The shooter was 12 when Trump was first elected. archive

  • Hello_there
    link
    fedilink
    534 months ago

    How did they identify him using DNA? That’s a fucking red flag. Is there some database I’m not aware of? Or did he have prior arrests?

    • Ghostalmedia
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There are genealogy databases that are public and or cooperate with authorities. Perhaps I’m a privacy nihilist, but IMHO, the cat’s kind of out of the bag for a lot of this. If you didn’t submit your DNA to a genealogy DB, you probably have family members that did so could see if they were 30% Italian or something.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        334 months ago

        That’s how they caught the golden state killer. I think it was his niece submitted a DNA sample and it popped up as related to the unknown sample they had.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        204 months ago

        I once read an expert on this and it seems they only need a very low amount of DNA samples (like 0.1% of the population) in the database to be able to narrow down any search to the sibling level.

        And traditional detective work can then figure out which sibling, if there are multiple.

        So yeah, the cat is out of the bag with this one.

      • m-p{3}
        link
        fedilink
        104 months ago

        It was the only reliable way to find who the biological parents of my father were, so yeah.

        • doctorskull
          link
          fedilink
          54 months ago

          It was the only way I could find out if my biological father was 30% Italian so I’m with you

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        Yes all these rocks and minerals need to be watched closely

        Lol

        I think you mean genealogy maybe?

    • subignition
      link
      fedilink
      414 months ago

      he didn’t have a criminal record according to the article, but if DNA records existed for his parents, you could still identify someone as offspring with pretty high confidence based on that IIRC

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      164 months ago

      Some organizations do mass DNA collection from kids to help identify them later in life.

      The school sends out a notification that the parents can sign up to have their kid swabbed so their kid’s tiny corpse can be identified. They don’t word it like that, but that is the idea.

      So he may have been swabbed as a kid and they referenced that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      114 months ago

      These days, you can opt in having your child’s dna stored after birth, in case they go missing or a natural disaster or something. We did it, but we opted to keep it physically in our own possession. It’s a little vial.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        334 months ago

        Because it’s potentially indicative of a national database of everyone’s DNA, rather than just the criminal database, which would be (and perhaps is) a privacy nightmare

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          74 months ago

          some large commercial dna testing companies share their databases with law enforcement, and additionally you really don’t need a close match to start identifying someone, 5th cousin type thing etc. heres an good video on the issue.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          64 months ago

          It’s not. Law enforcement can get a warrant on 23 & Me. Everyone turning over the DNA to random companies not required to comply with HIPAA is a terrible idea.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Some states have been collecting blood for almost 40 years and can’t even really say why. They just started doing it…

          https://www.ibj.com/articles/58596-storing-babies-blood-samples-pits-privacy-versus-science

          Like, they have an excuse for taking the samples that seems valid. Except I don’t think they’re actually testing them. And there’s no reason to keep after testing.

          Now, I dont think it’s for a secret DNA database, I think it’s normal red state bullshit.

          Just pointing out in some states the take and keep blood samples from every birth

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        174 months ago

        When you’re rooting for a conspiracy all new info cam be read as a red flag if you’re creative and paranoid enough.

      • Ghostalmedia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        164 months ago

        Privacy minded people don’t like the idea of easily accessible geology databases. This was a good use of that technology, but people worry about that technology be used for evil. Health insurance companies reflagging you, or much worse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      74 months ago

      They could easily get samples from family members to confirm. I’m sure one or both of his parents were in discussions with the FBI shortly after this all went down

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        Yeah this seems obvious to me. “Can we swab your cheek to confirm if this is your son?” What parent wouldn’t want to know if their kid was dead or alive?

      • Hello_there
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        I didn’t realize how sketchy that all was. The form mentions genetic testing for conditions, but that was just like 2 of the spots. They did like 6 to a tiny newborn. I’d recommend other parents to object.

        And I’m going to submit the destruction forms for my kids and myself.