Apple says it has approached the FBI to help unlock Texas church shooter's iPhone

On Wednesday, Apple told the media that it has approached the FBI to see if the G-men need help unlocking the iPhone belonging to Texas church shooter Delvin Kelley. According to an Apple spokesperson, the FBI did not respond to the tech titan after it offered help. With the demise of the shooter from a self-inflicted gunshot. Apple says that had the FBI contacted them quickly, it could have helped the law-enforcement agency gain access to the data on the phone.

Apple would have told the FBI to use the deceased's fingerprints to unlock the phone before the scanner automatically shut down. With the iPhone, if the unit hasn't been used in 48-hours, the fingerprint reader is disabled and the user's PIN code would need to be entered to open the handset. Considering that Kelley is dead, the latter method wouldn't appear to be an available option for the FBI to use to unlock the phone.

You might remember that last year Apple ignored a court order that compelled it to unlock the iPhone 5c that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. Apple said that the only way to get into the late terrorist's handset was to build a new version of the OS which was dubbed Govt. OS. The company feared that if it did give the FBI a way to crack the phone, no iPhone would ever be secure again. Eventually, the FBI did get into the phone and found no additional evidence that could have helped them find co-conspirators or additional targets that were being tracked by Farook for attack.

source: NYPost



1. Peacetoall unregistered

Gun control is must. Civillian must not be allowed to own gun. No civilize country should allow its citizen to carry guns. Its millitary and local law enforcement job to protect the citizens . By the way is it me who finds shooter doesn't have ears

3. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Not everyone lives in a city. I live in a rural area, and in my state, mostly farming areas, you can encounter anything from badgers, mountain lions, wolves, and bears. What do you suggest the people who live in those areas do, call the police? In my area, a police response would take anywhere from 20-45 minutes. The person would be dead many times over by the time they arrived.

41. Valinor

Posts: 185; Member since: Mar 26, 2013

Its not about taking away everything. Just better gunlaws like: You dont need crazy weapons when you encounter wolves bears etc. A permit for 1 nice hunting riffle is enough. You live in a city: no guns allowed. You want to shoot with guns, only on gunranges. Want to store your 'fun' weapons, only on gunranges. No heavy weapons at all allowed for civilians. Want to shoot heavy guns, only on gun ranges with a special permit. Just be smart about it. As a European I really dont get you Americans when it comes to your guns.


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

Wrong. Try to stop a charging animal with a bolt action rifle...if you miss or place the shot wrong, which is easy when the animal's silhouette is reduced, you are dead.

71. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I'm not talking crazy weapons, like full auto or even 3 round burst like the military use. These are semi-automatic, one trigger pull, one shot. And as System Lord stated, unless you've had one of the animals I've described bearing down on you, you would know that it isn't easy to place a kill or even a wound shot. And I've seen a badger take a 45 caliber bullet to the head and keep coming, so sometimes it's not as simple as you make it out to be. As I stated below, I live on 1200 acres of land. There is no worry that I will hit anyone on my land. And the closest gun range is about 90 miles away, so no, that's not going to happen. I'm not one of those people who wants to issue a gun to everyone at birth. I also think it was a huge mistake by the current administration to repeal the law barring the mentally I'll from owning firearms. But what you're suggesting is the other extreme of the argument. And generally speaking, in any situation, the best solution is found somewhere between the two extremes. For example, if we did as you suggested and ban all guns (except for the few instances you've generously offered), do you think criminals would have trouble getting them? They don't follow any laws, so why would they abide by this one? So now what? Hope that law enforcement shows up in time? As I stated earlier, I'm looking at 20-45 minutes before they would show up. Even if it were one minute, in most cases the law abiding citizen would be dead before police arrive. There is no way to stop illegal firearm sales to criminals, just like there was no way to stop illegal liquor sales during prohibition. As long as there are criminals who want them, there will be people selling them. And if a regular person can't find a gun, they'll find something else that will kill someone else just the same, be it vehicle, pipe bomb, knife, etc. Myself, I don't own anything on the order the Vegas shooter had. I have a few rifles, a shotgun, and several handguns. Most sit in the gun safe, in fact I haven't shot one for a couple years now. But every once in awhile I go out and do some target shooting, and I used to hunt pheasant and deer. And though we haven't had them for awhile, we also hunt varmints, like coyotes that kill livestock. Guns can actually have a useful purpose, but like anything some criminals or loons will give responsible people a bad name.

