On Wednesday, Aug. 26, one person was killed and another critically injured in a daytime stabbing outside 209 Q St. NW. In the hours following the homicide, police and reporters gathered witness testimony, formed a description of the suspect, and chased likely motives. This time, cops and journalists were also forced to devote resources to another developing story: the gender of the victims.

Within three hours of the incident, three local news sources had independently verified the victims’ gender identity with police. They all got it wrong.

Fox 5 news reporter Roby Chavez gave this report at 3:59 p.m., about an hour and a half after the stabbings occurred. “D.C. Police sources tell Fox  5 officers found two transgender male victims in front of the building when they arrived,” Chavez reported.

At 4:36 p.m., the Washington Post’s Paul Duggan filed his item on the stabbing, also published in the next day’s paper. “Police said the victims, whom they described as ‘transgender males,’ were stabbed shortly after 2:30 p.m. in the 200 block of Q Street NW.”

WUSA9’s Bill Starks weighed in at 5:23 p.m.: “Officers…arrived and found two transgender males in front of the building at 209 Q Street, both suffering from stab wounds.”

The Washington Blade’s Lou Chibbaro was the first to nail down the correct gender identity of the homicide victim, who has since been identified under her legal name, Joshua Mack, as well as her chosen name, Tyli’a. At 7:06 p.m., four-and-a-half hours after the incident occurred, Chibbaro wrote, “One transgender woman was stabbed to death Wednesday and another was in stable condition with stab wounds from an unknown assailant.”

But even after Mack’s correct gender identity was established, the struggle continued. In “D.C. Transgender Community Outraged After Fatal Stabbing”—filed more than 24 hours after the incident occurred—ABC 7 reporter Sam Ford announced: “One transgender is dead, another is in critical condition.”

Mack was not a “transgender male,” a “transgender man,” or a "transgender.” Mack was a male-to-female transgender woman who clearly appeared to be female. On the reward poster for her homicide, she’s shown wearing eye shadow, shaped eyebrows, and two long braids. “Of course, when the one young lady was murdered and the other was hospitalized, we were quite upset [with the media coverage] because they aren’t transgender men—they are transgender women,” says Brian Watson, the director of Transgender Health Empowerment, which counted both victims as clients. “I know both of the young ladies that were attacked, and they lived their lives as transgender women. They looked like women. For me, there shouldn’t have been any confusion about them being males. If you saw them on the street, you would see they were females.”

Since the victims in this case clearly presented as women, how were they initially identified as “transgender males”?

Chavez, Duggan, and Starks all attributed the “transgender males” identification to “police sources.” Duggan says that the department’s public information office provided him the term. “The police department put it out there, and we went on what they said,” says Duggan. Starks got even more specific, sourcing the terminology to Quintin Peterson, the public information officer on duty when news of the stabbings broke. “‘Transgender males’—those were his exact words,” says Starks. “I’m not trying to get him in trouble or anything, but that’s what was said.”

Peterson denies that the police originated the term. “‘Transgender males’ was never used. Not by me or anyone in this office,” he says. “We cannot be held responsible for the terminology the news media chooses to use. We did not put anything out other than what the correct terminology is.” Acting Lieutenant Brett Parson, the police department’s top liaison to the GLBT community who was on scene shortly following the stabbing, similarly defers the misidentification to media reports. “It’s the media that seems fixated on their gender identity. That issue did not come from the chief of police,” says Parson. “We’ve had to correct the media on countless occasions because they have been reporting, insensitively, terms that are not used in the community.”

Wherever the term “transgender males” originated, no one really wanted to touch it. Starks says he never asked Peterson for clarification on what the term “transgender males” actually meant. “I didn’t ask him to go beyond that,” he says. “I assumed that it was referring to a person who may be in the process of either a sex change or someone who is dressing in the clothing of another gender.” When asked if “male” refers to the victim’s biological sex or gender identity, Starks was stumped. “That’s a good question,” he says. Duggan says that the Post avoided parsing the term with a deft use of punctuation. “It was a short brief that we wrote really fast, so we decided to use, in quotes, ‘transgender males,’” says Duggan. “I got beat up a lot over that, because I wasn’t educated on [the terminology] at the time, and I was quickly educated on it.”

