From: no_offline_contact@example.com
On 2026-02-12 11:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> On 2026-02-11 7:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Feb 11, 2026 at 3:06:33 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>> Police identified Jesse Van Rootselaar, 18 years old, as the prime
>>>>> suspect in the Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, mass murder. "Assigned
>>>>> male at birth," she began transitioning to female six years ago. She
>>>>> killed herself at the main crime scene.
>
>>>> The media is describing the killer as "the gunperson" now, since they
don't
>>>> want to misgender the killer and be rude to him or anything.
>
>>> We're not allowed to say perpetrator if we are so terribly concerned
>>> about misuse of gendered words? How about killer?
>
>> I thought the standard term these days was "shooter" which doesn't seem
>> to offend anybody.
>
> Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed and Joel Souza was shot by the gun
> held by Alec Baldwin acting of its own volition. To this day, Alec
> Baldwn denies pulling the trigger.
>
> In accidental, negligent, reckless, and intentional shootings, the act
> of shooting was committed by the gun and is never the responsibility of
> the human being whose finger was on the trigger.
>
> The term is quite offensive indeed.
>
Oh dear! Someone needs to share that insight with the media who seem to
use it quite frequently - except when they are using "gun person" - in
stories about shootings. Those bastions of sensitivity are apparently
not as above reproach as they like to pretend.
> I saw an article from the Daily Mail reviewing social media criticism of
> how seemingly concerned the RCMP has been about the, er, gunperson's
> pronouns, with little or no empathy for victims who were generally
> children. Even the murdered stepbrother, at the initial crime scene, was
> 11 years old. I thought that the entire point of a homicide
> investigation is that police, forensic pathologists, and prosecutors are
> there to speak for the dead as they are no longer able to speak for
> themselves. In this case, the police are speaking for the murderer.
You will not be surprised to hear that the CBC are mimicking the police
(or maybe the police are mimicking the CBC) by acknowledging that the
shooter was "assigned male at birth" but had "identified" as being a
girl for the last six years.
By watching some "new media" sources, I learned that the shooter may
have been gunning for his other siblings at the school when he went on
his rampage. Rebel News interviewed the father of one girl who was
hiding in the same place as a sibling of the shooter. The shooter, who
different reports have said was 15, 17, or 18, had apparently attended
that school in the past but had dropped out 3 or 4 years ago. I don't
know how early kids can drop out of school in BC but, even assuming the
oldest claimed aged for the shooter, that would have him dropping out at
14 or 15. That seems awfully young, especially in a province that often
has NDP governments as BC has had for the last several years.
>
> Seriously, I'm going to disagree with BTR1701 a little bit. I used the
> damn pronoun to emphasize that the "help" the perpetrator received
> consisted of male to female transistioning, entirely ignoring serious
> underlying issues.
I hadn't heard that but it would be utterly consistent with the
attitudes of our elites. I remember a controversy about the treatment of
trans people in Parliament several years back with some Conservatives
arguing that it should be the right of parents to employ de-programmers
(or whatever the current term is) to help their kids. Parliament
resolutely insisted that the ONLY allowable treatment was
"gender-affirming care".
> While pre-crime ain't predictable, it damn well
> appears that these issues were both well known and left unaddressed, and
> that the transitioning combined with failure to address underlying
> issues made everything worse. This was someone with known violent
> tendancies.
>
> And I'd really like to know where the guns came from. Did the family
> just keep them at home despite knowing what "she" was like?
I finally watched the whole press conference with the senior Mountie and
guns *were* seized from the house after previous police visits over
"mental health issues" but the guns did not belong to the shooter so
were eventually returned when the owner petitioned for them. So yes, the
family apparently chose to keep the guns at the house after they had
been returned. (It is not clear if the guns that had been seized were
the ones found by the shooter's body.)
Also, the family was not intact. Apparently, the father has been out of
the picture for a while and lives somewhere in BC. The mother and her
various kids have moved around a fair bit, including to Newfoundland,
but returned to BC because the father petitioned for that since he
wanted his kids to be closer to him (geographically). It's unclear if
the father of the other kids was in the picture anywhere let alone
living in the house so we have no idea if the guns were his.
The shooter had a firearms permit allowing him to use guns but that had
expired in 2024. The shooter apparently also posted YouTube videos about
guns which have been taken down: guns were apparently one of his passions.
I fully expect this to drive a renewed frenzy to take away the remaining
guns that people are still allowed to have. The Liberal base just LOVES
it when their party virtue-signals about taking guns away. They recently
decided to do a national rollout a gun "buyback" scheme that had been
tried in one area of Eastern Canada despite a dismal result with only a
handful of guns turned in. Not even the police want anything to do with
this scheme so, of course, it needs to be made a national priority. Now
that this shooting has occurred, I expect the Liberals to push the
"buyback" even harder with the CBC (and other MSM) all clapping vigorously.
--
Rhino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
