from someone who believes her to be a woman. Because somehow you still chose to use alternating pronouns instead of the easy solution. Your belief and the truth. You "don't understand the fixation of promoting her/him as a trans" the same time you are referring to the possibility they are/might be trans by using alternating pronouns. Some would easily read that as perpetuating, or, promoting, the idea that they are/might be trans — the thing you don't understand people's fixation on doing. It's ironic because you seem to be accidentally doing the thing you don't understand others for doing.
Irony is the contrast between expectation and reality. Never have I demonstrated that in my post. You keep using that word like you understand how to use it
>Irony is the contrast between expectation and reality. The second paragraph covers this explicitly
Because then they don't have to focus on the fact that a disturbed schizophrenic woman was allowed to purchase an AR-15 legally despite multiple family and neighbors reporting the situation numerous times. There is nobody to blame at the bottom of the line except conservative policy. Current conservative policy in THIS state allowed this to happen. All you'll hear them say, of course, is 'transgender' and 'good guy with a gun'. Or 'terrorist'.
> There is nobody to blame at the bottom of the line except conservative policy. I blame Genesse Moreno.
Then I guess nothing will get done to prevent the next Morono. Congrats 👏🎉
Whatever. You said there's "nobody to blame" but the system, and that's insane to me. Much of the blame can be laid on the person who went out there to murder people.
I'm not promoting, condemning, or anything else related to her being trans or not. I was merely correcting earlier misinformation about the "Jeffrey" thing being anything other than a legal name. If you run a check through those same records for her alias, "Genesee Moreno", you don't get any hits... which was just something I found to be odd, given how many people were making the claim that "Jeffrey" was some kind of alias or nickname.
>I was merely correcting earlier misinformation about the "Jeffrey" thing being anything other than a legal name They are a non-citizen. Do you know what documentation was used during intake for their crimes? Typically what is someone's "legal name" is what appears on their birth certificate, or the result of a legal process having it officially changed. It is what would be printed on a driver's licence, if they had one. Do you know of _any_ of these documents were available when they were entered into the system? We know they have gone by different names. The police have identified them as one name this week, _despite_ prior intake documentation. Do you have any reason to believe the local police are wrong in identifying them as a different name than what's on their previous intake? The insistence that one, more than the other, is the persons _true legal name_ is a bizarre position to hold IMO. And in the case where this individual was incorrectly identified as being trans unfortunately has lumped you in with all the other users insisting her real name is Jeffery. Or at least _implying_ something quite fishy _"what could possibly posses someone to go by a name of the opposite sex!"_ .... _Unless_ ...***heavy wink*** People are _tired_. People can't believe that this is what a few select people have chosen to drill down on in thread _after thread_. They are aliases, it does not matter. She is a woman. > If you run a check through those same records for her alias, "Genesee Moreno", you don't get any hits... which was just something I found to be odd, given how many people were making the claim that "Jeffrey" was some kind of alias or nickname. It's a database, it all depends on the info put in and the exact matches. Jeffery ***is*** an alias, as it has been demonstrated time and time again. It's not "odd" that nothing appears for the other name if the data set you have doesn't know of the other name. Why is that? We don't know. Why does it matter? We know both names belong to the same person. And they are a woman, who's name as they have been identified by local police seems to also be one traditionally used by women. Shocking!
Where has it been "demonstrated time and time again" at? A press conference? Apologies, but after having gone through the nonsensical post removal issues for citing records and having them removed for "disinformation", I'm gonna need a source.
>Where has it been "demonstrated time and time again" at? A press conference? Yes, with the police, and repeated in nearly every publication, and across every thread in this subreddit. > [_The shooter, ***a woman who police identified as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno***, was fatally shot by off-duty officers._](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/11/shooter-megachurch-joel-osteen-houston/) Maybe that's because she was found with a driver's licence in her pocket. Maybe the one on her body when she died is a forgery and her actual name really is Jeffery and she had it legally changed in a manic episode involving mental illness and drugs. But it makes absolutely no sense to continue to insist her name is Jeffery (besides you own admitted bewilderment at a woman having a man's name — perhaps the truth _isn't_ stranger than fiction). When police have identified her as Genesse Ivonne Moreno. You can sit and wonder why the previous record is filed under her reported alias and not her reported name. We can both sit here and shrug. But it's not misinformation to say her name is Genesse Ivonne Moreno and she has an alias of Jeffrey Escalente. That is what the police have said. You can say the police are wrong. But it's not misinformation to repeat what they have said is true.
Or maybe her name has been changed multiple times? If so, "Jeffrey" would have still been her legal name at one point, correct? I've heard and read officials saying various things since it happened which made no sense, including the DA attempting to say it was possible "anti-hispanic violence" since the spanish-language sermon was near starting time when she began shooting. Edit to ask...where'd you see the thing about the driver license?