For cops and journos, employing the correct terminology is more than a matter of respect. Both D.C. police procedure and Associated Press style mandate that transgender individuals be addressed in accordance with their gender expression. According to the AP Stylebook, reporters are to “use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.” And in 2007, D.C. police adopted one of the nation’s most comprehensive transgender policies, which states that when a police officer is unsure of a person’s gender identity, “the member shall inquire how the individual wishes to be addressed (e.g., Sir, Miss, Ms.) and the name by which the individual wishes to be addressed.”

Of course, ascertaining the correct terminology becomes more difficult when the transgender individual is dead. Sometimes, even the victim’s family can’t help identify the preferred gender. ABC 7’s story on the stabbing included a quote from Mack’s brother, Aaron Walker: “I’m just hurting right now. My mom, she’s got 10 boys, and that’s one of my little brothers and for me to see him pass like that,” Walker said of Mack. (ABC 7 also misidentified Walker as “Aaron Hall,” proving that newsroom slip-ups are sometimes based in sloppiness, sometimes in ignorance).

In the event that a victim’s gender identity is unclear, sometimes it helps to do some reporting. Chibbaro took care to verify Mack’s gender identity with “sources both in the community and in law enforcement” before publishing his story, three hours after the first news of the stabbing hit. “This misidentification is not always the fault of police, or the press, or others—this is something that everyone is grappling with,” says Chibbaro. “The first concern that I have, and that I think the Washington Blade has, is whether the information is accurate.”

As the scene of the daylight stabbing grew dark, reporters set about correcting the terminology in their stories, abandoning “transgender males” for “transgender women” and swapping “he” for “she.” But for some members of the transgender community, the damage had already been done. “[S]ix hours and (at least) six edits later, we finally have gender appropriate language in an article based on a double homicide attempt that was clearly motivated by hatred and transphobia,” wrote one commenter on the Fox 5 story. “[I]’m saddened on so many levels."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

January 16, 2009 — Mayor Fenty and Police Chief Lanier met with Chris Farris and Todd Metrokin, Co-Chairs of GLOV (Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence), along with Sgt. Brett Parson to discuss solutions to the problem of anti-GLBT violence in DC. Several points from the list of recommendations made to Mayor Fenty and Chief Lanier (see below) recieved immediate commitments.

The most notable commitment was the Mayor's agreement to comply with existing DC law requiring him to submit an annual hate crimes report to the the City Council Equally important, the Mayor agreed that measurable goals should be set to reduce ant-GLBT harassment in the DCPublic School system and to revisit previous proposals by SMYAL (the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League) on the subject. Both Mayor Fenty and Chief Lanier agreed to facilitate a meeting between GLOV and the new U.S. Attorney for DC, once that person is appointed, to discuss grievances regarding case management and policies.

"Mayor Fenty opened the meeting with a request for actionable suggestions on how the DC government could address the issue," said Farris, "but would not commit to making a public statement acknowledging and condemning the violence, although we pressed hard for that. To his credit, however, he invited us to continue to send concrete requests his adminstration can act on to him directly. Working with the police, prosecutors, the GLBT community, the schools, and our allies, most notably those who serve on DC's Anti-Bias Task Force, GLOV intends to act on the Mayor's invitation."

Chief Lanier was very receptive to GLOV's recommendations for her Department, offering to share the current mandatory online hate crimes training curriculum as well as sharing her innovative plan to expand the GLLU program by maintaining the central GLUU office but allowing gay and lesbian officers to serve as liasons within their own precincts, thus increasing the potential number of officers recognized under the GLLU while integrated throughout the MPD.

"I feel that Chief Lanier understands the issue and is truly interested in improving the performance of the MPD." said Metrokin. "And we assured both her and the Mayor that we are also doing our part
by re-educating our community on safety issues and encouraging reporting."

"The Chief has demonstrated in the past that she is a partner in our efforts to reduce anti-GLBT hate crimes, and today she re-confirmed that partnership," said Farris. "We are hopeful that today's meeting
with the Mayor is the beginning of an equally productive partnership."

—

GLOV offered Mayor Fenty the following recommendations to address anti-GLBT crime:

I. a strong public statement that recognizes the issue of anti-GBLT hate crimes in DC, condemns that violence in the harshest terms, and pledges all necessary city resources to fight it.

