So That Gay-Hating, Tucker Carlson-Inspired Killer Who Shot Up The Colorado Springs LGBTQ Nightclub Is “NonBinary,” Uses “They/Them” Pronouns, And Wants To Be Called “Mx. Aldrich.” Oh.

The public defenders for Anderson Lee Aldrich, the alleged perpetrator of the mass shooting at a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub, said in a court filing obtained by a New York Times reporter that their client is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns.

Is it fair to say these revelations suggest that the rush to blame “anti-LGBTQ” rhetoric—you know, like ” we really shouldn’t allow people with penises to throttle biological women in competitive sports” and “drag queens are not appropriate library story-tellers for children,”hateful stuff like that—for the tragedy was a tad premature? Reckless even? Cynically exploitative, mayhap?

Why yes, I think it is fair.

Over at CNN, so crushed were the talking heads by the revelation that their usual conservative villification campaign would have to be more creative that they engaged in this desperate analysis:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: So, attorneys for the accused shooter, Anderson Lee Aldrich, say in new court filings tonight that the suspect now identifies as non binary. …They use they/them pronouns. And for the purposes of all formal filings will be addressed as Mx Aldrich….Joining me now CNN political commentator Errol Lewis, also back with me Al Franken and Joe Walsh. I don’t know what to say about that. I mean that’s not anything that we had heard from his background. People had been looking into his background, and I don’t know if anybody here–are you guys lawyers? I mean, you know, I don’t know what to say about that. That’s what he’s now saying. 

ERROL LEWIS: It sounds like they’re trying to prepare a defense against a hate crimes charge. That’s the least of his problems, legally speaking. But it looks like they’re trying to build some kind of sympathy or at least confusion on the question of whether or not this was purely motivated by hate. 

CAMEROTA: That is what it sounds like. We will wait to see.

“That is what it sounds like”? If you are an idiot, I guess: the “hate crime” enhancement is hardly a major concern when one has killed five and wounded 18. {Not to beat a dead horse, but Lewis’s statement perfectly embodies the utter stupidity of the “hate crime” blot on our criminal justice system. Sure, Errol, he might have shot all of those people out of mild pique.]

These hacks so, so wanted the killer to be a slobbering, redneck, Fox News junkie who was infuriated to the pont of homicidal madness by the prospect of the Senate codifying gay marriage. Awwww. Too bad.

Predictably, facts will not get in the way of the mainstream media’s propagandists, as with this piece on NBC News’ oxymoronic “Think” page, condemning GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert’s “homophobic” rhetoric.” not surprised. “The shooting at Club Q is a tragic yet predictable outcome of demonizing LGBTQ people and using children as political pawns,” Catherine Caruso writes, jamming her whole leg into her mouth.

Yeah, it was predictable that opposing the promotion of alternate sexual practices in grade school would prompt “them” to shoot up a gay club.

21 thoughts on “So That Gay-Hating, Tucker Carlson-Inspired Killer Who Shot Up The Colorado Springs LGBTQ Nightclub Is “NonBinary,” Uses “They/Them” Pronouns, And Wants To Be Called “Mx. Aldrich.” Oh.

  1. But it looks like they’re trying to build some kind of sympathy or at least confusion on the question of whether or not this was purely motivated by hate.

    Now Jack, I’m neither a lawyer nor an ethicist, but since you are both, maybe you can shed some light on this: Isn’t it a big no-no for attorneys to offer their client’s representations to the court if they believe those representations are false?

  2. “say in new court filings tonight that the suspect NOW IDENTIFIES as non binary” (bolds/caps/italics mine)

    It should be pretty easy to determine if this…um…”they’ve seen the light” is a recent development in order to save…er…their bacon rather than one that had been established at an earlier time, wouldn’t it

    • The actual court filings don’t say he “now identifies”, they simply say he “is non-binary” and “uses they/them pronouns”.

      Now, in a rational world, people making outlandish claims like that would be met by skepticism. But current progressive dogma is that self-identifications are sacrosanct, and not to be challenged. So if mainstream media wishes to continue to allege (without evidence), that the shooting was inspired by “anti-LGBT rhetoric” on the part of conservatives, they’re going to have to do it while referring to “Mx. Aldrich” and how “they” were radicalized.

  3. Now, there some anecdotal evidence that I am, in fact, an attorney, practicing law for 30 years, and have an IQ slightly above room temperature. In all my years of practice, never once have I stated that my client identifies as non-binary (perhaps delusional and/or a raving lunatic, but . . .), and shall be referred to as “Mx.” I would be laughed out of court for something like that.


  4. We don’t know how sincere those beliefs are. It wouldn’t surprise me either way. The reality of life, and the reality of people ill enough to do this kind of thing is that people are complicated, mass shooters only more so. You very rarely meet someone who checks literally every box along ideological lines, and if you do, that’s usually indicative of a non-thinking person. Aldrich could very well be a non-binary, Trump-supporting redneck that likes merlot, Nascar and orgies. Because his history has started to deviate from the preferred narrative, I can almost physically hear the sound of investigators packing up, so it might take a while…. But on a long enough timeframe, I think we’ll find out.