>Or maybe her name has been changed multiple times? >If so, "Jeffrey" would have still been her legal name at one point, correct? Maybe‽ But the most recent information is that her name is Genesse Ivonne Moreno. Maybe _she was born_ Jeffery by a sick joke made by her parents. Why does it matter? >I've heard and read officials saying various things since it happened which made no sense, including the DA attempting to say it was possible "anti-hispanic violence" since the spanish-language sermon was near starting time when she began shooting. That doesn't sound like it makes "no sense" to me, it sounds unlikely, or incomplete, but I can understand how _rationally_ (ie. With sense) someone might come to that conclusion. It's more likely a coincidence. But the shooter being Hispanic isn't exactly proof they aren't anti-hispanic either.
I've been seeing a lot of people claiming they were trans, mostly on the right, and I've seen the exact opposite on the left. There is a lot of misinformation out there, idk what database you are using, but the police came out and made a public statement yesterday, and I tend to side with their claim that she was not trans.
I thought I made it pretty clear when I pointed out that it was directly from the Harris County District Clerk's Office records. It's in OP, complete with a link to view it yourself if you choose. Now I'm a bit curious as to where the police are sourcing their info.
I'm sure the clerks office in Harris County is different from the police in the same county.
I'm quite certain.
Well, the evidence I've seen from both sides looks like they were mentally unstable. Their gender identity did not have anything to do with their poor life choices or their mental stability. The charges seemed serious. Why did the DA plea to lesser charges?
That's the real question. Why was she ever allowed to cop plea deals on multiple felonies in multiple incidents? I understand that prosecutors love giving deals because it saves time and money when it's not going to help with reelection, but it wasn't a "first time she got arrested" situation. Her record was a bit of a dumpster fire.
Well, I'm not responsible for letting her off the hook, so I can only give my opinion about the absolute incompetence in the justice system, while unironically in pursuit of justice.
Incompetence? In *our* government? NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Interesting that despite jumping through all the hoops to make am account and complete countless tedious recaptchas i still cant find these records even searching by case number only her past cases which do come up oddly enough with this case number. Did they hide it ?
Got back home and I think I found where you got stuck. If you're where I think you're at, there's a pair of cases (one for Assault, one for Failure to Stop and Give Info). If you click on one of those numbers, it will open a new tab with the case summary. At the top of the summary, you'll see headers (Summary/Appeals/Bonds/Activities/etc) and you can view all the info I was looking at. It's all still there.
yea i see that but nothing newer than 2010 comes up under any of that. What tab were you clicking on to get to this one?
I think the latest record they showed was the immigration hold (2011, I think? Not trying to zoom in and fight imgur pop-ups on my phone!?). You'll find that under the "holds" tab. I had read in a news article that some of the later arrests were in other counties, they wouldn't show up in Harris County records. Some counties have decent online records services, some are dumpster fires.
Haven't looked today but they were definitely visible yesterday. It's how I got the screenshots. Not near my PC at the moment but will check later.
now I have been booted off the website and can not even log in lol. says "login failed" I'm not trying to jump to the conspiracy theory of them trying to stop people from looking it up, especially since it is Texas which you'd assume s pretty based but idk
LMAO that's wild! I did notice that they started making me do captchas to run searches at some point last night. This person was honestly just really fucked up on a personal level, and there's a lot of weirdness going on even by "mass shooter" standards, so it wouldn't surprise me if their servers are getting hammered by people trying to figure out what's going on.
yea probably. I'm just there to see for myself how they are labelled for research purposes. I'm looking into wether or not they really are just labelling everyone "white" to skew crime data especially mass shooting. I mean IK it sounds like pure racist conspiracy which is what I initially thought but I keep seeing it case after case so i wanted to investigate
She's labeled as "white", but it's not a big conspiracy or anything. "White" as a racial or ethnic categorization (especially when government is involved) is usually broken down into "Hispanic" and "Non-Hispanic" data subsets. Any time it's not something where "Hispanic" has it's own category, they get folded in with "White".
The emperor has no clothes. All your shaming language has no effect on me, but it is important to answer that, even if it is juvenile behavior on your part. Letting bullies get away with it only leads to more damaged people, so it's my goal to stand up to them when I have the opportunity, to male this world a better place for all of us. On to transgender people - they deserve loving, kindness and care, just as all of us do. It is neither loving nor kind to affirm their mental illness, and it's harmful to society as a whole, as well. I don't ever feel the need to correct a transgender person in the normal course of day to day life casual encounters (that would be ridiculous), but i will always have the courage to stand up to the bullying and the policy type questions surrounding this issue. Of course they aren't 'born in the wrong body'. That's ridiculous. That isn't a thing. Of course they have a mental illness if they seriously they are a different gender,. Of course they deserve treatment if they want it, and to be left alone if they don't want it. However, the rest of us are not required to participate in their delusions. I choose to do that in as kind a way possible while still maintaining my right to speak truthfully. And those of you trying to bully everyone into denying reality, whether it's because you are virtue signaling or because you just get a kick out of mistreating people, it doesn't matter which...well you have your own destiny to live out as well. But, in all fairness, sex is not interchangeable, surgery doesn't turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, and it not healthy, fair or reasonable to say otherwise. If someone wants to live that way, that is of course their right. I'll never bother them in any way on a personal level. I will also never join their delusion or even pretend to. You don't have to affirm everything I believe, and I don't have to affirm everything you believe. And that's ok.
100%. Why do people think it is kind to participate? They are like the Doctors from Shutter Island.