62. Babadook

Posts: 230; Member since: May 24, 2016

LOL You still don't need an automatic rifle. Then again, it's your gamble to live in that location. Don't like it, leave. But take that argument to the Supreme court. "I need a military grade machine gun because of badgers" lol.

66. ecmedic4

Posts: 520; Member since: May 02, 2013

This nation was created by the use of guns and it’s in our constitution. He’s not saying he needs a fully automatic machine gun. The AR-15 is not full auto unless you illegally make it that way. I live in a rural area and I own several guns, including an AR-15. A shotgun for hunting and a couple semi automatic pistols that I carry when I go places since I took the training to get a concealed carry permit. Guns are not going away in this country. Most gun owners never use them with malicious intent. Ppl that commit crimes and shootings is a very small percentage to the amount of law abiding gun owners. I believe it’s my God given right to protect myself and my family from someone intent on committing harm. Criminals don’t obey the law to begin with, that’s why they are called criminals. Does my life and families lives not matter because a small percent of ppl go crazy? Need better mental health laws and reporting. Gun free zones such as malls and movie theaters are stupid, since someone that’s crazy and intent on harming others is going to target those places. If you have a trained law abiding concealed carry person in there, they can stop the shooter before many ppl are killed. Police are a reactionary force, they can’t be everywhere. By time they get there, many ppl could be killed in a short amount of time. I fully intend on keeping my guns. I own and use them legally and will protect myself and family or others if needed, I hope it never comes to that, but I want to be prepared if it does. That mass shooter in Texas may have drove off and killed more ppl had it not been for the legally armed citizen shooting him causing him to know he couldn’t continue his rampage and so he committed suicide. That guy was brave and I praise his actions and so did the local police. Not being around Guns ur whole life like I have I can understand ur differences, but guns are and always have been a part of this nation since they were used to gain independence from the British and they aren’t going anywhere.

70. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I was born here on our family farm. So I should just sell 1200 acres of land (just shy of 2 square miles) because I might run into one of these animals. Doesn't it make more sense to have something to protect myself against them? And I don't have an automatic rifle, I have a semi automatic rifle. That means pull the trigger once, one shot is fired. The only difference is the recoil re-cocks it. But I can't fire 200 rounds a minute or anything. In fact I doubt I could fire even 60 rounds a minute. Military grade weapons have the options to fire fully automatic or 3 round busts (per my friend who was in Desert Strom). So no, I don't have military grade weapons and I don't believe civilians should have access to them either. But before you condemn someone, make sure you know the facts of the matter.

13. Nine1Sickness

Posts: 896; Member since: Jan 30, 2011

Next time someone pulls a gun on you, you can protect yourself with gun control.

28. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

They should make it a lot easier for US citizens to buy guns and let the problem solve itself. It's not so much gun control, but the entire mentality of we have the right to bear arms. No wonder USA has one of the most gun-related deaths in the world (outside war zones and poor countries).

36. antonmassoud

Posts: 89; Member since: Oct 22, 2016

Indeed, gun control is a must

48. Panzer

Posts: 283; Member since: May 13, 2016

If the Air Force properly reported his domestic abuse he would never have been able to get a gun legally. So gun control laws would have worked but our incompetent government can't follow the laws. WIth that said if a criminal wants a gun they will get one. And what you are not getting told is an armed citzen confronted him and stopped the massacre. This is not just an American issue. You can get guns illegally all over Europe even though owning them is basically impossible through legal channels. In the Paris attacks they had AK47's those are illegal. Bad people are going to find a way.