    What I find more interesting about this is the parallel to “It’s OK To Be White” and “All Lives Matter”.

    We have two possibilities in regards to Aldrich’s nonbinary status.

    1) This is a sincerely held belief, and probably blows up the preferred narrative.

    2) It’s not a sincerely held belief, and Aldrich is lying in order to benefit himself in a legal proceeding.

    So married to their narratives are progressives that they’re actually defaulting to 2, and going to far as to “misgender” Aldrich. Blissfully unaware that doing so shows the inherent dishonesty in their denials that no one lies about their gender for their benefit. And we have a very stark example of exactly how sincere *their* beliefs regarding gender transition are. How quickly and entirely they were willing to turn on a dime because someone they desperately wanted to hate might, might, have ended up resembling them in some small way.

    They’re in a zugzwang here. I have no idea where this ends up, but progressives lose.

      • John, if you were defending this guy and he out of the blue came up with his identity and pronoun shtick, wouldn’t you be a little cautious about reporting this in a pleading? If the guy is just pulling this out of his rear end, wouldn’t that be kind of obvious to his attorneys? Similarly, if the attorneys hatched this little dance on their own as some kind of a crafty defense, wouldn’t they be at risk of perpetrating a fraud upon the court? Inquiring non-criminal defense lawyer minds want to know. Jack may want to chime in directly on the ethical breaches that may be inherent in this stuff being a bunch of self-serving BS.

        • Further, if this is just BS, why not simply have the guy claim he’s GAY? Wouldn’t that be right on target? I mean, how could a gay guy kill people at a GAY NIGHTCLUB out of hate for gays if he is himself GAY?

    • Your point about how these pundits are “misgendering” the possible shooter is a good one. And yes, it does show how they really feel deep down about all this genderwoowoo. They don’t really believe he is a they as much as the rest of us, because, well, no one is a they.

      The story also highlights, as both of us have said here, that there is no kumbyah LGBTQ “community. ” That idea is a myth for straight allies who want to feel good about affirming exotic rainbow people.

      The whole thing is a sad mess and it’s even messier because of identity politics.

    • Your point? That his father is a Trumpista and didn’t love him enough or refused to embrace the gender blending chaos? That somehow pushed this guy two shoot up a gay club? I am sure Tucker Carlson sent him subliminal messages to no to on a shooting rampage. That happens all the time – help, Tucker is forcing me to fall face-furst into a chocolate cake!


  5. Let’s talk about the absurdity of hate crime laws.

    On June 7, 1998 in Jasper, Texas, James Byrd Jr was killed in a horrific crime. Shawn Berry, Lawrence Brewer, and John King dragged him for three miles behind a pickup truck along an asphalt road. Many at the time lamented the fact that Texas did not have a hate crime law. James Byrd Jr’s death resulted in the passage of a hate crime law in Texas. Yet in spite of a lack of any hate crime statutes in Texas, all three of the accused have been punished harshly. Shawn Berry had showed some remorse and claimed he was coerced by the others. He is in prison and is not eligible for parole in 2038 when he is 63 years old and has served 40 years. Lawrence Brewer was executed on September 21, 2011, and John King was executed on April 24, 2019.

    Then here, after five times as many murders, this perpetrator won’t be executed as Colorado eliminated the death penalty in 2020. A hate crime conviction won’t kick the death penalty in, so I’m not seeing how it changes the outcome of this case one bit. I’m not a Colorado lawyer, and I did not stay at a holiday inn, so I don’t know how true Colorado’s “life” charge is. I’d love to hear a local chime in to explain if the hate crime designation changes anything.

  6. … {Not to beat a dead horse, but Lewis’s statement perfectly embodies the utter stupidity of the “hate crime” blot on our criminal justice system. Sure, Errol, he might have shot all of those people out of mild pique.]

    Not to beat a dead horse, but there are indeed people who could and would do that much for as little reason. Why, the future Edward I of England and his companions once horribly maimed a passing peasant out of sheer boyish high spirits. And he is remembered as one of the better kings of England, as those go.

    • It’s a great observation, though wouldn’t you agree that the ethical assumptions that royalty of that time operated under literally no longer exist even for the privileged and powerful?

      • Which of your rationalisations is that? It certainly distracts from the point, that there are those out there like that. The change of standards – to the extent that it even goes beyond just making people more discreet and really does change people – only goes to whether the story became well enough known to be passed down, and so for me to use by way of illustration; it does not mean that there are no longer those out there like that. Would you have heard if, say, a Kennedy or a Biden had done something of the sort? And would it surprise you if one had? Yet stories like “An American Tragedy” were based on fact (citing the title from memory). And, of course, morality properly understood was already condemning things like that long before, which we can see from various biblical stories in which prophets reproached kings.

    • It’s probably cold comfort to the victims that their murderer was only sociopathically indifferent to their existence, as opposed to being hateful. I mean, if he was hateful, just think of all the things that would change for them!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.