Discord Chats Reveal Six Months of Planning Behind Tumbler Ridge Mass Shooting
U.S. court documents show that the shooter who killed eight people in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., used Discord to plan the attack over six months with a Washington state resident now charged with conspiracy to murder.
Court documents filed in the United States reveal that Discord was used extensively to plan the February 10, 2026, mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, which left eight victims dead, the majority of whom were 12 and 13 years old.
According to the filings, the shooter, Jesse Van Rootselaar, communicated via one-to-one chats on the platform with James Cody Bryant, a 30-year-old resident of Washington state. The online relationship between the two began three years before the shooting, escalating to daily contact in the six months leading up to the attack. Authorities say both Bryant and Van Rootselaar were born male but identify as female.
Bryant has been arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country, an offense carrying a potential sentence of up to life in prison. He is accused of offering advice, sending money, and agreeing to livestream the attack on behalf of Van Rootselaar. The planning discussions covered logistics and weapons.
Amarnath Amarasingam, an expert at Queen's University, described the chats as shocking due to their "banality," noting that discussions about killing dozens of people were interspersed with ordinary friendship topics.
Following the attack, Discord identified the accounts linked to Van Rootselaar and Bryant and shared that information with the FBI. The revelations have intensified scrutiny regarding the responsibilities of technology platforms. B.C. NDP Leader David Eby called for stricter federal regulations against social media and AI companies following the release of the new court filings. The B.C. government has also pursued lawsuits against OpenAI.
At the federal level, the Canadian government is advancing legislation known as the Safe Social Media Act, aimed at reducing online harms. The case has fueled broader public debate over privacy versus surveillance in monitoring online communications.