52. AxelFoley unregistered

1. He can buy one from a seller on facebook. No background checks required in the secondary market. 2. He can buy one from a gun show without a background check. Gun show loophole. Texas has multuple gun shows every weekend. 3. His mental illness was reported. But laws stopping the mentally ill from buying guns were repealed. 4. The weapons in the Paris attacks were smuggled in from a country where they were legal. You are only pointing out the how a lack of gun control in border nations or states affects those that have controls. 5. He had already left the church when the armed citizen confronted him. 46 people were shot in a 50 person capacity church. His in-laws church was his target. I'm not sure what you think was stopped. 6. The NRA annual convention doesn't allow guns (or firing pin has to be removed) Please inform them about how their controls are putting people at risk.

60. Panzer

Posts: 283; Member since: May 13, 2016

What was the point of your post. I specifically stated if a person wants a gun they will get one. The gun show loophole you speak of is over exaggerated. If you are dealer you must run a background on all sales even at gun shows. So it goes back to if you want a gun you get one. He was disqualified from legal gun ownership because of domestic violence incident that happened before his mental illness diagnosis. We have private airplanes where I live and some of those can fly across oceans and contintents. So border country issue is null. So he was going to stop killing people just because he left church. Just my stupid guess but I am willing to bet he was heading over to the in-laws. Private organization they can do whatever they want. I am not a member. So please tell what was the point of your post.

65. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

Just because people will break laws, doesn't mean we should have them. Highways have speed limits. The vast major will drive relatively close to them, but there is always an idiot who will do 50+ over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. We just need the right punishment to deter crime. No law has ever prevent a crime from happening. It just allows for punishment when they catch you. In many countries citizens are not allowed to have guns and the everyday police don't have them either. Only military and special police. In countries where they don't allow citizens to have guns, there is far less lose of life, even when there are still some crimes.

53. stferrari

Posts: 67; Member since: Dec 15, 2014

Understand that we have gun laws in place already that should/would have prevented this demon from purchasing any guns. The failures were the government's errors in not sharing his violent background and criminal record with each other. Law enforcement is a duty of every civilized human being on this planet. I have a carry permit, have taken the time to understand how to use my firearm and would never think of using it to harm anyone or anything unless it was the last and only resort. You CAN NOT legislate away evil and/or lawlessness. I respect your opinion and the right for you to express it but my I believe you are wrong.


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

Get the F outta here, you liberal shill. Taking guns won't do anything. Why all of a sudden is there all this gun violence? Do you really think we just got the ability to have guns? There's something else going on, and if you can't read between the lines I feel sorry for you. The last thing corrupt governments with corrupt Democratic and Republican parties spoiling the people need is an armed populace. These criminals just want to create a scenario where they have no internal opposition to their criminal ability for the people to resist whatever crap they plan to force on us.

64. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. What we need are laws that make them equally responsible to own them as they do with cars. They need to be licensed, need to have insurance, needs to be registered and a gun plate should be made with a renewal sticker just like a car. You need to be tested using the gun to show you can handle the gun responsibly just like you have to be tested with a car. There should also be some type of written test too, just like with a car.

73. ShadowHammer

Posts: 213; Member since: Mar 13, 2015

Hm, I wonder if you feel similarly in regard to 1st amendment freedoms, since they also cause deaths every year? Methinks you are less concerned with the numbers, and more bothered by seeing such tragedies in the media you consume. I also don't see how all of those vehicle requirements are reducing vehicular deaths, but perhaps you can enlighten us?

9. LanjaKodaka

Posts: 219; Member since: Sep 27, 2016

Apple gets a taste of its own medicine. First they show a middle finger and now they get it back.

12. Jimrod

Posts: 1605; Member since: Sep 22, 2014

So Apple refuse to unlock a phone at all requests from the FBI when an Islamic shooter is involved, but as soon as it's a "white American" they're actually offering their services. How very Liberal.

25. Zylam

Posts: 1823; Member since: Oct 20, 2010

Did either of you even read the article? Apple refused to unlock the 5C because it required an unsecured back door version of iOS because the 5C doesn't have touch ID. Where as for this phone they basically wanted the FBI to make sure they used touch ID before the time out protocol took over. Apple resisted the 5C to protect every iPhone users privacy but good job on showcasing the lack of intelligence on both your parts. If they had made Govt OS I'm sure you guys would be crying about how Apple bent over for the government. Get a life for real and stop insulting religions/people/companies you know nothing about.

