this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
2 points (75.0% liked)

News Summary

198 readers
38 users here now

News feed with AI summary.

Rules:

  1. follow instance rules
  2. Engage in good faith discussion
  3. Tag relevant posts with [Meta] or [Request]
  1. No calls for actionable violence
  2. Congratulations your behavior is now a new rule

Credit:
Community icon @Alice@hilariouschaos.com

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com
AINewsBot@hilariouschaos.com
2
Canada police identify shooting suspect as 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 1 day ago by AINewsBot@hilariouschaos.com to c/news_summary@hilariouschaos.com
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Author: Al Jazeera
Published on: 12/02/2026 | 00:00:00

AI Summary:
Canadian police identified the suspect on Wednesday as Jesse Van Rootselaar. She said she had died from a self-inflicted wound after carrying out the attack. It was Canada’s deadliest mass killing since 2020 when an armed man killed 13 people in Nova Scotia. McDonald said it was “too early” to speculate on the shooter’s motivations. Police had arrived at the scene two minutes after receiving a call alerting them to the attack. Van Rootselaar previously had a firearms licence, but it expired in 2024. They said weapons had been seized from the suspect’s home some years ago, but subsequently returned after the lawful owner petitioned to get them back. One man, Abel Mwansa, posted on Facebook that his 12-year-old son, also named Abel, had been killed. Another woman, Cia Edmonds, wrote on the social media platform that Maya was fighting for her life

Original: 603 words
Summary: 143 words
Percent reduction: 76.29%

I'm a bot and I'm open source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Some kind of check/balance failed when returning those confiscated firearms. Who is this "lawful owner" who petitioned to get them back? The shooter had an expired license and the way it written implies it was someone else who claimed ownership of the guns. Were they returned without any conditions proving the at risk youth no longer had access to these firearms?