II. Compliance with existing law in submitting an annual report on hate crimes to the City Council

III. The following immediate commitments from the MPD:
a. Hate Crimes training for the entire police force, especially on reporting
b. Sensitivity training when dealing with GLBT victims
c. Staffing of the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) to the level it was at the beginning of the Fenty Administration

IV. Support for the following:
a. Meeting with Chancellor Rhee of DCPS
b. Meeting with DCAG
c. Meeting with the newly-appointed United States Attorney for DC upon appointment
d. Faith communities outreach

V. For DCPS – measurable goals for decreasing incidents of anti-GLBT harassment and support for student awareness campaigns

VI. Publicly support the establishment of a Panel to address hate crimes against the GLBT community in DC with the mission of outlining the problem and recommending actions and solutions to address it. Panel should be on a short timeline and include, at a minimum, representatives from the following: the GLBT community, the Mayor's office, the MPD, the USAO (if possible), the AG's office, DCPS, and faith communities. The recommendations of the Panel should be made public.

In a Wednesday press conference, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier stated that as far as MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is concerned, the Hunter case is not a hate crime. In a statement, Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) Community Outreach Specialist Matt Ashburn wrote, "Of particular interest to members of the GLBT community, Chief Lanier stated the case was thoroughly reviewed by prosecutors at the United States Attorney's Office and there is no evidence to support a hate crime enhancement."

Lanier also noted that investigators in the case have ruled out another suspected motive: robbery. MPD is now describing the events leading to Hunter's death simply as an "altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hanna."

But with the robbery motive abandoned, how is it decided whether or not an “altercation” is motivated by hate?

According to Brett Parson, acting lieutenant of the MPD's Special Liaison Unit, the hate-bias determination is made at three levels: First, by the officers who respond to the scene; second, by the police investigators assigned to the case; and third, by the District Attorneys who prosecute the accused.

In this case, says Parson, “the initial officers that responded to the scene did indicate that it was a potential hate bias crime,” Parson explains, emphasizing the term “potential.” Officers “based that [determination] on the geographic location and the lack of any other evidence,” he says. “They felt that they should raise the issue and that it should be looked into.” Parson says that the MPD Homicide Dept. investigators assigned to the case, Detectives Jacqueline Middleton and Jed Worrell, did look into the hate/bias issue—and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the classification. “Homicide did in fact look into it,” says Parson. “They found that it did not reach that level. It did not pass that threshold.”

The hate crime enhancement can be difficult to satisfy, as it applies to a specific aspect of a suspect’s motive: their “prejudice.” In the District of Columbia, hate crimes are classified under the "Bias-Related Crime Act of 1989" (22 D.C. Code 3701). According to the statute, a hate crime is: “a designated act that demonstrates an accused’s prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act.” A factsheet released by MPD's Gay and Lesbian Liason Unit (GLLU) clarifies that a hate crime "is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias.”

Parson says that in this case, investigators and prosecutors failed to uncover substantial evidence that bias played a role in the altercation. Though he says he “cannot discuss any statements made by any witnesses,” he does say that MPD has no evidence that Hanna used “any overt words or epithets” during or leading up to the altercation with Hunter, and that Hanna does not appear to have any pattern of attacks against gays.

Still—shouldn't police wait to determine a subject's "prejudice" until after the suspect is found? Police mouthpieces began insisting against the hate crime classification as early as Sept. 18, the day after Hunter’s death (Hunter died ten days following the altercation with Hanna). "There is nothing to indicate at this time that this crime was motivated by hate or bias," wrote MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes, on Sept. 18. Later that day, GLLU’s Ashburn supported Hughes’ statement, writing: “the crime is NOT classified as a hate/bias crime.”

The statements came nearly a full month before Hanna’s arrival into police custody, and 20 days before the warrant was issued for his arrest. [UPDATE: The Blade reported today that Hannah "spoke with homicide investigators Sept. 22."]

Parson said yesterday that he was unfamiliar with the time-line of MPD statements on the issue, but did insist that the hate crime possibility was fully investigated at the level of both the police department and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Parson did caution that "hate crime" can mean different things to the police and to the community they serve. “It depends if you’re asking from a legal perspective or a general person's perspective,” says Parson. “Once the facts become public, the people will draw their own conclusions from it. The U.S. Attorney's Office has come to the conclusion that this case did not reach the criteria to charge as a hate/bias crime. Whether or not that’s the same conclusion that the public will make will have to wait until after they’ve heard all the facts.”