27. Peacetoall unregistered

He thinks apple isn't in the bed with the government. How naive you really are.

37. worldpeace

Posts: 3135; Member since: Apr 15, 2016

IMO, the cause for that is a. San Bernardino case damage their image by proofing that their OS isn't as secure as they say, and they didn't even try to help FBI b. They include backdoor on newer iOS c. They want to fisght terorrism d. All of the above

58. AxelFoley unregistered

"You knew exactly what I meant by my general "ban guns" phrase, azzhole! " So, you're completely incapable of making an argument without engaging in hyperbole, false flags, and straw man arguments. We already knew that. "you're just an over-privileged self-entitled white-collar pencil-pushing libtard wuss with a cushy desk job" Somebody has to take an oath to protect 1st and 2nd amendment rights of keyboard warriors such as yourself who don't shoot at anybody in real life. Playing Call of Duty is as close as you'll come. But, they have also seen first-hand, during 16 years of combat, the actual results when idiots and nuts such as yourself have access they shouldn't have. My desk has never been by my side when exiting an aircraft at 1500 feet. Come to think about it, neither were you when you were sitting on your couch getting fat and watching O'Reilly.

72. KeyserSoze

Posts: 387; Member since: Oct 06, 2014

@AxelFoley. "So, you're completely incapable of making an argument without engaging in hyperbole, false flags, and straw man arguments. We already knew that." Nah, you're just mad cuz I rightfully called you out for being a dik with your intentional misdirects and petty non-points. "Somebody has to take an oath to protect 1st and 2nd amendment rights of keyboard warriors such as yourself who don't shoot at anybody in real life. Playing Call of Duty is as close as you'll come." Yeah right. Look here goofy "Army Officer" big shot wannabe, get off your high horse, stop congratulating yourself, and stop lying. You sat at a desk in an air conditioned office and never saw a day of real combat in your entire life. All you ever did was sign performance reviews and attend medal ceremonies for the grunts under you who did the real work. And don't give me that "I took an oath to protect" bulsht, I see you! You didn't join the Army with the intention to serve our constitutional rights or some other higher purpose you low-class pretentious douche! You took an oath to grab a paycheck and reap the government benefits is what you did, let's be real here. Your constant time wasting and postings all day on this website tells me you don't do jack as an Army Officer other than freeloading off of my tax dollars. By the way, your idiotic assumptions about me is wrong as usual. I had 10 years active military service and was stationed in S. Korea and Saudi Arabia so let's just say that unlike you, I might know a thing or two about a thing or two.

59. jrveley

Posts: 3; Member since: May 27, 2016

So apple refused to comply or offer any help to unlock the terrorist phones in the San Bernadino shooting. But they are stepping up to the plate and offering support to unlock this evil mans phone? Im not condoning either act as both are pure evil and hatred. But for apple to pick and choose. I will no longer buy any apple products nor will i sell them with my carrier.

61. tedkord

Posts: 17512; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Apple seems to be suffering from dissociative personality disorder.

63. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

Unlock it for what? The damage is already done and he's dead. Right? So whats the point in breaking into his phone? Am sure nothing is on it, just like there was nothing on the other persons phone that they refused to unlock.

69. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

I'll just stick to the topic relevant to the article instead of going off on a political tangent. "Apple would have told the FBI to use the deceased's fingerprints to unlock the phone before the scanner automatically shut down." - Alan F. Umm... isn't that speculation? Or, are there other sources citing this is the "help" Apple offered? That, and is it even really help? I mean, sure, sometimes the gov't seems pretty inept, but I'm fairly certain even the FBI would have figured out the connection between fingers and fingerprint sensors. Is there even any confirmation Delvin was using Touch ID to lock his phone? It does seem rather odd, the reverse in course by Apple between this event and the last. Lots of other speculation can come of that...

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless