Most mass murders in the US are committed by socially excluded white school boys with access to guns in their family home. Is America going to throw them out to protect society?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms Plans to Disable Law Enforcement Access to iPhone via Tools Like GrayKey Box
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most mass murders in the US are committed by socially excluded white school boys with access to guns in their family home. Is America going to throw them out to protect society?
Well I would not bet the farm on your statements. The only phone maybe a bit better, BlackBerry. Bad guys, communication very important, the more secure and cost effective the better. Yes they will use their iPhone.
Every time this argument comes up I am reminded of the poetic line from Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one.
Why we give up all of our rights to get on an airplane. No rational need to give up all are rights, 8 million of us each day, on the remote chance another 9/11 could happen. Not rational however, how societies react. Good quote.
Hi Anthony!
Thanks for asking, but...
First off, you're focused an issue that is less than 1/1000th of a percent of the real problem.
Second, you're trying to distract my entire post with one sentence that assumes 1) a premise that I did not posit, and 2) a premise that is incorrect.
My post was in response to a prior post about seeking evidence and proof against serial killers and terrorists, and why I think we don't need to break into people's electronic devices in order to stop a crime in planning or to solve a crime that has already been committed.
To review, my solution is that for criminals (including domestic terrorists; because why would we treat them any differently than other domestic criminals?), we should keep them out of the population for their full terms. If the full term is 30 years, they should be kept in prison for 30 years. No early release. No "light sentences". Full sentences only.
For non-domestic terrorists who commit crimes on US soil, we can and should prevent them from ever entering our country in the first place. It's an elegant solution, really. We don't have to watch buildings being brought down by airplanes and we don't have to try the spouses of terrorists after their husband or wife has committed some heinous act on American soil and got theirself vaporized or shot to death in the process.
If, for example, the Germans, French, or English (who have had MORE crimes of terror committed on their soil in recent years than the US ever has) want to have lax immigration rules for their own borders, fine. That's their right as sovereign nations. Terrorists will then become a bigger problem for Germany, France or England. More importantly they will become less of a problem for Americans. I can live with that if they can.
I did not mention "mass murderers" because as a generic term, that could describe serial killers, terrorists, or neither. And the percentages of mass-murders committed are so low; as I said, less than 1/1000th of a percent of all violent murders committed, and a much smaller percentage when all crimes of threatened or committed violence (not resulting in death) are counted.
And that brings me to my next point. Your post assumes a premise that "mass murders" is the most important problem before us. It's not. It's simply not. Far far more people are killed in car accidents just in a few months than all people who die in mass murders over the course of a year or even two. And far more people are killed in suicides (regardless of the tool or method) and violent "perpetrated encounters" that don't get counted as "mass murders".
But even though your premise is wrong, based on wrong math, and was wrongly attributed to me, I will answer you. Because I'm a "problem solver", don'tcha know.
"Throw them out?" Well yes, in a way.
After all, why not do something that is guaranteed to work every time it is tried?
In the US, if a person has demonstrated themselves unsafe to society by past actions, then they should be in prison. I'm in favor of the death penalty for the worst, but even if they're merely kept in prison, they won't have access to guns, knives, poisons, firestarting equipment, explosives, piano wire, hammers, axes, swords, or aircraft. Nor will they have access to the population that they would want to do harm to with those tools.
The criminals would still be kept within the country's borders, yes, but they will have been effectively "thrown out of the population" as a natural consequence of the barriers keeping them away from the nation's innocent population.
Barriers work. Let's do that! And why don't we?
Now, if a person is mentally ill and can be proven to be a danger to themselves or to the population, then yes, they should also be institutionalized and kept away from the population. We can talk another day about what that would look like. My point is that people who are a danger to society, either by their choice or their predilection, should be kept out of society.
The main problem today is lax punishment, light sentencing, and weak judges. There's also the widespread behavior of school admins and sheriff departments avoiding making arrests in some misguided political attempt to make it appear as though crime is lower when we do nothing. Broward County stands as a testament to that.
There are also weak juries, but I think that's less of a problem than those I described above.
So the short answer to your question is "yes, throw them out." Or "throw them in", depending on your perspective.
Have a great day!
So if a close relative of yours, say mother, father, brother, sister (wife, children if you have them) got caught in a situation where their life was in immediate danger and the contents of a locked iphone could save their life, you would tell your relative 'tough luck, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of your life'. No you wouldn't, so stop with the stupid spock antidotes.
Everyone needs to imagine themselves in that situation and think, 'is everyone else right to privacy more important then the life of my relative'. If the answer is Yes then they have the right to stand by their conviction in the demand for privacy rights for EVERYONE. If the answer is no then stop being a SJW arguing an issue you do not actually agree with.
How is this legal in a legal system that is far more advanced than the USA's "on paper, but not practiced" laws?
How come the legal societies in the UK are not challenging and overturning this?
I an willing to be informed, but searching that detail on the web is not filling up with specific answer.
So, which is not true, the self-defense thing or USA vs UK justice system?
I do remember a case in England where a home intruder broke his leg and sued successfully. I think the resident took a bat to his leg in some manner.
The problem is your proposal only takes into account the one OMG type of emotional moment and ignores all the harm and other potential rights abuses that are more likely to occur.
The odds of that one device and it has the needed info? I’m in the TS crowd.
[doublepost=1529193538][/doublepost]
Malicious intent and/or excessive force. In the USA civil court the burden of proof is much lower.
