Explosive-Laden California Home To Be Destroyed

wiredmikey writes with this snippet from an AP report: "Neighbors gasped when authorities showed them photos of the inside of the Southern California ranch-style home: Crates of grenades, mason jars of white, explosive powder and jugs of volatile chemicals that are normally the domain of suicide bombers. ... Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts. ... Some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous material from across the country and at least eight national laboratories are working on the preparations. They have analyzed wind patterns to ensure the smoke will not float over homes beyond the scores that will be evacuated. They have studied how fast the chemicals can become neutralized under heat expected to reach 1800 degrees and estimate that could happen within 30 minutes, which means most of the toxins will not even escape the burning home."

Comments

Owner?

[Voulnet]

Who is the house owner and why this amount of explosives?

Re:Owner?

[The MAZZTer]

It's all answered in TFA. You're welcome. :)

Re:Owner?

[spads]

I understand it's a rental property and the owner is not to be compensated, because it was declared a "public nuisance". DOH! Should've kept up with those annual inspections!

Re:Owner?

[phantomcircuit]

Prosecutors say Serbian-born George Jakubec quietly packed the home with the largest amount of homemade explosives ever found in one location in the U.S. and was running a virtual bomb-making factory in his suburban neighborhood. How the alleged bank robber obtained the chemicals and what he planned to do with them remain mysteries.

Someone has been watching too much Oceans 11

Re:Owner?

[MoonBuggy]

No it isn't. The closest thing I could find to an explanation was this Reuters article, and even that isn't much to go on. Both mention that the guy is "anxious to tell his side of the story", though. It'll be pretty interesting to see what he comes out with.

Also of interest is the fact that, according to Yahoo, "The home has been declared a public nuisance and therefore the county does not have to reimburse the owners, who were renting the house to Jakubec."

Re:Owner?

[stonewallred]

What is funny in TFA is the estranged wife's comment. "he became increasingly unstable since losing his job several years ago." I am from the South and around here we call what he did either batshit crazy or really pissed off.

Re:Owner?

[pz]

I understand it's a rental property and the owner is not to be compensated, because it was declared a "public nuisance". DOH! Should've kept up with those annual inspections!

We clearly don't have all of the information on that decision. Nevertheless, in reading the article, not compensating the owners struck me as just being mean. The property should be taken by eminent domain (to protect the public welfare), owners compensated fair market value, the structure buried under a heap of dirt to protect the neighbours and the contents extracted by robot, slowly, with the explosive bits being neutralized a small bit at a time, in a controlled way.

Burning the entire house, when the authorities do not know what nastiness might be hiding in unlabelled bottles, is not a controlled disposal. I, for one, do not believe that explosives will burn for 30 minutes, and that no toxicity will be released. The house may burn for 30 minutes, but the explosives are going to incinerate a whole lot faster, assuming none of them achieve detonation conditions. Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?

Re:Owner?

[Chyeld]

"Prosecutors say Serbian-born George Jakubec quietly packed the home with the largest amount of homemade explosives ever found in one location in the U.S. and was running a virtual bomb-making factory in his suburban neighborhood. How the alleged bank robber obtained the chemicals and what he planned to do with them remain mysteries."

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house.

Re:Owner?

[Chyeld]

"This is a truly unknown situation," said Neal Langerman, the top scientist at the safety consulting firm, Advanced Chemical Safety in San Diego. "They've got a very good inventory of what's in there. Do I anticipate something going wrong? No. But even in a controlled burn, things occasionally go wrong."

Re:Owner?

[MoonBuggy]

Are you serious? The tenant is responsible, the landlord did nothing wrong.

Re:Owner?

[LoRdTAW]

FTFA:
"Little is known about Jakubec, a 54-year-old unemployed software consultant. His estranged wife has told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he became increasingly unstable since losing his job several years ago. "

"unemployed software consultant" is the key phrase here.

Re:Owner?

[hawguy]

Why is the landlord at fault? When I owned a rental property, I only visited the property once every 6 months or so, more than enough time for someone to build a meth-lab or accumulate explosives.

Should I be required to invade the tenants privacy more often and visit the tenants monthly? Weekly? Daily?

Re:Owner?

[644bd346996]

Try reading the article again. The 30 minutes is not how long they expect it to take for the house to burn down. 30 minutes is how long they expect it to take before the fire is hot enough to break down toxins before they can escape the house in the plume of smoke.

As for the detonation issue, a lot of explosives will merely burn quickly unless they are very hot and are triggered by a shock wave (such as from a blasting cap) to detonate. It's quite reasonable for them to expect to be able to burn a lot of the explosives without detonation occurring, and even if a lot of the stuff does detonate, they've calculated that debris would only be sent flying 60-70 feet.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.

Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.

Re:Owner?

[sjames]

It's hard to say for sure since we don't know what his plans might have been, but given that he's been at this a while and hasn't actually done anything, I'm leaning towards batshit crazy.

Re:Owner?

[pz]

One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.

Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.

No, the government is destroying this house. The tenants only stored unusual materials that the government has deemed dangerous.

Re:Owner?

[mcheu]

Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

The tenants only stored unusual materials that the government has deemed dangerous.

LOL! The fact that you diluted the situation shows you see how weak your argument is.

The gov't is doing what it must to cure a dangerous situation. The tenant did the destruction. Frankly, I am tired of everyone wanting to be a gov't welfare case.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably oppose taxes too. Who the heck would pay for your (admittedly better) solution? Our bankrupt cities? Our bankrupt counties? The bankrupt state of California? Good luck with that.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

The property should be taken by eminent domain (to protect the public welfare), owners compensated fair market value

But if the cops had to pay for every drug den they seized, how would they ever be able to use the seized millions on ferraris for the chief??!?

That's why we have "public nuisance" laws.

none of these explosives are going to detonate

Personally, I'm not all that assured, but they presumably know what they're dealing with. There are a great number of explosives that require specific conditions to detonate that will burn poorly. For instance, C-4 requires heat and a shockwave.

Re:Owner?

[pspahn]

I guess we should hope he didn't install some kind of booby trap in the event something like this happened.

Re:Owner?

[cayenne8]

"Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house."

How so?

I mean...landlord's aren't mandated to check up on their tenants..Hell, I've rented places for years, and never had the landord come inside. I mean, if there are not complaints, when is a landlord obligated to come in an inspect things? I mean, as a tenant, I prefer not to have the landlord in, if I'm abiding by my lease, paying my rent, etc, the landlord has no business coming into my 'home'.

Re:Owner?

[subanark]

You get insurance. If they don't cover it then hopefully your contract puts the tenant liable for damage to the house. If the tenant can't pay, well, that's just how the system works, and one of the risks you take as a landlord. But, I'm sure there is some kind of insurance that covers "house must be destroyed due to being a safety hazard," due to the popularity of meth-labs. If it's convenient to check up on your tenant regularly, then you may be safe without that clause.

Re:Owner?

[interval1066]

Not only was the guy a bank robber, he was stockpiling explosives. Wow, talk about the road less traveled... Hey, he was probably just into fishing with grenades. And robbing banks, well, he was out of work...

Re:Owner?

[Gilmoure]

1. Make bombs

2. ?????

3. Profit!

Re:Owner?

[nigelo]

Should I be required to invade the tenants privacy more often and visit the tenants monthly? Weekly? Daily?

Body scanners/pat-downs at every entrance. Every time a door opens, in or out.

It's the only way to be safe.

Re:Owner?

[interval1066]

"Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you."

Yeah, I don't think the government normally reimburses landlords whose properties are destroyed by meth lab fires. Still, rental laws are quote strongly on the side of the renters. There's not a lot the owner can do to control the use of his properties for illegal reasons. Landlords are certainly NOT allowed to spy on their tenants or make more than what I'm sure are a specified number of surprise visits.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

Who entered the contract with the tenant? That is the person that bears the responsibility for the tenant's action.s

Re:Owner?

[dgatwood]

For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property.

Are you saying that it isn't possible to keep explosive materials safely? Then I guess somebody better tell the military, and all the cities with military bases should burn them down because they're a public nuisance. See how absurd that sounds? This guy had been building up an explosives cache for years and had not blown himself up. Therefore, one can only conclude that he was taking sufficient safety measures to prevent premature detonation. This, in turn, means that it should have been possible to destroy the explosives without endangering the property. Therefore, the tenant didn't destroy the property.

What we actually have here is a situation in which the tenant created something that the government isn't willing to spend the time and money to dispose of safely, so instead of doing it the right way, they're just burning down the house. That's a choice by the government, not an imperative. The home is no more a public nuisance than any other home with any smaller amount of explosives or weapons in it; the risk to the person removing the explosives is identical whether it's enough to kill that person or enough to blow the side off the house. More importantly, if the house had enough explosives in it to pose a significant risk of harm to the nearby houses, they would not be burning down the house because they would run too much risk of causing an explosion and taking out the neighborhood. Therefore, one can only conclude that the decision to burn down the house is merely one of expediency. With that in mind, the city should be required to allow the homeowner sufficient time to hire a cleanup crew to dispose of the explosives in lieu of ordering the structure burned to the ground. If they have not done so, one could legitimately argue that the onus is on the city to pay for the cost of reconstruction.

I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.

So instead, you as a home owner's insurance payer will compensate the landlord. Really, you're likely to pay a larger chunk of the cost by not having the government cover it unless you don't own property....

Re:Owner?

[Voulnet]

Poor guy was just preparing for some massive debugging.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

Are you saying that it isn't possible to keep explosive materials safely?

Oh please. Some nutjob set up a bomb making factory and you are acting like it is a well-regulated industrial job.

You'd be the first to sue the gov't if it accidentally blew up before they demolished it.

 

Re:Owner?

[lymond01]

I can imagine the owner's excuse as to why they didn't evict the person: "Your honor, would you threaten a man with eviction if he was sitting on a box of live grenades?"

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

And, of course, there is no way he would have booby rapped someone snooping for explosives.

Re:Owner?

[MacGyver2210]

The whole "eight national laboratories are helping" bit put my fears to rest a little.

Re:Owner?

[MoonBuggy]

The tenant did the destruction.

That's probably not how the insurance company sees it. There's every likelihood that the landlord was covered against 'damage by tenant', but not 'seizure by government'.

Frankly, I am tired of everyone wanting to be a gov't welfare case.

In general: the system's broken, it'd be naive to expect people not to take advantage. That said, I really don't think that's applicable here - market value reimbursement for seized property is hardly welfare.

Re:Owner?

[noidentity]

It's all in the contract between the tenant and landlord. This situation is an example of why a landlord might want to add a clause that allows him a yearly inspection. The point is that if the tenant is doing crazy shit like this, it impacts the landlord negatively, therefore he has good economic reason to put such a clause in.

I certainly would't want my landlord coming in my home unannounced whenever he feels like it, which is one reason I read the contract carefully. If it had a clause for a yearly or perhaps twice-yearly quick look around, I might not mind, especially if I were living in a multi-unit rental space, meaning that he would ensure none of my neigbhors was batshit crazy, benefiting me.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

The gov't protecting you against damages from your customers is welfare.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to rob banks and use that money to build explosives...

Re:Owner?

[immaterial]

or make more than what I'm sure are a specified number of surprise visits.

Zero.

Re:Owner?

[immaterial]

Did you miss the part of TFA where the whole thing got found out after some stray materials in the back yard blew up and seriously injured his gardener? This guy was sure taking great care with his explosives...

Re:Owner?

[sjames]

That's the crazy part, all those explosives and no kaboom!

Re:Owner?

[kevinNCSU]

Tell you what, as a tax-paying citizen I'll make the deal that if he pays for the explosive experts from all over the country, the wind pattern analysis, the chemical testing, the explosive removal and detonation, controlled burn and all the fire department staff and equipment costs associated with cleaning up his absentee landlord mess, then we'll reimburse him for the house. What's that? He'd rather lose his house then pay seven figures to clean up the mess that is his property? That's what I thought.

Re:Owner?

[pz]

Try reading the article again. The 30 minutes is not how long they expect it to take for the house to burn down. 30 minutes is how long they expect it to take before the fire is hot enough to break down toxins before they can escape the house in the plume of smoke.

As for the detonation issue, a lot of explosives will merely burn quickly unless they are very hot and are triggered by a shock wave (such as from a blasting cap) to detonate. It's quite reasonable for them to expect to be able to burn a lot of the explosives without detonation occurring, and even if a lot of the stuff does detonate, they've calculated that debris would only be sent flying 60-70 feet.

Assuming things like (1) an accurate and complete inventory of the materials in the house has been made (highly doubtful given that the article claims a robot cannot navigate the piles of junk), (2) no booby traps are going to be accidentally triggered by the fire, (3) no explosive devices are going to be accidentally triggered by the fire -- not the chemicals, but a mechanical triggering due to heat deformation of the triggering mechanism, (4) no unanticipated chemical reactions are going to take place that might release *really* nasty stuff into the atmosphere, (5) the models are correct, etc.

This guy was sufficiently unhinged that he decided to store materiel at home and make a mini bomb factory. With that as a starting point, burning the house would not seem the prudent choice.

Re:Owner?

[fishbowl]

Where is the transition between "virtual bomb-making factory" and "bomb-making factory?"

Re:Owner?

[dgatwood]

On the contrary. In my mind, that suggests it's more likely that he had the good sense to mix the chemicals outside and only bring them inside after adding appropriate stabilizers, plastics, etc.

Re:Owner?

[Culture20]

Then the landlord can sue the tenant. Simple solution.

A gunman is holding a little girl, using her as a living shield.
"I'll kill her,man! I'll really do it!"

ED-209 kills the girl to end the hostage situation, and impress the need for the criminal to surrender. OPC lawyers offer to help the distraught father sue the newly arrested criminal, but disavow any responsibility on the part of OPC or the police.

Re:Owner?

[Posting=!Working]

40 experts and 8 national labs are working on this, and they have access to the house and its contents, I don't see how reading one article about it would be enough information to make the determination that burning the house down is more dangerous. We don't know how dangerous removing the explosives would be, it could be the case that statistically, the sheer number of removals and detonations has a 85% chance of killing 2 or more bomb disposal guys. There just isn't enough information given in the article, and the experts and national labs would be the ones getting the blame if it goes badly, so I'd defer to their opinion on this one.

Re:Owner?

[blair1q]

Which makes me think that there's a lot of weird stuff, but not a lot of explosives, in a world where something like the Murrah Federal Building bomb is a lot of explosives.

I also expect that the perp has told them what's in the house by now, so the unknown nature of this is somewhat overstated.

Regardless, homemade explosives are not "safe" like commercial explosives are, and just stepping on goop in the backyard got one guy almost killed, so wandering around pulling things apart like it's an episode of Hoarders is not a good idea.

Re:Owner?

[blair1q]

The insurance company is unlikely to cover this sort of thing.

Re:Owner?

[nedlohs]

The owner should just count his lucky stars that they don't charge him for the costs involved in burning it down and cleaning it up.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's working as it should.

The city is exercising its duty of care. It MUST destroy the house; the other options are risk the lives of the residents, or risk the lives of the authorities.

If the owners suffer loss, it's not from the city. It's from the tenant. They are welcome to sue him for reimbursement.

Of course, that's won't work, because he probably has no money (or won't after the fed confiscates it all). Nevertheless, the person to recover the money from is the person who caused you the harm, not anyone who has enough money. The opposite thinking is why there are so many problems with lawsuits today.

As a landlord myself (with a mortgage), I feel very sorry for the owners. Nevertheless, I don't think that anyone here is being unfair, except the tenant.

Re:Owner?

[Pretzalzz]

I understand it's a rental property and the owner is not to be compensated, because it was declared a "public nuisance". DOH! Should've kept up with those annual inspections!

We clearly don't have all of the information on that decision. Nevertheless, in reading the article, not compensating the owners struck me as just being mean.

No, billing the owners for the cost of burning it down would be mean...

Re:Owner?

[GaryOlson]

Sure, he took care not to hurt himself. But it appears he did not care what damage he caused to other people -- that is, the gardener. The tenant did destroy the property; or did you not read the part about the back yard exploding?

...sufficient time to hire a cleanup crew to dispose of the explosives

Really? Have you priced a hazardous materials cleanup crew lately? Much cheaper just to let the government burn the house down and sell the land.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sounds incredibly unwise. California, the State that invented the hiring of the "best and brightest" through modern affirmative action, is famous for controlled burns that rapidly become uncontrollable.

The guy carried all the stuff in to the house. The article mentions no booby traps. If the explosive people were at least as competent as the ones in the U.S. Army they could manualy clean the place out.

Sound like a bunch of city publicity hounds looking for the most press coverage they can get.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

If you think those two are analogous, you have real problems.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

You had everything good until "the contents extracted by robot...". This is simply not possible. Compression alone from burying such devices could cause them to explode. A fire storm (often seen in California) / spreading house fire could heat up some explosives beneath the ground enough to cause a chain reaction. The risk of any one of a number of accidents setting off remaining explosives is too great a liability to the city.

And this kind of thing is often done to dangerous meth labs that are over-packed with unknown amounts of chemicals. They are burned to the ground.

It has to be done. Why? Because the city risks a lawsuit for incomplete demolition leading to the death or injury of a person or property. The best the nearby citizens can do is sue the person who made the stockpile for damages to their house. Either that or have insurance that covers eventualities such as these.

Re:Owner?

[tautog]

Then the landlord can sue the tenant. Simple solution.

I sincerely hope that your account has been hacked. At least then you'd have an excuse for making such incredibly stupid statements.

Re:Owner?

[tautog]

Correct (in my state). The tenant effectively leases the rights of ownership while occupying the property.

Re:Owner?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Who is the house owner and why this amount of explosives?

One thing is for sure, he's definitely not muslim.
Else the country would be at "red" threat level and the 24-hour news channels would have live coverage on site since the minute anybody found out about it and the politicians like Gingrich and Giuliani would be preening on camera.

Re:Owner?

[SethJohnson]

You know, I have this computer at work that has all these "Visual Studio" things installed. I frequently wonder what it's like for people who don't have the "Visual Studio." You know, those who just have a studio to work in. Is the screen dark? Is it braille?

Maybe the journalist meant the guy had a "Visual Bomb-Making Studio" in his house.

Seth

Re:Owner?

[Lumpy]

Some things dont add up.

How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades? It's not like the sporting goods stores carry them, and from what I know about firearm laws, there is NO way in hell they were purchased legally. so Who the hell is selling grenades?

Honesty, if the things were in the wild, we would be seeing a lot more dead cops when they attack drug houses and pimps.

Re:Owner?

[nschubach]

It was stated that he had forms to make the grenades.

Re:Owner?

[gmhowell]

I wonder what his slashdot uid is. 7654 maybe?

Re:Owner?

[TheGratefulNet]

they come from new jersey.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.'

  -Local Fire Chief

Re:Owner?

[TheGratefulNet]

its called RTE (right to enter) and in calif (what I'm familiar with, just as a renter) is that there are only a few reasons the landlord can enter.

NONE of which are 'inspections'. there is zero allowance for that (even though many LLs seem to think its their right to do a so-called 'annual inspection' or walk thru.)

note, that the LL must schedule maint with you unless its a dire emergency (pipes running water burst, etc). the only exception is for fire inspections and I found out you can NEVER turn a fireman or inspector away; they have FULL RTE privs whether you realize it or not. this also means that the LL can schedule 'fire safety inspections' and if they get the city to sign off on it, you cannot refuse them to enter! little known regulation..

if any landlord tries to write a contract that has 'right to inspect' DENY THEM THIS and point out the actual law. easily searched online in a few minutes, actually.

if they enter for non-emergency reasons you can have them arrested for trespassing.

disc: ianal

Re:Owner?

[he-sk]

The home is no more a public nuisance than any other home with any smaller amount of explosives or weapons in it; the risk to the person removing the explosives is identical whether it's enough to kill that person or enough to blow the side off the house. More importantly, if the house had enough explosives in it to pose a significant risk of harm to the nearby houses, they would not be burning down the house because they would run too much risk of causing an explosion and taking out the neighborhood.

I'd imagine that the authorities fear that a small explosion will release toxic material in the neighborhood. That would negate both of your arguments. First, the more explosives there are in the house, the more toxic material could be released. Second, a controlled burn without an explosion would destroy all the toxic material without releasing it. At least, that's what the experts mentioned in TFA are hoping for.

Re:Owner?

[UnknownSoldier]

2. Sell the bombs

FTFY ;-)

Re:Owner?

[crunchygranola]

...Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?

Actually some of them are almost certain to detonate - but this is not necessarily a problem. They know the maximum amount of explosive material that may be found in one location in the house (apparently about a grenade's worth in any one mass) and the fire fighters will be 300 feet away with the whole area evacuated. Explosive's have finite power. When (not if) some of it goes "kaboom" during the burn, big deal.

Re:Owner?

[AlizarinCrimson]

no the only way to be safe is to nuke the site from orbit ;p

Re:Owner?

[interkin3tic]

Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?

I did find it interesting that they claimed there was too much clutter presenting obstacles for remote controlled robots, then later it was stated they had such a detailed inventory of the house that they were confident it would burn in 30 minutes and not level the neighborhood. Seems like if the house is too cluttered to remove the dangerous stuff, you don't really know what's in it to where you can assure people it's not going to be much bigger than you estimate.

Some expert was saying this will be a new chapter in texbooks, breaking new ground in the field of blowing up houses with explosives. Anyone else think this is "Well, it will be more exciting and faster just to blow it up, lets just assume it's not going to hurt anything."

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

Thanks for adding me to your freaks list.

How is this stupid? The landlord entered a contract with the tenant. The tenant created a situation where the hose has to be demolished. The same thing happens when a meth lab springs up in an unoccupied house. In some cases the house has to be destroyed because it is unfit to live in. The government does not reimburse the owner.

How is that different?

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it seems like an unreliable method. So they burn down the house, then send a cleanup crew to start picking through the debris, and wham, somebody gets blown up by an explosive that for some weird reason didn't get destroyed by the fire. Not to mention the toxic chemicals. It just seems like a poor idea to me, given that there are so many unknowns.

Re:Owner?

[Restil]

Actually, you CAN buy them, but you'd need to go through a background check, extensive paperwork, get approval from local law enforcement, pay a special registration tax on each one... and of course, you'd need a good reason for needing one in the first place, which it's highly unlikely any civilian will have. But if you can clear those roadblocks, have at!

-Restil

Re:Owner?

[Restil]

Actually, insurance will likely cover it. The article only says that the government isn't going to be doing any compensating.

-Restil

Re:Owner?

[dgatwood]

True, but they should have given the owner the option anyway.

Re:Owner?

[bughunter]

Who is the house owner

From the article, it sounds like they found Crazy Harry's House.

and why this amount of explosives?

Comedy.

Re:Owner?

[PPH]

How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades?

I blame Costco. You just can't buy small quantities of essentials there.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope he didn't wire several houses together.

Re:Owner?

[c6gunner]

Apparently a bunch of us have real problems. Care to explain where the flaw in his analogy lies?

Re:Owner?

[Locke2005]

Don't forget the cavity searches for the tenant's girlfriend(s)!

Re:Owner?

[c6gunner]

if any landlord tries to write a contract that has 'right to inspect' DENY THEM THIS and point out the actual law

Which will quickly be followed by them pointing out the actual door.

Re:Owner?

[c6gunner]

They're evacuating the neighbourhood. Unless his booby trap involves thermonuclear weapons, I don't think it will be an issue.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa. You've thought about this.

.

Re:Owner?

[afidel]

Nope, at the federal level you just need a Type-10 FFL ($3000/3 years) and have to pay for your Special Occupational Tax Stamp at $500/year and you can avoid the making tax for DD's. Also there is no background check beyond the normal NICS gun ownership check and it requires no justification. Local and state laws may further restrict you but that's a per jurisdiction situation so way to complex to get into.

Re:Owner?

[pspahn]

Rigged explosives to the natural gas main?

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

OK, I'll bite.

In the real scenario, the house is being destroyed to reduce the risk of people getting killed. There is a fair chance that a bomb disposal person could trip a booby trap or something else could happen to prematurely set off an explosive.

In the hypothetical incident the police are outright killing the girl not minimizing the reduction in life. As for me, I don't see how these two are analogous. I also don't hold property up to the same value as human life.

Re:Owner?

[RevWaldo]

No, no, you rent the bombs, that you get a steady income with less overhead.

.

Re:Owner?

[MyLongNickName]

I will, however, give another maybe closer scenario. a gunman has ten people he is holding hostage. After exploring negotiation, it becomes apparent that the gunman is getting more and more belligerent and could start executing his hostages at any time.

Is this certain? No. But the police decide it is best to go in. In the ensuing chaos, one hostage gets shot by the police and dies but all the others are saved.

Who is responsible for the death?

Frankly, I see a lot more grey area in this one.

Re:Owner?

[shentino]

Considering what was involved I'm surprised the house didn't get forfeited outright due to connection with a felonious criminal enterprise.

Also, the county isn't liable because the county didn't put the explosives in the house to begin with. That responsibility falls upon the tenant who unlawfully used it for explosives production.

After everything is said and done criminal wise, the tenant would be negligent for foreseeably provoking the county into destroying the house. Not that the landlord would ever collect, but that constitutes waste, and the owners can sue the tenants for causing the county to nuke it.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans call this "foreign policy".

Re:Owner?

[afidel]

It's not legal in most jurisdictions to "check up on your tenant regularly". In fact in my state it requires 24 hour notice and "A landlord cannot harass the tenant by repeatedly coming into his/her apartment." Because of this most landlords tread lightly and only access the property for repairs, neighbor complaints, and between tenants.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, they're not.

The girl is easier to replace than the house.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to write landlord's, why not also write tenant's?

Re:Owner?

[Chaos Incarnate]

No damage was done by the tenant's purchases. The government lighting the place on fire is where the damage will come from.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had worked with a national laboratory, you would not feel that way.

I had to post anonymously on this one; but from past experience, I can say that one of the most common statements I've heard from "scientists" at national laboratories is, "No one would have expected that!".

"It's inexplicable" is a close second.

Our national labs are *great* at systematic research. They are *terrible* at examining and explaining new phenomenon. Give them 10 years, and they will come back with the correct answer. Between now and then? Not much, at least in the way of useful information.

Re:Owner?

[c6gunner]

You scenario isn't analogous because you have the authorities going after the belligerent and accidentally shooting a hostage, whereas, in the actual situation, they are intentionally destroying both the "belligerent" and the "hostage". There's nothing accidental about it.

Moreover, even in your scenario, the Police would get sued for shooting the hostage, and the family of the victim would likely receive a payout. Even in Afghanistan we pay the locals when we kill one of them by accident.

As for these bits:

In the real scenario, the house is being destroyed to reduce the risk of people getting killed. There is a fair chance that a bomb disposal person could trip a booby trap or something else could happen to prematurely set off an explosive.

It's irrelevant. The question at hand isn't the motives of the police - the question is how their actions impact the "hostage". In his scenario the hostage is a person, in the real-life situation it's a house. His example is perfectly analogous, you're just fixating on irrelevant details rather than the overall scenario.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. I mod bombed you with both accounts the past two days. I see you are now down to "good" karma. Fuck off loser.

Re:Owner?

[c6gunner]

Wouldn't do much. Big explosions happen from leaking lines - the gas needs time to accumulate in the building. He'd need to rig a device to first rupture the line, wait a while, and then detonate. Even then, the explosion would be contained by the blast-wall they're setting up. And I'm fairly sure that they'll shut off the gas before lighting the fuse. I'd be surprised if there was still gas going through the lines even now.

Re:Owner?

[DurendalMac]

Because it's doubtful that the tenant will be able to pay anywhere close to the cost of the property and house after all is said and done.

Re:Owner?

[Eskarel]

You are responsible for what is done on and with your property, end of story. It's been that way for years. Your tenants run a crack den in your house, the government can seize it, even if you didn't know about it, under proceeds of crime laws, you get no reimbursement. It's designed to motivate landlords to both screen their tenants and actually keep an eye on the place.

It sucks if you're a legitimate owner who hasn't done anything wrong, but a lot of the people who rent to crack dealers are well aware of who they are renting to and won't do anything about it unless there's a risk to themselves.

Re:Owner?

[sumdumass]

I would hazzard to guess that the transition is somewhere hidden in between having explosives sitting around that could be used to make bombs and making bombs from explosives sitting around.

The capability of one does not mean that one has happened. Most likely, they just can't prove that bombs were actually made yet.

Re:Owner?

[walshy007]

The tenant should pay that, not the landlord, and the landlord should then get reimbursed for the house.

absentee landlord mess

You know, it's actually illegal for landlords to pry too much into the renters lives. They essentially lease the property rights away so renters can actually have privacy to what they are doing.

Re:Owner?

[frank_adrian314159]

Are you saying that it isn't possible to keep explosive materials safely?

No. But look at the Federal, State, and local rules involved. Some subset of those are probably necessary for safe storage. And I'm pretty sure that NONE of them were being followed here. So most of your argument is bullshit.

I've read the chemistry blogs. Some of the stuff that they've found in this house should never be made in more than gram batches before it's added to stabilizers and plasticizers. They've found pounds of raw compounds that go "Really BIG boom (TM)" when just jostled a bit harshly. Excuse me for not crying tears when they decide that, rather than having some poor schlub try to carry this out, they get rid of it in a relatively safe manner.

What we actually have here is a situation in which the tenant created something that the government isn't willing to spend the time and money to dispose of safely, so instead of doing it the right way, they're just burning down the house. That's a choice by the government, not an imperative.

What we have here is some asshat internet Libertarian deciding that "The government is always wrong (TM)". In reality, they're spending enough to build pretty damn thick buffer walls around the place before they burn it. That doesn't come cheaply. If they could have simply carried the crap out and disposed of it in an incinerator, it would have cost a lot less - in fact, the buffer wall is going to cost more than the house is worth. But, since you're so concerned, how about they give you $10/hour and you carry the stuff out? OK?

Re:Owner?

[Cimexus]

Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!!

Re:Owner?

[FatdogHaiku]

How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades?

Well, here goes another Craigslist category shot down in flames...

Re:Owner?

[BKX]

No, what's funny in TFA is that the cops found molds of human feces. WTF?

Re:Owner?

[lwsimon]

You can get around the law enforcement approval by incorporating as an LLC or establishing a trust.

While the form asks for a reason, I've never heard of one being rejected because of it. In fact, I've seen a Form 4 returned with the stated reason being "Zombies", approved. It was a joke, but they approved it.

More difficult will be finding a manufacturer willing to sell grenades to you. Plus the $200 tax on each one.

Re:Owner?

[Tuidjy]

You guys are making this sound a lot easier than it is.

Yes, it is theoretically possible to carefully remove the explosives with a specialized crew or even a robot. But even leaving their costs aside, it will take a long time, and there will be a risk of something going wrong. It would be irresponsible not to evacuate the neighbors while the disposal of the explosives is going on. So on one hand, you hope a controlled burn, with one day of evacuation and closing the highways. On the other hand, you either shut down the whole neighborhood (and the I-15 - hah!) for months, or work without evacuation, and open yourself to unthinkable damages if the non-so unlikely happens. The main cost is not the disposal itself, it's the cost of securing the area.

No one, not the owner, not the government, can afford the second option. Even the first option will cost dozens of millions. The owner will be covered by his insurgence, and his losses will not cover a fraction of one percent of the cost to the taxpayer. For once, the government is going its best in a totally fucked up situation.

Re:Owner?

[n6kuy]

True. But renting isn't without risk. And that's why, in case your tenant trashes your property, you buy insurance.

Re:Owner?

[644bd346996]

It seems to me that the number one priority is probably to minimize the risk to actual people, and number two is to get rid of the explosives. Reducing collateral damage is a distant third. Given that, they've decided that the nearest people to the "controlled burn" will be about 5 times further away than their worst-case estimate for how far shrapnel would fly if the stuff starts detonating. It seems, if you presume a reasonable level of competence on the part of the people planning this operation (and with scientists from several national laboratories involved, this assumption is a safe one), that their plan will do a very good job of fulfilling their first two goals.

If they tried to keep people this far away while dismantling the house by robot, the whole process would probably take weeks. The manpower needed to operate and support the robots and keep the area safe, plus the cost of housing the displaced neighbors for an extended period of time probably far outweighs the potential damage the controlled burn could do, particularly given the measures they're taking to protect the adjacent houses.

Re:Owner?

[Binary Boy]

This guy had been building up an explosives cache for years and had not blown himself up. Therefore, one can only conclude that he was taking sufficient safety measures to prevent premature detonation. This, in turn, means that it should have been possible to destroy the explosives without endangering the property. Therefore, the tenant didn't destroy the property.

You moron. The guys gardner nearly got killed because of an explosive going off.

Re:Owner?

[Lord Ender]

An explodable house is a liability. Its market value is negative.

If your renter renders your property valueless, you should sue him and get the settlement from that liability insurance you required he purchase (right?).

Re:Owner?

[Lemmy Caution]

The tenant has created a situation which makes the destruction of the house the only responsible course of action, after considerable study of the situation. RTFA, the government is not being reckless in this situation at all.

The landlord probably will recoup insurance, and you will end up paying for it in increased premiums, instead of increased taxes, so don't worry, it's all good!

Re:Owner?

[niteice]

He can even sell renter's insurance! Brilliant!

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>One thing is for sure, he's definitely not muslim.

Two more suicide bombers again, killing 50. It's so common in the Middle East that these events just quickly slip off the news. It definitely would be big news in the US though if Muslims were planning one here... but we're doing away with the terrorism alert system.
Oh, Obama also tends to preen on camera no doubt.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuking it from orbit would be the only way to be safe.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

When terrorists killed dozens in Columbia, or when the MRTA pulled off a massive neighborhood car bombing that burned down a neighborhood, or when the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army, allegedly Christian) did a major attack, I didn't see the news headlines either. Sadly, those fall under the realm of 'commonplace,' but I normally do't see people try blaming religion over these, even though it can be from openly Christian-preaching groups.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't buy them, he MADE them.

Re:Owner?

[houghi]

I thought the same thing. Probably some redneck who used some lame excuse. If it were somebody called Ali who lived here longer and used the same excuse, then he would be in Gitmo already. Happens all the time

Re:Owner?

[urdak]

The Talmud (basically, the Jewish law codex) contains an interesting discussion about this. Consider one man dropping a pot from the top floor of a building, and before the pot hits the ground, a man walking in the street hit it with a stick and breaks it. Now, who is responsible for the vase breaking? The man on the ground actually broke it, but even if he didn't, it would have broken a second later when it hit the ground.
Similarly, when somebody fills a house with so many explosives they can no longer be gently disarmed, he already caused it to be destroyed. The fact it has not yet been destroyed, and the actual destruction will be caused a bit later (perhaps by a policeman lighting a match) doesn't change the fact that it was the tenant who started the inevitable destruction, not the police.

Re:Owner?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fine with that. The homeowner should also compensate all of the other residents in the area for transportation, nice hotel rooms and meal costs during the cleanup process. Think he'll go for it or tie things up in court for years while the bomb of a house sits there endangering all of those in the area?

Re:Owner?

[Thing 1]

It's designed to motivate landlords to both screen their tenants and actually keep an eye on the place.

And, like RICO, it has been abused and twisted by the authorities to deprive legitimate owners of their property.

Re:Owner?

[tehcyder]

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to rob banks and use that money to build explosives...

Give a man some grenades to go fishing with, and he'll eat for a year..

Re:Owner?

[rtb61]

It is called insurance. When you home is robbed the insurance company pays. In this case the tenant has damaged the home via impregnating it with explosive residues, now requiring a government managed clean up. The insurance company would be liable for the cost of rebuilding the home and the clean up. No insurance and the owner is screwed. No different to a stolen car, your insurance pays for the damage to your car not the police after an aggressive police chase.

Now if the insurance company doesn't want to pay then likely the state will up the pressure and threaten them with the full cost of the disposal action and other penalties. Of course no insurance then the owners only recourse is against the tenant no different to a car theft.

Re:Owner?

[tehcyder]

No, no, you rent the bombs, that you get a steady income with less overhead. .

I'd imagine that the market for renting bombs was quite small. You tend to use them for a specific purpose (blowing stuff up) rather than perhaps just threatening to use it as with a firearm.

Re:Owner?

[Nick Number]

No, what's funny in TFA is that the cops found molds of human feces. WTF?

The guy was thinking ahead. It's concrete evidence that he's not batshit crazy.

Re:Owner?

[ArsenneLupin]

woosh!

Re:Owner?

[Taibhsear]

No, the government is destroying this house for the safety of the populace. The tenants stupidly stored unusual materials that science has deemed dangerous.

FTFY

Re:Owner?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The tenant did the destruction

The tenant is no longer there. Is the house still standing? Yes or no?

Re:Owner?

[Eskarel]

Ownership comes with responsibility. If you own a crack den, you're responsible for that, if you own a gigantic pile of explosives again, you're responsible for that.

Re:Owner?

[CAIMLAS]

Surely you kid. Have you been paying attention to the news lately? See many mentions of Muslims in the past couple years? No?

That's because if a Muslim does something, it's now considered verboten to mention it (ever since the Ft. Worth shootings performed by a Muslim). There's a news blackout on it. Yet, there have been a number of Jewish temples which have been attacked by Muslims (in the US) since that time (for starters).

Re:Owner?

[warrior_s]

Please read the complete article. A little comforting fact is that LLs will be compensated through their insurance.

Re:Owner?

[ChrisMaple]

As I understand it, in the US if Joe shoots Steve in a manner than will cause Steve to bleed to dead in 5 minutes, then Harry chops off Steve's head before Steve has died, it's Harry that's guilty of murder.

Re:Owner?

[minchazo]

A ruptured gas main doesn't explode. It *does* however, make your pitiful backyard bonfires envious of its 150-foot length.

Re:Owner?

[beniform]

What of the possibility that some explosives stay live after the burn?

Re:Owner?

[ChrisMaple]

Failing to check occasionally is negligence, and actually is to the tennant's disadvantage. As a tennant my whole adult life (the last 40 years) I am slightly worse off financially (by about $1000) due to landlords failing to inspect for damage (caused by natural degradation of the dwelling) that ended up getting worse due to failure to repair in a timely manner. (Hey, I'm a tennant. What do I know about rotting in the eaves?) A scheduled inspection every 2 months or so, properly marketed as a benefit to the renter, is a win-win.

Re:Owner?

[afidel]

I'm sorry that you see it as negligence but the law in most states disagrees with you.

Re:Owner?

[Culture20]

The girl is easier to replace than the house.

A girl is easy to replace. The girl is impossible to replace.

Re:Owner?

[Thing 1]

The landlord did not own the crack den; did not own the explosives. In both cases, these were moved in by the tenant. So you think landlords should have 24x7 cameras on the insides of their rental properties at all times as well?

Re:Owner?

[Eskarel]

No, but generally the kind of people who own the kind of houses that get turned into crack dens have a pretty good idea what they're doing, and this guy was moving in explosives over the course of years.

I'm not saying there aren't edge cases where an owner is honestly caught out, but seriously.

Re:Owner?

[Thing 1]

"But seriously?" But seriously, I would argue that they're all edge cases; the owner is not allowed on the property without giving 24 hour notice in most cases. But hey, generalize about landlords that you think the government should deprive of resources, and you're cool.

why?

[hjf]

Why? I mean, isn't there some redneck lawyer that can stop them from doing this, under the second ammendment?

IANAL. IANAA (I am not an american) either.

BTW, this is a JOKE.

Re:why?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Recently, SCOTUS decided that that means the right to bear arms of the type commonly used for personal defense. (They had to decide something, because two hundred years ago people could buy muskets, and now they can buy howitzers. So they had to decide what kind of arms it referred to.)

So basically, we can have handguns. (Though they can still be regulated in some ways. Ask a lawyer. Or a cop.)

But we don't usually use houses full of explosives for self-defense.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not seeing the funny part.

Re:why?

[nschubach]

One side of me says: "What if you had a bunker under your house that you could escape to if some army was attacking you. Then you could blow up your house to defend your person as a last ditch effort."

But that's really reaching.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

But we don't usually use houses full of explosives for self-defense.

Especially after we've been arrested for bank robbery.

Re:why?

[tabrisnet]

Don't ask a cop. Then again, don't ask a lawyer either. Both will give you overly conservative anwers.

Very often a cop is not required to know whether certain 2A activities are legal, and will arrest you anyway. Sure, the charges might not stick... But this IS California that the article is about.

And yes, I live in NorCal.

Re:why?

[gman003]

More specifically, Americans can (without a special license, although registration is usually necessary) own handguns up to 12.7mm in caliber, semiautomatic and manually-operated rifles up to 12.7mm in caliber, shotguns with a valid sporting purpose (only a few military-grade shotguns are prohibited), and flamethrowers (they were exempted apparently because they are the only sure defense from Africanized honeybees).

With a proper license, one can also own an automatic weapon or a large-bore weapon, although these are rather rare. Note that a license is also necessary to "conceal" a weapon (if it isn't immediately and completely visible, it is concealed), there are significant restrictions on purchasing a gun (background check, waiting period, etc.) and transferring ownership of a weapon is heavily taxed. Not to mention that walking down the street with a semiautomatic rifle WILL get police attention, and pretty much nobody practices "open carry" in urban or suburban areas - just in rural areas where hunting is ubiquitous. Finally, the concealed-carry license, depending on your state, may only be issued if you can demonstrate "reasonable need", while others may issue one unless they find a reason not to.

Re:why?

[lennier]

One side of me says: "What if you had a bunker under your house that you could escape to if some army was attacking you. Then you could blow up your house to defend your person as a last ditch effort."

Thereby cleverly revealing your formerly hidden bunker's trapdoor?

Filling your house with live bobcats might be more effective. Then, if the army doesn't arrive, you get bonus bobcats.

Re:why?

[bickerdyke]

And what else do you think I need my howitzer for??

Re:why?

[brainboyz]

Sad but true. And in the process they'll confiscate as many firearms as they think they can under the guise of "evidence" and "just cause" then refuse to return them or "lose" them despite court cases confirming that legally they must return the firearms. Or, they'll flat-out tell the defendant that "sure, the law says X, but you'll have to have a case to prove you're innocent of it. If you just forfeit your guns, we'll drop the charges." which is corrupt, through and through.

Most cops I know arrest on what they feel "should be" illegal because regardless of actual legality, the poor sap will be severely inconvenienced, drained of savings, and possibly have their reputation/career destroyed in the process for daring to do something the cop doesn't like.

Re:why?

[sjames]

SCOTUS is out of it's mind. It's fairly clear that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, they meant arms of the type you would use to defend yourself from a corrupt government.

Of course the 2nd amendment doesn't mean you can't be required to keep and bear those arms in a manner that doesn't endanger the community. The guy in TFA certainly fails there.

Re:why?

[cayenne8]

"More specifically, Americans can (without a special license, although registration is usually necessary) own handguns up to 12.7mm in caliber, semiautomatic and manually-operated rifles up to 12.7mm in caliber..."

Just a couple of questions....is a 50 caliber shell larger thatn the the 12.7mm size your mentioning? I know you can own a 50 cal pistol or rifle without special license.

"...there are significant restrictions on purchasing a gun (background check, waiting period, etc.) and transferring ownership of a weapon is heavily taxed..."

Depends on where you live, what state. I've never lived in a state where I've had to register any guns I owned, and I've always bought and sold my weapons with other private individuals, no taxation or govt. involvement whatsoever. No background checks either....I've only seen them or waiting periods when purchasing new weapons from a commercial dealer.

Re:why?

[h4rr4r]

Bears are better. The second amendment clearly protects your rights to bear arms and by extension the rest of the bear.

Re:why?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Don't ask a cop. Then again, don't ask a lawyer either. Both will give you overly conservative anwers.

They will, but then, I was thinking more in the "if you're going to purchase one" sense. Most of us, if we want to get a gun, want to do it in a way that the local cops are fine with and that is definitely legal--we want to be conservative. We aren't doing it as a theoretical 2nd amendment exercise, and don't want to have to pay thousands in attorney fees and risk jail or big fines in a fight over whether something was legal.

Re:why?

[gknoy]

When I google "12.7 mm in inches", it tells me that 12.7mm is 0.5 inches. So, .50 cal handguns should be okay.

Re:why?

[Wyatt Earp]

There are legal .50 handguns in the United States, 12.7 x 33mm Action Express or .500 SW are legal but a 13mm isn't legal.

Re:why?

[GaryOlson]

Your observations are clearly the work of an informed, educated, and enlightened mind.

Re:why?

[gman003]

The precise limit, IIRC, is that a .50 Browning Machine Gun bullet may not fall through the barrel. Since the bullet itself has a diameter of .510 inches, most .50 firearms pass.

While it would have been easier to say ".50" instead of "12.7mm", I'm trying to form the habit of thinking in metric.

Re:why?

[zippthorne]

200 years ago, people could buy cannons, though. And they did. Privately owned cannons were the majority of the artillery fielded by the fledgling navy and continental navy, so I really fail to see why howitzers should be a problem today.

The main thing keeping people from buying howitzers is the same thing keeping people from buying cannons 200 years ago: A giant milled tube of steel isn't exactly inexpensive to manufacture, and then you have to find a place to keep it.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you're going to own explosives or grenades (or anything of this nature) you need to declare it by law because we all know the bad guys declare their weapons to the government. Sometimes California needs to learn a little bit from Arizona, and by sometimes I mean all the time.

Re:why?

[goosesensor]

Looong story short: Random guy in a parking lot clames my dad's classic Toyota Land Cruiser was stolen from him 10 years ago. Police confiscate. Within just over a week guy is discredited and found to be full of it. Car is still wrapped up in bureaucracy. Dad manages to piss off the "stolen car task force" [police] with his (understandable) frustration. Appears in court and is arrested on the spot on felony charges related to some technicality of VIN registration/engine/frame code mathcing etc (totally obscure technicality). Spends night in jail. Changes are thrown out at next court date. Car is never returned and instead father has to pay shop rate to have any components wanted removed before it is CRUSHED. Cop responsible for the bullshit kills himself 1.5 years later because he is discovered to be involved in some huge scandals. Go figure.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> why howitzers should be a problem today
Maybe because most of them would be resold for a profit to drug lords of mexico

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main thing keeping people from buying howitzers is the same thing keeping people from buying cannons 200 years ago: A giant milled tube of steel isn't exactly inexpensive to manufacture...

You could say the same thing about a car.

...and then you have to find a place to keep it.

See above!

Re:why?

[nordah]

200 years ago, people could buy cannons, though. And they did. Privately owned cannons were the majority of the artillery fielded by the fledgling navy and continental navy, so I really fail to see why howitzers should be a problem today.

The main thing keeping people from buying howitzers is the same thing keeping people from buying cannons 200 years ago: A giant milled tube of steel isn't exactly inexpensive to manufacture, and then you have to find a place to keep it.

Antonin Scalia (current Supreme Court Justice) came to visit Harvard Law a couple years back. After the end of his talk he accepted questions, which ranged from the intelligent to the inane. My favorite part: One kid, who may or may not have been affiliated with Harvard (looked like an MIT student to me), claimed that he had visited a military contractor and attempted to buy a missile launcher. But (for some strange reason) the contractor declined to make the sale. The kid asked Scalia what had happened to the right to bear arms. Scalia proceeded to tear into the kid, opening with the line: "First of all, you can't bear a cannon..."

Re:why?

[lwsimon]

You're more right than most, but wrong a few things:

Outside of a few states, there is no registration of any firearms. You might make an argument for dealer sales records being registration, but I can buy from a private party to avoid that if I really want to.

Flamethrowers are not exempt, and considered destructive devices under the NFA. "Brush control devices" - which look an operate in an eerily similar fashion to flamethrowers - are fine. That said, I'm a huge gun nut and know lots of other gun nuts, and I don't know anyone that owns a flamethrower as a weapon.

Automatics and large-caliber wepaons ("Destructive devices") do not require a license. They require a background check and a $200 tax stamp at a minimum.

While some states have waiting periods, most do not. The background check takes less than 5 minutes, and out the door you go, with the gun. There is no special tax on firearms, and you can in fact pay cash for a weapon from someone on the street, exchange no information, and be perfectly legal.

Walking down the street with a rifle in urban and suburban areas will draw some response from a raised eyebrow to getting shot by police, depending on where you are. Open carry of handguns is commonplace in many states, even in urban areas - see Phoenix, Arizona.

All in all, guns just aren't a big deal in most places. There are some cities which do their best to ban them - namely, Chicago and New York City - and some states with very draconian laws (by US standards), but in most cases, no one thinks about it.

FWIW - I'm part owner and webmaster of Shooters' Journal, a small gun-related webmagazine, and a long time member of the firearms community. If I don't know the answer to a gun question, I know who to ask.

Re:why?

[modecx]

Actually, it's totally about the maximum diameter of the bore i.e. from groove to groove (since most barrels have an even quantity of rifling), which is codified in law as 0.500+-0.0000 inches.

There is tale from ye-old long range and machine-gun shooters of ATF suits stopping by to measure their bores with calipers--which actually could be a problem with .50 BMG barrels, in the sense that most old MG barrels were made with quite a bit of variance, which is compounded by the fact that these old barrels tend to be softer and can erode significantly and still be usable--this is one reason why .50 BMG projectiles are a full one hundredth of an inch larger than the nominal bore specification.

Few shells designed for non-auto-cannon use share that feature, by the way--most firearms designed to use jacketed bullets are built so the bullet is only swaged about 1/1000th of an inch or so, rifling excepted. Some firearms apocrypha for ya. Anyway, apparently, the ATF finally realized they were barking up the wrong tree, and it's become a non-issue.

Re:why?

[lwsimon]

Some calibers greater than .50/12.7mm are specifically allowed - typically large game rifles. Off the top of my head, .600 Nitro Express is legal without additional paperwork (but expensive!)

Re:why?

[lwsimon]

News flash: You can buy towed artillery today.Here's an example: http://g503.com/forums///viewtopic.php?f=27&t=159393

Why aren't they being sold to Mexico?

Re:why?

[modecx]

Well, no, you can't bear a cannon under that one specific connotation (to physically carry) of the verb bear, due to the obvious size and weight of said item. But that's that's a bit myopic, isn't it? Depending on the context, to bear may also mean to bring, to transmit, to be entitled to, to render or even as in bring to bear--to put into effect.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Any one of those contexts would be logically and lexically sound, when applied to that sentence, especially considering the relations as used by the men who wrote and ratified it:

• the right of the people to keep and to bring Arms (with them), shall not be infringed.
• the right of the people to keep and to trade in Arms, shall not be infringed.
• the right of the people to keep and to display Arms, shall not be infringed.
• the right of the people to keep and put Arms into effect, shall not be infringed.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"and then you have to find a place to keep it"

Why, on your front porch, of course! Nothing like having some firepower as a convincer when you tell them: "Get off my lawn!"

Re:why?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Well it really wouldn't matter. No one could afford to buy the howitzer and ammo (you need more than one to be effective). Modern artillery is a lot more than a metal tube these days. And if you don't have self propelled guns (for shoot and scoot), good luck with the counter battery fire....

Not to mention that sooner or later the "government" is going to roll in the tanks...

The key idea that a public armed can compete with a armed government doesn't work anymore.

Re:why?

[houghi]

Oh no I get it. I thought you talked about beararms, like firearms.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of the constitution, a pact which limits the government, a sort of explicit contract between the governed and the governors, although written 200 years ago, which details the rights people were willing to give up in exchange for having a nation, still seems reasonable enough that I think the vast majority would agree to be governed by its terms even today.

It's so desirable, in fact, that people seem to prefer to invent reasons why we haven't gone off it, like some supposed "implied limitations" on the second and first amendments, or proposing that effectively strip-searching everyone who wants to travel more than a couple hundred miles somehow doesn't violate the fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments, rather than admit to themselves that the government is basically ignoring the constitution wherever it's inconvenient to the government's goals.

Ironically, if we'd just stick to the strict interpretation, we could actually have the debates over many of these issues during the deliberate but for some reason seldom used amendment process.

Re:why?

[splutty]

If we need weapons to protect us from a corrupt government, then nuclear weapons should be available on the open market, since that's ultimately what you're up against.

It's a bit silly to trot this out in the current day and age of automated drone bombers, tactical nukes, etc.

Re:why?

[Coren22]

That is why it is perfectly legal to build your own howitzer :)

Re:why?

[operagost]

A nuclear weapon is only useful to governments and terrorists.

Re:why?

[operagost]

Armed civilians are in battle with government troops right now.

Re:why?

[sjames]

Realistically, the government isn't going to nuke it's own territory, nobody wants to rule a radioactive wasteland full of sick people.

In practical terms, you need for your community to own weapons sufficient to require a significant military engagement to control the territory. It won't take many of those for government soldiers to begin deserting and bringing whatever weapons they can steal to the side of the citizens.

Re:why?

[eriqk]

I think we should all have the right to be arams.

Re:why?

[ErkDemon]

So are we allowed to shout "Bear!" in a crowded cinema?

Pyros. All of them

[Stregano]

I am sure they could think of a proper way to get rid of all of that stuff, but they have been looking for an excuse to burn something down and maybe get some cool explosions out of it

What a waste

[oic0]

Should have been "clean it you can keep it". It sounds cruel at first, people getting blown up trying their shot at cleaning explosives from a house.... but as a broke guy not to long out of college, I would give it a shot :D

Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[spads]

I mean, they say that the thing is supposed to burn at 1800 degrees, but I'd like to know how they will achieve that, unless they nape the whole place, just flood it with fuel. Otherwise, the temperature should be less at the fire's periphery as it spreads.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[Magada]

Thermite.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[geogob]

I thought that stuff wrecks only buildings made out of wood...

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[HiggsBison]

Thermite.

Aw, nasty stuff!

Naw, wait, I'm thinking of Vegemite.

Never mind.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[Magada]

It is nasty stuff.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It tastes better in sandwiches.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[operagost]

Thermite's a little spicier.

Re:Complete incineration of toxins - how?

[ErkDemon]

Hey, don't diss thermite! For genuinely nasty explosive chemicals, try hydrazine.

When I was a kid, my chemistry book warned that hydrazine had a tendency to explode unexpectedly in response to vibration. Or heat. Or light. Or cold. Or sound. Or electrical charge. Or chemical reaction with contaminants on the surface of the holding vessel. Or roughness on the surface of the holding vessel.

Or ... basically, if you looked at it kinda funny.

And on top of all that, it's supposed to be horribly toxic.

Really?

[Monkeedude1212]

Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts

So you've determined whats in the house, conclusively taken an inventory of it all, yet its too dangerous to handle...

Is this like SAW where everything has some tripwire booby trap hooked up to it - or are we just too afraid to pick up the stuff that we've been within 5 feet of?

I am more intrigued by this story than it actually lets on. Something about the whole "It's so dangerous we can't go one step further than what we've already done" really captivates me. There must be more to it than just what they're saying.

Re:Really?

[VoxMagis]

I'm not an explosives expert but perhaps the worry is moving/jostling the stuff, especially in a tight environment?

Re:Really?

[Monkeedude1212]

It just seems like there is a WHOLE LOT of effort that would have to go into a controlled demolition of this sort (what with chemicals and all that) - so... why can't the same amount of effort go into removing them slowly, 1 at a time?

Re:Really?

[LordSnooty]

Fewer chance people die?

Re:Really?

[PRMan]

The gardener already got blown up by stepping on residue. I think "Nuke it from orbit" is the appropriate response. I think it's pretty sad that the owners get nothing. I thought we have a society and community in order to help each other out, not for the government to hoard as much wealth as possible and deny payment whenever possible.

Re:Really?

[Pyrion]

They're probably afraid that if they try to remove anything in such close proximity to everything else in that house, that just errantly knocking something over will (literally) set off the whole lot.

Re:Really?

[csnydermvpsoft]

I think it's pretty sad that the owners get nothing. I thought we have a society and community in order to help each other out, not for the government to hoard as much wealth as possible and deny payment whenever possible.

Property insurance was created for exactly these sorts of circumstances (though usually not this extreme). The owner will probably be reimbursed by their insurers, just as if the house had been destroyed by any other means. It's not the government's fault that the least-unsafe (I can't call it safe) manner of dealing with this situation is to burn the house down.

Re:Really?

[fishbowl]

Are you personally volunteering to do it, or are you expecting someone else to volunteer in your place?

Re:Really?

[kgwilliam]

Mod parent up. All of these people posting that the government should clean it up rather than blow it up seem to be forgetting that a real, live person would have to do the clean up. I don't know what the risk factor is for detonating homemade explosives, but it is certainly not 0%. Multiply that non-zero number by a very large number of explosive devices and a real, live person is putting their life on the line.

Re:Really?

[dragonhunter21]

I'm not an explosives expert either, but maybe the worry is that there's a metric fuckton of explosives in there, and one trip or dropped box and the whole neighborhood is a smoldering crater?

Re:Really?

[dragonhunter21]

Probably a major factor is the closeness of Interstate 15. If they pick the explosives out bit by bit, they could spend a month or more with I-15- a major interstate highway- shut down. That'd play hell on businesses all over the place. This way, the highway is shut down for a few hours, at most a day.

Plus there's those poor folks who live next to him who will be stuck out of their homes for as long as this takes.

Re:Really?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

So you've determined whats in the house, conclusively taken an inventory of it all, yet its too dangerous to handle...

I have identified this as an old stick of dynamite sweating the nitro - fetch!

Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[A beautiful mind]

Ah no worries, it was just a bit of harmless fun and it hurt noone.

Wait, what's that file on his computer? He planned on setting up a wikileaks mirror? TERRORIST!!!

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. According to one neighbor, "I've decided because God protected us all this time when we did not know what was there, that he will do the same now."

Obviously, God deemed this heathen unworthy of owning a home so God is having the county burn it down. Also God says, "Quit fighting and leave Britney alone!"

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[SanityInAnarchy]

Let's not forget, God apparently didn't protect the gardener.

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[h4rr4r]

That is because he was Hispanic, of course. /not my belief, just channeling the thoughts of these folks.

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[dgatwood]

Let's not forget, God apparently didn't protect the gardener.

Dude. Seriously? The guy steps on a glorified landmine, and ended up with only some singed hair, some burns, and some puncture wounds. He didn't even lose any limbs. If God wasn't protecting him, then I'd say he's the luckiest S.O.B. on the planet, and this guy should buy a freaking lottery ticket.

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[h4rr4r]

I did not step on a landmine, so does that mean I should buy two lottery tickets. To me it sounds like he was really unlucky, how many folks in California stepped on a bomb that day you think?

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[SanityInAnarchy]

Also worth mentioning, she's evacuating just like everyone else.

Exactly what is she trusting God with?

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant

[SanityInAnarchy]

Erm...

So the choice is to believe an unproved and likely irrational concept called "God"...

Or to believe an unproved and likely irrational concept called "luck"?

Yeah, I'd say he's "lucky" in the colloquial sense, but to believe some people being "lucky" is an indication of future results, or that outliers (lucky or unlucky) prove anything other than that statistics works?

I guess you provide a valuable service by not understanding statistics. If people actually had the first clue, no one would be buying lottery tickets -- and instead of thanking God, you'd be thanking someone who is actually real and actually had an impact on saving your life -- like a doctor!

Re:Pyros. All of them

[hedwards]

Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings.

It's also nice in that you've got a much more predictable timing on the explosives. Anything which doesn't go off as a result of the fire isn't likely to go off ever.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is: are they w+m1 pyros? because those are the worst.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[leenks]

I'm sure they could, but maybe this is the cheapest and potentially safest way. I doubt that they can guarantee all the compounds are labelled properly and reuse them for anything, so all they could do is transport them somewhere else and dispose of them there, assuming they are stable enough to be transported.

If it does go wrong, this could be one incredible fireworks display though!

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're volunteering to fetch potentially trip-wired explosives from a building with so many explosives that they'd have a hard time finding all the pieces of you afterwards then good luck with that.

Security checks

[the real darkskye]

It's a good thing the USA has all their airport security checks to stop these things getting on to their soil.

Oh, wait ...

Re:Security checks

[blueg3]

Airport security checks are to prevent such things from getting on to a plane. If their purpose was to keep explosives out of the U.S., you wouldn't have the security checks on domestic flights.

Re:Security checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up, security checks are to prevent it from getting on airplanes. Now whether or not they are effective or ethical is another matter, but you could at least try a little harder with your trolling.

satisfying my inner pyro

[gclef]

There's got to be a live feed of this that's planned...any hints as to who would be carrying it?

Re:satisfying my inner pyro

[pogle]

This was the first thought in my mind as well.

Even if its just a smooth controlled burn with no earth-shattering kaboom, it'll still be cool. And if things go less according to play...it'll be even cooler. So long as the safety measures are sufficient.

Re:satisfying my inner pyro

[Deadstick]

The Here-Hold-My-Beer Channel.

rj

Re:satisfying my inner pyro

[El_Oscuro]

Mythbusters has to be there. There are some things in nature that just have to happen.

Re:satisfying my inner pyro

[Anonymous Coward]

If not a life feed, I'm going to be looking for any word on youtube postings of it :)

Re:satisfying my inner pyro

[Anonymous Coward]

it'll be on wikileaks.org i'm pretty sure.

Got a problem? Blow it up.

[farnsworth]

Sounds familiar.

Exploding House Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

California, explosives laden house needing to be destroyed....sounds like a job for the MythBusters.

Re:Exploding House Myth

[Pyrion]

Knowing the MythBusters, they'd have to evacuate everything within a 30-mile radius of that house, since they'd likely just load it up with even more explosives so they could top their cement truck detonation.

3d!

[JeffSh]

Extra points for his profile photo being a cross-eyed 3d photo!

Re:3d!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are commenting on the wrong article...

Sounds like bullshit

[topham]

Sounds like a completely bullshit reason.

Get a military ordinance disposal team in place and demolish it if you really have to, but burning it? That's just looking to create a disaster.

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[multipartmixed]

They have to burn it. There is a picture inside of David Koresh.

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[mrmeval]

Blowing it up removes it from immediate use but it does still emit toxins. If the material is not all explosive but a variety of chemicals that is just a nasty mess. Without a chemistry degree and extra training on those particular chemicals and how they might mix I just can't say.

It's also a good way to exercise and train people who will most likely not see a terrorist attack in their career. No that is not my idea of good but it is why so many people are being consulted both because it is a complex task, it will foster cooperation across state and federal boundaries and it spends a bucketful of money we don't have.

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[publiclurker]

The last time I saw an ordinance disposal team get rid of old explosives they burned them. What makes you think they would do otherwise here?

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[blair1q]

I'd bet most of these guys are current or former military EOD, and they have all the same tools.

Since the place is likely coated in explosive residue, the only choice is to burn it down. It would be nice to remove any big pieces of explosive first, but they explained why that's a stupid idea in this case.

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"The last time I saw an ordinance disposal team get rid of old explosives they burned them."
And what did they do the first and other times? Why would only the last time be significant?

"What makes you think they would do otherwise here?"
Because there might be a better idea? Why would you think that one time you watched they made the right decision? Are circumstances different than the one time you watched, for example, the existence of surrounding houses or different components/explosives?

Re:Sounds like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"How the alleged bank robber obtained the chemicals and what he planned to do with them remain mysteries(sic)"

If it sounds like bullshit that could be for a fairly apparent reason. If they destroy all the explosives and ordinance they're also destroying all the evidence that could be used for an investigation. Sounds like an easy way to get rid of two problems at once.

Terminator

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this is the exact reason that Californians elected The Terminator for Governor.

gov't exercise

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like some "make work" project for a gov't agency. "It's a perfect lesson to practice with".

The gov't is being lazy and is using this as an excuse to have an exercise.

Re:Pity he didn't use them on the senate

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear sir,

please do not endorse the murder of politicians. This will result in unjust laws. It is also immoral.

Kind Regards,

Archangel Bob.

From the article, too volitile

[SuperKendall]

The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.

They probably figure there are a few things in there that will go even if they are just jostled, sending up the remaining stuff...

So basically it's just too much risk, even using a robot - since it's likley to go up anyway if they try to clear it out, better just to control the burn-down and secondaries as best they can.

Re:From the article, too volitile

[Monkeedude1212]

The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.

Wow - then thats worse than what the summary had led me to believe (They seem to be aware of a few different products, as if they had inspected the place)

Re:From the article, too volitile

[14erCleaner]

To me, the really surprising thing is that this guy had a gardener.

Re:From the article, too volitile

[fishbowl]

>To me, the really surprising thing is that this guy had a gardener.

I have a guy that cuts my grass and trims my foliage every three weeks for $45.00. I consider it a bargain. I think that qualifies as me "having a gardner" by the standards of the article.

Re:From the article, too volitile

[nedlohs]

It's a rental, it's not uncommon for the landlord to have a gardner look after the outside since tenants tend to not give a shit about keeping the plants alive.

Re:From the article, too volitile

[Culture20]

The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.

Ummm, then it's like jars and jars of Nitroglycerin? And they want to burn it? I keep seeing people on this page saying that C4 is safe to burn; true. But this obviously isn't C4. I hope they buy the houses around the area too.

Re:From the article, too volitile

[Eivind]

The thing with explosions, is that distance helps a lot. No really, it helps an *awful* lot. Even if the distance isn't that huge. And yes, they will evacuate the surrounding for the actual burn.

It takes hardly any explosive at all, to kill a unprotected human being who is holding it.

It takes slightly more, but still a tiny amount, to kill a human in bomb-squad-gear who is handling it.

It takes a lot for an explosive inside a house, to blow up in such a way that neighbouring-houses that are typically hundred feet away or more, and behind a protective fence, suffers significant damage.

To explode in such a way that people who have been evacuated to 1000 feet and who are in cover, die, takes a modern bomb, and not a tiny one either, a Mk-82 with 200 pounds of tritonal levels *one* house very well. It does nothing at all to people who are 1000 feet away and under even very modest cover, it *might* break some glass at that distance I suppose, but not much more.

Viral Video

[Tehrasha]

I just hope they film this. It could be the next 'Exploding Whale'.

Re:Viral Video

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Mod parent insightful

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings. .

You are sure its a lot safer? I'm so relieved.

What could possibly go wrong.

Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.

How much evidence as to sources of these materials will be destroyed in the burn down and inevitable explosion?
(Yeah, I've seen the silly containment fence. Laughable!).

In fact one wonders if the destruction of evidence isn't part of the motivation here. After all, someone's ass is on the line for that crate of live military grenades, right? Some one sold that guy all this stuff. Was it the government?

Not after its all gone. No way to pin it on any agency then.

Re:Got a problem? Blow it up.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[ColdWetDog]

Other articles (better than the TFA) have noted that the place is so packed with junk - both explosive and non explosive) that the bomb crews cannot work in their usual protective gear - there isn't enough room.

They are also worried about booby traps and just plain explosive / dangerous crap. They are going through a lot of expense to do it this way. They are building a perimeter fence, coating a house with fire retardant foam, bringing in all manner of people. It appears that this is the safest of a number of unsafe choices.

Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Elfich47]

If he had home made nitroglycerin (the article only said "home made explosives") I can understand why the cops want nothing to do with it. Nitro can be manufactured at home with a minimum of difficulty. Nitro also has the property where physical shocks can detonate it. This property is great in small quantities like flash power and bang snaps. This is also a good property for remote mining: You plant your explosive charge and then bury a string of explosives 10 feet apart apart to the staging area. When the first charge in the string is detonated the rest of the string detonates because of the vibration, which in turn detonates the main charge at the mine.

Having a house with this kind of sensitivity to vibration is asking for someone to drop/knock over a bottle of something sensitive and have it detonate. And then have that explosion trigger a sympathetic explosion, etc etc etc.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[dondelelcaro]

This is also a good property for remote mining: You plant your explosive charge and then bury a string of explosives 10 feet apart apart to the staging area.

Almost no one uses nitroglycerin for mining any more. The stuff is so horribly unstable that you could easily set it off just by burying it, it's expensive, and it's highly toxic. Most mining and other blasting uses ANFO coupled with a high explosive primer instead.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Elfich47]

I did not intend to imply that modern mining practice uses nitro anymore. I was just using it as an example of how unstable nitro is. My fear is that the guy was making his own and had it in storage in the house. That would convert the house into a death trap very quickly.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[pspahn]

Having a house with this kind of sensitivity to vibration is asking for someone to drop/knock over a bottle of something sensitive and have it detonate.

Or the remote, but very real possibility, that an earthquake coincidentally strikes and the world is doomed.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[nedlohs]

It's California, having a house that explodes due to vibrations would be exciting to say the least.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly you didn't read the article as it did list some of the explosives found

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

The chemistry blogs I read said he had PETN, HMTD, ETN, and others, in kilogram quantities, along with grenades, detonators and ammunition.

That's what they found before they stopped searching the house. There might be other stuff that's hidden in a cupboard somewhere.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

which is just a wonderful thing to fill your house with in earthquake country.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up HMTD.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the guy who supplies mythbusters?

Re:Pity he didn't use them on the senate

[couchslug]

You had me until the "It is also immoral."

Re:Pyros. All of them

[ashridah]

If it does go wrong, this could be one incredible fireworks display though!

"And the bomb technicians claimed that having to perform the burning operation on new years eve at midnight was totally coincidental..."

If It Works for Whales....

[IgnacioB]

I'm sure it will work better than when a whale washed up on the Oregon shore..... What could possibly go wrong? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_t44siFyb4

not compensating the owners ?

[mpapet]

in reading the article, not compensating the owners struck me as just being mean.

Really? Run an equity into the ground in clear violation of untold number of regulations and reward the owner. That's going to end badly for everyone.

Think about it and apply this thinking to other things like, oh, banks for instance. How about extending it to any corporation in the industry you choose to dislike the most?

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[Obfuscant]

Really? Run an equity into the ground in clear violation of untold number of regulations and reward the owner.

A. It wasn't the owner who ran it into the ground. The owner obeyed regulations.

B. It isn't a reward by any means when the government takes a cash-producing property from someone and then pays them "fair market value", even if they pay as much as fair market value is. Try buying a replacement property with the "fair market value" the guvmint is going to pay you.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[demonlapin]

The guy who did it is a tenant. That's why it's unfair not to pay the owner.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[MyLongNickName]

Hi. Some guy keyed my car. It is not my fault. Please pay me for my loss.

Yeah, it is the gov't that is demolishing the house. But it is the actions of the tenant that caused it. The gov't is not the ones who caused the loss of value. The landlord is the one who entered a contract with the tenant. The landlord can sue the tenant if he chooses.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Some guy keyed my car. The government decided to blow up my car because it was keyed. Please pay me for my loss.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Some guy keyed my car, etching a picture the local authorities have declared obscene on it. So, they've decided to burn my car. I've argued against that and told them that I'll go in there myself with a sander and clean it off. They told me that would put me in possession of obscene material so they won't let me. They've explained that, since the car is now a public nuisance, they won't be compensating me for destroying it.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[publiclurker]

The owner is responsible for their property.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[blair1q]

Renting to someone doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your property.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[fishbowl]

>The owner is responsible for their property.

How responsible? As in, "not indemnified against a conspiracy charge?"

"Should have known", perhaps?

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[cayenne8]

"Hi. Some guy keyed my car. It is not my fault. Please pay me for my loss."

In this case, it is the government keying his car...to your your analogy. The govt. is burning down his property, they should pay for the house they are damaging, rather than allow being cleaned out and reused.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[Lemmy Caution]

You so need to RTFA. I mean, now, before you keep yapping that brain-dead mouth of yours.

Re:not compensating the owners ?

[ultranova]

No. It's more like someone stealing your car, using it in a bank robbery, and getting shot into Swiss cheese in resulting firefight, which also sets the car on fire. It's unfortunate, but hardly the police's fault, even if the pulled the trigger.

Wow ! A house full of hidden explosives ....

[TechnoGrl]

and highly toxic chemicals!

And they're going to set it on fire.

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651126

Re:Wow ! A house full of hidden explosives ....

[Pinckney]

The MOVE bombing wasn't even remotely similar. Firstly because it was a row house, i.e. physically connected to the adjacent buildings, secondly because the firefighters at that site did nothing to control the resulting fire, and thirdly because the area was not evacuated prior to the bombing. This is a ranch house, so the fire is unlikely to spread, firefighters are on site to control the resulting fire, and the area will be evacuated.

Re:Wow ! A house full of hidden explosives ....

[Anonymous Coward]

What could possibly go wrong? Anyone remember Harvey's Casino?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Chyeld]

The problem lies in the fact that they discovered this when the gardener stepped into some of the residue left over from the creation of some of these explosives, and went "BOOM!".

Tell me how many weeks you think they'd be able to play the lottery and not have the whole thing go off in their face as they are attempting to carry stuff out?

Call the Mythbusters!

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Jamie wants BIG BOOM!

Re:Call the Mythbusters!

[Bobtree]

That's exactly what I thought of.

"This week on a very special episode..."

Not bullshit.

[Kaz Kylheku]

It's unlikely that they are just going to burn the house with all the explosives and other materials in it! Probably, they will remove as much as they can, or so you would think. The burning is to eliminate any remaining contamination. If you simply demolish the contaminated building, it will send the contaminants into the air and soil.

Why I love Slashdot

[Infonaut]

Everyone is an expert.

In spite of the fact that "some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous materials from across the country and at least eight national laboratories..." have decided on this course of action, all of us World of Warcraft players and PHP developers have concluded it's a bad idea to handle it this way.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[bhlowe]

I think the collective minds of slashdot could come up with something 40 experts have not thought of.. For instance, why not encourage Jakubec to move his chemicals to a place where they can be disposed of rather than burning the house down and not compensating the (innocent) owner?

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

They do have insurance you know. They are pretty much happy with the current setup.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[h4rr4r]

Because when he goes boom, after dropping one who has the clean up the rest?

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[forkazoo]

Everyone is an expert.

In spite of the fact that "some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous materials from across the country and at least eight national laboratories..." have decided on this course of action, all of us World of Warcraft players and PHP developers have concluded it's a bad idea to handle it this way.

More than 40 experts were involved in making DOS.

More than 40 experts were involved in coming up with the deployment plan for the airport porno radiation scanners.

There are lots of cases where 40 or more experts can come up with a suboptimal solution that can be improved apon by the combined thoughts of thousands of people, some of whom are also experts. I personally doubt this is one of them, but dismissing the possibility out of hand seems unjustified. Experts come up with stupid ideas all the time.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Wyatt Earp]

Because you can't trust someone who is looking at decades in prison to clean up his explosives on his own.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Idiomatick]

To be fair, the senate is made up of even more people. And half of them are willing to end government in order to help out the richest 1% of people in the country....

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[blair1q]

No we haven't. You haven't and I haven't. It's those other guys, those are the ones who think they know better.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, be a dick about it. If the phrase "we're setting fire to this house which is in a residential area and is filled with a not known amount of explosives and don't worry 'cause it's be safe" doesn't elicit some amount of worrying or even give you pause, you're fucked up.

Yes, it may well be the safest course of action but I would hope there's some instinctive reaction to this plan that makes you think either "No way..." or "Oh... shit" because it DOESN'T sound very smart.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[shilly]

bhlowe ably demonstrates that the collective minds of slashdot can indeed come up with something 40 experts have not thought of. Unfortunately, it's something really frickin' dumb, so reinforcing the idea that one Shakespeare outweighs quite a lot of jabbering monkeys

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[guspasho]

I am totally saving this to cut and paste into every Slashdot story. Just replace "some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous materials from across the country and at least eight national laboratories..." with the relevant cited expertise and you have the perfect Score 5: Insightful comment for every single story.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[guspasho]

...which, for some reason, is always tagged "Story".

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[syousef]

Everyone is an expert.

In spite of the fact that "some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous materials from across the country and at least eight national laboratories..." have decided on this course of action, all of us World of Warcraft players and PHP developers have concluded it's a bad idea to handle it this way.

Well duh! Everyone knows brute force is useless against a mage!

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[FooAtWFU]

To be fair, the senate is made up of even more people. And half of them are willing to end government in order to help out the richest 1% of people in the country....

To be fair, the Senate is made up of even more people. And half of them are willing to run the economy into the ground in order to prop up the government for a few more months.

(Look! Two can play at this game! My shallow political "anaylsis" is just as pathetic and stupid as yours is!)

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source bomb disposal ?!

Because amateurs (the people if you want to seem quaint) are never correct versus the government (i.e. the employer of those experts, who likely want to keep their jobs).

Of course I always trust anonymous experts cited by media articles.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Idiomatick]

No they weren't willing. Just today they caved and allowed the GOP to get their money in order to keep government and the economy moving.

The GOP refused to pass or even look at ANY legislation until tax cuts were extended to Americans making over 250,000.
The Dems said... but that'll cost us 700 Billion, more than the bailout that the libertarians hate so much. How about we give tax cuts to all americans for the first 1 million USD in yearly income? Just no tax cuts for the SUPER rich.
The GOP said you can go fuck yourself, we aren't passing anything, not even nuclear treaties with Russia or tax cuts/incentives for small business'. Oh and we are going to let unemployment benefits disappear. We will not budge until you give that money to the super rich.
The dems go, fuck! Fine. We'll extend the cuts for 2 years so that we can extend unemployment benefits for 13months. We hope we can get you on board to sign a nuclear peace treaty in the future too and probably the small biz incentives.
GOP: The democrats are willing to run the economy into the ground in order to prop up the government for a few more months.

Earlier today a guy said that the dems were fiscally irresponsible because they don't know how they are going to pay the 65 billion for unemployment. The same day that the GOP lost the government 700Billion. I am losing all sense of partisanship with recent politics. The GOP are almost wrong on EVERY issue. On some issues they are SO wrong that it is fucking disgusting. The level of evil required to have a solid voting block willing to play chicken with the economy of the country and possible nuclear stability or the world for 300,000 fantastically rich people. Disgusting.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[houghi]

Because you have accepted the words of experts from the government as the truth does not mean everybody has the same idea.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough of that. 40 experts decided to do that. The officials, of course, trust the experts (there's nothing else to do). Our duty is to question the experts and get answers from people who have knowledge in this field why we are wrong. That 40 experts said so isn't the reason we are wrong. I'm looking for something better than that. Blowing up an explosive-ridden home seems like a terrible idea. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

And besides, these might be experts, but how are you sure that they acted fully based on their knowledge, expertise and reasoning? First of all, this is a "a truly unknown situation" (quote from the article). The thing experts have is an enormous experience and knowledge in the field, but if it is truly unknown, how are you certain that they can apply that knowledge more reasonably than we, the laymen, can? Second, how can be sure that they don't have some kind of agenda, for example, it was cheapest to blow it up, so they found the experts who would "agree"? Experts might be the best you can get, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily know best. They are overrated. We need to question everything they say (which doesn't mean to not accept it).

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Chris Mattern]

More than 40 experts were involved in making DOS.

No, DOS was pretty much made by Tim Paterson in his basement. Microsoft bought it off him for $50,000 because they needed an OS fast to snag the IBM PC contract.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[ErikZ]

I'm getting mixed messages on the unemployment benefit extension.

NPR said it was just for applying for the benefits. But the speech that Obama gave indicated that people who were on unemployment would get another 13 months of money.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[Infonaut]

Experts come up with stupid ideas all the time.

Agreed. But what I find most interesting about this discussion is that the article is thin on facts, so most of us are basing our alternative plans on only the sparsest information. Also, the strong thread of mistrusting government is bleeding over into what is essentially a technical discussion. The merits of compensating the owners or not has nothing to do with the technical solution of how to most safely and efficiently dispose of the explosives. You can say what you want about Homeland Security dipshits, but law enforcement demolitions experts have been doing this sort of work for a long time, and they have demonstrated technical competence. Mistrusting them because they work for government is just as stupid as trusting them merely because they work for the government.

Re:Why I love Slashdot

[forkazoo]

No, DOS was pretty much made by Tim Paterson in his basement. Microsoft bought it off him for $50,000 because they needed an OS fast to snag the IBM PC contract.

In terms of the original creation, that's fair. OTOH, if you consider all of the people involved with DOS at any point, across various versions, I think my point still makes some sense.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

The guy was living there for years. It can't be all that unstable.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[644bd346996]

Individually extracting the bombs requires real, live people to spend a lot of time moving around in and near a house full of explosives. If they start going off, people die. On the other hand, evacuating the neighborhood and setting up remote-controlled fire hoses allows you to get rid of the explosives quickly and without significant risk of people getting hurt. Yes, the risk of property damage beyond the house itself is probably higher this way, but the risk of people getting hurt is much lower, as is the duration of the evacuation of the neighborhood.

The government IS causing the loss of value

[SuperKendall]

The house still has value, if the contents would be removed.

Instead of removing them and leaving the house standing, the government CHOSE to burn down the structure. They are in fact the ones who are causing the loss of value by destroying the house.

If they took explosives out by robot and something exploded, then the tenant would be the one who caused full loss of value.

As it stands the tenant is only really responsible for the dangerous content, I don't think you could sue him for destroying the house.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[MyLongNickName]

Instead of removing them and leaving the house standing, the government CHOSE to burn down the structure. They are in fact the ones who are causing the loss of value by destroying the house.

Ummmm. yea... they started to do that and determined the risk is too high. The landlord willingly entered a contract with the landlord and is the one who is responsible for going after said tenant to recoup the cost.

Frankly, I think the gov't should attach a lien on the property for the cost of the operation too.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[uniquename72]

Car analogy:
I loan my car to a friend. That friend attempts to run over some cops, who fill it with bullets, causing it to catch fire and burn.

Think the government's going to reimburse me or my insurance company? Think again.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Anonymous Coward]

The house still has value, if the contents would be removed.

Instead of removing them and leaving the house standing, the government CHOSE to burn down the structure. They are in fact the ones who are causing the loss of value by destroying the house.

If they took explosives out by robot and something exploded, then the tenant would be the one who caused full loss of value.

As it stands the tenant is only really responsible for the dangerous content, I don't think you could sue him for destroying the house.

If the government does the removal and disposal then they should charge the owner for the clean up of these services. The owner should sue the tenant for this if he wants recompense.

I bet it's cheaper for the owner to just rebuild the structure then it would be to pay for all the proper disposal.

Besides, why should the neighbours (i.e., taxpayers) pay for the landlord's incompetence in ensuring his investment? Absentee landlords were bad in the 1800s and they're bad now: it is your responsibility to make sure shit isn't happening on/in your property. Otherwise you're just externalizing risk, and we've seen how that turns out for the public ($$$).

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like he gets pulled over, and they find a loaded weapon on the front seat, so they crush your car.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[ehud42]

The house still has value, if the contents would be removed.

The loss of value concern is only valid if the cost of safe removal exceeds the cost of rebuilding / replacing the structure.

Often the safest way to dispose of explosives, is to burn it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/08/24/old-dynamite.html

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Anonymous Coward]

I would sue for reimbursement on the grounds that friend is batshit crazy and the cops blew up the car. Or I'd just lie and say she stole it.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Jeffrey_Walsh VA]

I was skeptical when I heard "they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground ". Then I read:
Neal Langerman, the top scientist at the safety consulting firm...[said] burning of the house would provide "an amazing textbook study" for bomb technicians in the future.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The analogy doesn't quite fit though, because in the highway analogy, cops need to defend themselves immediately, they don't have much, if any time to plan what to do, they have to fall back to training and experience and handle the situation immediately.

When you have a standing house, they can take the time and plan the response. I'm not convinced that they're even making the best choices here, it's probably the most convenient choices. I do realize that I probably don't have all the information, nor an I an expert, but I've seen enough bungling on the part of large bureaucratic organizations, be it corporate or government, that I understand that they should not be trusted by their words.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it. You're saying it's a mobile home, and he drove it into the police station.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an awfully bad analogy.

Try this: You rent your car to a friend. That friend then fills the trunk with dynamite and the government decides to burn the car, instead of removing the explosives in a safe manner.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[IICV]

I loan my car to a friend. That friend attempts to run over some cops, who fill it with bullets, causing it to catch fire and burn.

Not quite - your friend smuggles cocaine in the car. The government seizes the car, and says "In order to ensure that there's no cocaine left in this car, we must scrap it".

Putting bullets in a car is one thing - you might have to do that in order to get the driver to stop - but this is not a volatile situation, so there's no urgent need to destroy the house.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[webdog314]

Our local paper (yes, I'm local to the house. Another family member lives just beyond the evac zone) mentioned that the bomb squad HAD tried a robot, but that they felt (an so did many other experts) that they could not safely use even a robot to remove the materials. Keep in mind that there are homes to either side of the house in question. I have heard that they are going to shield the other homes, but I for one wouldn't want to be hear they are going to do a 'controlled burn' of the explosively volitile structure 10 feet away from my living room...

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[rahvin112]

They tear most meth homes down these days because it costs more than the home is worth to really decontaminate it. Who knows what this guy has stored in the house, it could literally be as toxic as a meth production home. Secondly, for those concerned about the real owners. The owners should be happy getting off not having to pay for the cleanup. No where has it said the local authorities will charge them for the cleanup (which they CAN do). Given the cost of this cleanup, having the house burned down is a minuscule loss in equity given what they could be hit with. The clean-up costs are probably several million dollars at this point and the controlled burn will probably push it over 10 million. The loss of a few hundred thousand dollars in structure while retaining the land is a godsend to them cause the local authorities could go after every asset of the owner to pay for the cleanup.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[Rakarra]

This is why car analogies suck.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[ErkDemon]

To be fair, the Government guys managed to remove the first nine pounds of explosives by hand before they gave up and threw in the towel. Apparently the place is so packed with explosives-related equipment (half-built fragmentation grenades and the like) that they felt that taking anything else out would be too dangerous. Robots aren't an answer if you're dealing with a junkyard of explosive gear stacked high, where a robot fumble is liable to knock things over. Sure, if the robot gets blown up, nobody's dead ... but it could blow up the whole remaining stash. Which means that all the expensive protection work they're doing now to try to protect the surrounding neighbourhood would have to be done anyway.

Re:The government IS causing the loss of value

[SuperKendall]

Sure, but THEN they could use the robot instead of simply burning it down - since the prep work has to be done anyway as you said. They could even charge the homeowner for that, since they'd still be better off.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[guyminuslife]

inevitable explosion

Not necessarily. Many high explosives are not particularly sensitive to heat alone, and will burn, but not explode, without some sort of shockwave. TFA mentions that he has HMTD, PETN, and ETN. PETN shouldn't explode under that heat, and if ETN is all that similar (I'm not a chemist) it shouldn't, either. The HMTD will explode, but TFA doesn't say how much he has, and if was only using it to make detonators, then it shouldn't be a major problem.

As far as chemicals go, it's probably fine, except for the toxic smoke. Of course I have no idea if a fire would set off his detonators, if he still has armed explosives in there.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Stregano]

Now you see what I am getting at. I say go this method and broadcast it streaming online somewhere so I can watch it.

I mean, a house so full of explosives to where the bomb squad even said, "HELL NO!". Let's set it on fire and burn it down. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Minecraft

[GIL_Dude]

In the real world you could do something like this. First, build an air lock at the main door of the building. Seal all the windows, roof vents, and any other areas where gases could leak out. Replace the oxygen inside with nitrogen. Go in with a breathing apparatus (or a robot). Anything that looks dangerous - shoot a spray of liquid nitrogen at it. Carry it out through the airlock with tongs. Rinse, wash, repeat - over and over. I am sure I left out steps as I am far from knowledgeable about this - but you can see how expensive and dangerous it would be to try to make the large quantities of "whatever" as close to inert as possible so that they can be carried out in small amounts.

Re:Pity he didn't use them on the senate

[KarmaMB84]

Mass murder (espeically that of potentially innocent people) isn't immoral?

Due Process, Anyone?

[Phoenix666]

My favorite part about this story is that they are burning the house down without due process of law. Apparently CA policemen are now judge & jury as well as cops.

Secure the house, and let this guy have his day in court first.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[fishbowl]

Trouble is, pretty much any jury would agree that civil asset forfeiture was reasonable, appropriate, and necessary in this case.
I would argue strongly to the contrary, but then, I will never, ever be selected for jury. The magazines I subscribe to are enough to exclude me from any voir dire.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[goodmanj]

We don't need a trial by jury to conclude that this house is PACKED WITH EXPLOSIVES. This isn't a crime-and-punishment thing, this is eliminating an imminent threat to public safety.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[imthesponge]

They had Gov. Schwarzenegger declare a state of emergency. What other "due process" should there be in order to destroy a house packed with explosives?

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell would he possibly say in court?

"What? All those things are explosive? I had no idea!"

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[tophermeyer]

They had Gov. Schwarzenegger declare a state of emergency. What other "due process" should there be...?

I'm thinking... Dolph Lundgren?

Both in his capacities as Scharzeneggar's villainous foil, and as a man with a Masters in Chemical Engineering. I'm just saying that I think he ought to be involved with this.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[Sam Nitzberg]

"My favorite part about this story is that they are burning the house down without due process of law. "

I'm already queuing the Talking Heads song in my own head.... you know the song....

-- Sam

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[Nick Number]

They had Gov. Schwarzenegger declare a state of emergency. What other "due process" should there be in order to destroy a house packed with explosives?

He has to urge people in the vicinity to escape in a rotor-driven aircraft.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[OverlordQ]

What other "due process" should there be in order to destroy a house packed with explosives?

Well Cali is broke aren't they? Maybe they could raffle off who gets to press the button.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[rahvin112]

A judge declared the house a public nuisance. (Under Cali law that gives them the right to demolish without payment) The owner could sue for the cost of the house, then the county could counter-sue for the cost of the disposal. Having the house burned down is going to be far cheaper than a several million dollars the county spends burning it down and if the current owner is smart they will take their lumps for not doing regular tenant inspections. If they are stupid they will sue and end up responsible for all the cleanup costs.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution guarantees a right to "due process", but it doesn't spell out what that process should consist of. The law does that.

In this case, the law is being followed. And the law doesn't say you need a court trial before destroying a public health hazard.

Re:Due Process, Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

he needs to say a witty one-liner first. Duh.

Re:Minecraft

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Explosives would still be able to detonate in an inert atmosphere, because they contain their own oxidizer, rather than relying on atmospheric oxygen.

McGyver

[doublee3]

The tenant, MacGyver, claimed he was trying to bake a cake, but ran out of eggs and was trying to make some from materials at hand.

Re:McGyver

[Locke2005]

Why didn't he just use this?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[timeOday]

If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm.

Maybe, maybe not.

You know in the movies where the bomb disposal guy has to decide whether to cut the red wire or the black wire before the timer gets to 0:00? That never happens in real life. In Iraq, for example, where this kind of thing is a daily problem, they rarely try to handle or move the explosives. Option 1 is to blow it up.

Or send in the robots!

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Raenex]

So are you going to volunteer to take the shit out one box at a time?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[nedlohs]

because things can blow up when you pick them up.

You could trigger a trip wire and blow the whole thing up with you inside it (the guy had filled his house with junk and explosives, why not some booby traps).

It takes much longer, in order not to be sued into oblivion when something does go wrong you now need to evacuate the neighbourhood for weeks.

When something does catch fire accidentally you know have a chemical fire in gale force winds blowing towards the nearest population center since it's blind luck what the weather is like.

Plus it's much less fun.

Re:Pity he didn't use them on the senate

[blair1q]

Please post an album of pictures of your basement. Cc: the FBI, too.

Sign me up to pat down Oprah!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how much I'd love to grope that FINE piece of Ebony ass.

Re:Sign me up to pat down Oprah!

[superdave80]

There's nothing bony about Oprah's ass.

Where are the advocates

[bugs2squash]

of home chemistry labs now ?

Re:Where are the advocates

[vxice]

right here. raises hand.

Re:Where are the advocates

[the eric conspiracy]

Your kitchen is a home chem lab.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

Bomb squad is an all volunteer job.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

The guy lived in the house for YEARS!!!

What part of that don't you understand?

Even the most careful person would stumble once in many years. If there was anything rigged or that sensitive he would have blown himself to pieces years ago.

This is just more security theater which all you so called experts can't see thru.

Worked for that whale...

[Warwick Allison]

Oh yeah, it didn't, did it.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Raenex]

That doesn't mean they can't exercise discretion about how they do their jobs. You know, when the gardener manages to trip an explosion from residue in the back yard, I'd say that's enough evidence that the place is not safe, totally outweighing the time spent without accidents.

If they blew that place sky high while clearing it out, everybody would be calling them idiots for attempting to clear it.

Nuke it from orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the only way to be sure.

SUE!

[djdavetrouble]

sue the tenant...that is an unemployed bank robbing bomb maker. That could go wrong in so many interesting ways.

Re:SUE!

[MyLongNickName]

It would make a good follow up story on Slashdot though.

Oblig Quote

[cyberfunkr]

"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong

[PPH]

They have studied how fast the chemicals can become neutralized under heat expected to reach 1800 degrees and estimate that could happen within 30 minutes, which means most of the toxins will not even escape the burning home.

Until the heat 'cooks off' a grenade or other explosive which throws significant quantities of (yet to be burned) chemicals all over the neighborhood.

captcha: disarm

Mythbuster

[Fengpost]

Now we just the Mythbusters test this scenario. Nitro with an earthquake simulator!

Not sure this will work

[PPH]

We'll have to have MythBusters run a few experiments.

Motivation?

[Locke2005]

The guy is obviously a fan of Mythbusters, and just wanted to try is own hand at blowing shit up... is that a bad thing?

Robots won't work ...

[perpenso]

... the structure buried under a heap of dirt to protect the neighbours and the contents extracted by robot, slowly, with the explosive bits being neutralized a small bit at a time ...

Articles have quoted the bomb squad folks as saying their robots can not navigate the house due to debris, clutter, etc. Nor can they deal with the stacks of material.

Cheaper to burn/rebuild than remove contents?

[perpenso]

The house still has value, if the contents would be removed. Instead of removing them and leaving the house standing, the government CHOSE to burn down the structure.

Perhaps it is cheaper to burn and rebuild the house than repeat the process of remove, transport and deal with each piece a robot can carry out?

Re:Cheaper to burn/rebuild than remove contents?

[Eskarel]

I think it's more an issue that the robot can't get in because the place is full of junk, and getting humans to do it risks the bomb squad members and doesn't remove any of the actual risk to the neighborhood. Personally I put the lives of the bomb squad over the landlord's property, that might just be me though.

Re:Cheaper to burn/rebuild than remove contents?

[perpenso]

I whole heartedly agree. I only mentioned the robots to pose the question in a more neutral context. I just wanted folks to consider the academic question of how much removal could cost under the best of circumstances.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[nedlohs]

The guy knows where he put stuff.

The guy knows what the stuff is.

Maybe he just started messing with the unstable stuff in the last few weeks he was there?

Yes, it's likely that they could just cart the explosives out pound by pound and dispose of it normally. But they don't have perfect knowledge and think it's too risky.

It's not security theater because it isn't security. It's just bomb disposal, which you clearly know more about then all their exports. It's the opposite of security theater since force evacuating people from their houses and burning down a house isn't going make people feel more secure, it's going to make them feel less secure.

Sure burning down the house isn't nice for the owners, then again it's California the various chemicals already there probably mean the site has to cleansed with lava before dogs are allowed near it anyway.

A better approach

[Locke2005]

Force the guy who stockpiled all those explosive to bring them out slowly, one by one. If he stored them safely, it's not a problem. If he didn't... well, he should be the first one to face the consequences of his actions. But really, the government has failed to even consider the possibility that this guy might actually have known what he was doing.

Re:A better approach

[kgwilliam]

To have stockpiled this much explosive material in the house he lives in indicates that they guy is either insane or criminally dangerous. He is now likely facing life in prison so he has very little to live for. Only on slashdot would someone suggest letting the guy back in the house with all the explosives. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an explosive ordinance expert? How are you certain there is an inevitable explosion?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure they could think of a proper way to get rid of all of that stuff, ...

It was discovered when a worker (gardener?) unknowingly stepped in a pile of white powder and blew most of his leg off.

Are you volunteering for the job?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[jeff4747]

The man filled his house with explosives. He is crazy. You can not use his risk assessment as proof that it is actually safe.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

Because there are grenades. These cook off in a fire.
One detonation around all those other plastics and its all going to go up.

You watch and see.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.

Very simple. Booby-traps. Bot (or god help us, a person) catches the wrong wire, sends the whole place to kingdom come. Then there's the issue of the people living around him, and I-15 within blast range. Best case scenario, the place gets cleaned out in two or three weeks, and that whole time I-15 is shut down. Can you imagine the impact on businesses if a major highway were shut down for a month?

Also, inevitable explosion? The stuff he was making in there was primarily (maybe entierly) plastic explosives. Plastic explosives require heat and shock to detonate. That's why you can set fire to or shoot a brick of C4, but it will only go off if you stick a detonator in it.

Besides, it was mentioned (perhaps not in TFA, but still) that he had molds for hand grenades, not actual grenades. He was making them from home, not buying them wholesale.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

Actually, most of the stuff he was making was decidedly not low-power explosives. As I read, there were considerable quantities of PETN in there, which is very very very VERY energetic. However, PETN is a plastic explosive, so you'd need heat and shock to detonate, only one of which the fire will cause.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

Volunteer != suicidal.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

In that environment, a bomb suit wouldn't be worth jack shit. If a significant explosion was set off, you'd be dead and gone in milliseconds, suit or no suit.

Also, your sig is hilariously appropriate.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

There wouldn't be any bits left to pick up. Maybe if you're wearing a bomb suit they might find a few bits of ceramic lying about .

Its California guys...

[Draconis183]

They just want to see if they can manage to catch the entire state on fire during the off-season. It'll be good practice for 2011. BTW, I'm a local here. If you hear of any mysterious cloud moving towards the eastern part of the town, please let me know. Thanks.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Eskarel]

This guy is also bat shit crazy.

Presuming you randomize between goes you can theoretically play Russian roulette indefinitely , doesn't mean I'd want to take the next go.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

No, just his history.

He lived there for years and nothing went off.

Was This Guy a Muslim?

[stoicio]

Just out of curiosity, was this guy a muslim?

I'm just curious if the profiling at the airports these days is looking at the right people....

Re:Pyros. All of them

[icebike]

So by your own assessment of the plastic explosives, its safe.
You are arguing against your own position.
The guy lived in the house for years and nothing went off. Its not boobytrapped. Nobody could be that careful for year after year.

Right.

[Animats]

Right. The experts have looked at this and decided there's no safe way to clean up the mess. It's too much of a mess for robot work, and not worth risking lives to deal with by hand. So the neighborhood has been evacuated, a 16-foot metal framed wall has been constructed between the "bomb house" and the nearest neighboring house, and there will be a controlled burn, hopefully without a big bang. Then the mess will be cleaned up.

Modded funny?

[Vainglorious Coward]

Using bears to patrol your illicit operation is no joke

Re:Pyros. All of them

[imthesponge]

Until it did and someone was injured.

On not compensating the owners

[brokeninside]

If the landlord is business saavy, he or she will have taken out appropriate insurance which will cover any losses.

But, even if this were not the case, why would it be incumbant on the powers that be to compensate the owner of the property? Presumably, the local municipalities have no interest in owning the property. They just want to ensure that no one gets harmed while the property is rendered safe.

Seriously?

[brokeninside]

Uh, I think that in its present state, the house is a liablity rather than an asset. Were it not for the intervention of the police and other civil authorities, the owner of the property would be on the hook for paying someone to safely dispose of any explosives within the premises. Something tells me that the cost of doing so would vastly outstrip any loss from burning the place to the ground.

Sure, the landlord could go after the tenant to recoup the cost of cleaning out the property. But, in all likelyhood, the tenant is what they call "judgment proof." Even if the landlord wins in court, it is highly unlikely that the tenant will ever be in a position to pay any damages awarded by the court.

Which is the greater amount

[brokeninside]

Let's presume that the house does need to be cleared of all explosives and toxic chemicals before it can be rented again.

Which is the higher amount:

The cost of hiring a private agency to safely remove and dispose of all the explosives on the premises

or:

The cost of totally writing off the property

I suspect that the owner will actually be ahead of the game if the property is destroyed in its entirety.

More Seriously?

[SuperKendall]

Uh, I think that in its present state, the house is a liablity rather than an asset. Were it not for the intervention of the police and other civil authorities, the owner of the property would be on the hook for paying someone to safely dispose of any explosives within the premises.

have you priced real estate in California in the last 50 years???

There is no way cleanup of this material would exceed the value of the house, which may be around a million dollars or more. Even at 500k, it's easy to imagine being able to find someone who could clean it out. I'd do it for half that and wash the windows for free.

Of course the tenant is not going to be able to pay anything. That's why the state, which is ALSO destroying the house, owes the homeowner some additional sum of money which is what I'm sure the court will find in the inevitable lawsuit.

Re:More Seriously?

[Lemmy Caution]

The value of the house is in the property, for the most part. Not the building. And it is possible that the house is underwater - you may have heard of a little housing bubble having popped in the last couple of years? That bubble hit San Diego County pretty hard.

The homeowner is going to be lucky to get out without being sued themselves, if there is damage to the neighbors' homes.

Re:More Seriously?

[91degrees]

There is no way cleanup of this material would exceed the value of the house, which may be around a million dollars or more.

Sure, but we're only looking at rebuild cost. That has to be lower.

Re:More Seriously?

[ArsenneLupin]

And it is possible that the house is underwater

This is California, not New Orleans...

Re:More Seriously?

[SuperKendall]

That's a good point, but even given that I'm sure you could empty out the house of stuff for far less than a rebuild of a medium sized home - again California adds to the difficulties with many regulations, and on top of that might they declare you simply cannot build a house atop so many burned chemicals?

Re:Poor fucking owners....

[Culture20]

You gotta burn it? So, I guess Beavis and Butthead are the Sheriff and Mayor? Fire! Fire! Fire!

They're not allowed to say that any more. They're retired. Retired! Enh, henh heh henheheneh. Yeah!

Don't bother with cleaning

[kmahan]

Good luck getting that security deposit back.

Re:Minecraft

[tibit]

Be careful: The mechanical shock induced by cooling things down rapidly with liquid nitrogen may be well enough to detonate things. And what would the inert atmosphere be good for I just don't know, explosives don't give shit about atmosphere. Explosive bolts are used in the vacuum of space, duh.

Actuality?

[dugeen]

I wonder what's really in the jars, and why the place actually has to be blown up?

Re:Actuality?

[eriqk]

I wonder what's really in the jars,

Marmite.

and why the place actually has to be blown up?

Have you ever opened a jar of marmite?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[u38cg]

Hello. If you don't know anything about explosives, could you do us all a favour and not talk utter bollocks about the subject? I'm glad you feel that picking up and carrying explosives made by an amateur lunatic is a sensible thing to do, but frankly, no, it's not. Put your conspiracy theories to bed. The federal government does not pull out the black helicopters for the sake of a few mislaid grenades.

Lastly, evidence is not really the issue. You don't accumulate that much material without leaving a trail, however innocuous it might have seemed at the time.

Just ask the owner to dispose of the materials?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do they know he'd flush it down the toilette like my faith in government?

It wasn't a problem until trespassers tainted his private proprty. The same on my account when a tedious activity of mine was intervened by prying eyes and uncareful fingers of former parents, who happily died years ago of natural causes unrelated to contaminating my Petri-dish samples in their Incubator.

Entire Slashdot article is practically about the Federal Bureau of Stealin My Property. Rather than remind the man that the capacity of error could reach casualties within proximity of his mistakes, they intervene with novice and intermediate beaurocratic bastards that want to put another News story on noosepapers and television that will only distract from the economy.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[dragonhunter21]

Booby traps are always an option. It's all too easy to fashion some sort of anti-handling device wired up to a detonator. Trip the cord, blooie.

My argument was that bringing the place down is a lot safer than trying to maneuver around a booby-trapped house for a month. That's not even going into the economic effects on the area if they dismantle the place looking for explosives.

"normally the domain of suicide bombers"

[bill_mcgonigle]

Crates of grenades, mason jars of white, explosive powder and jugs of volatile chemicals that are normally the domain of suicide bombers

No. Stop. You fail at logic, even if you excel at propaganda.

Probably 0.0001% of Americans who have these things are terrorists. Perhaps they're misguided, but 'normally' is pure troll.

The article said he was born in Serbia

[Benfea]

So it is highly unlikely that he is a Muslim.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[d3ac0n]

Yes, because low power explosives in a burning building never cause massive destruction.

Not saying that the situations are the same, just that you are making some pretty risky assumptions.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[d3ac0n]

Here is an even better video of the same explosion.

This was a rocket fuel plant. Sodium Perchlorate. Nasty stuff, but technically a "low yield" explosive. I don't honestly know how it compares to PETN, but I wouldn't want to risk it myself.

Re:Pyros. All of them

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Now you see what I am getting at. I say go this method and broadcast it streaming online somewhere so I can watch it. I mean, a house so full of explosives to where the bomb squad even said, "HELL NO!". Let's set it on fire and burn it down. What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong if they tried to defuse every single piece of shit in this house, and one of them went off? Unlike in the movies, explosives will burn quite peacefully went set alight, but will explode when something explodes nearby.

Now, if he had a couple of dozens of (half filled) gas cylinders in there, setting the house on fire would be a bad idea. Unlike in the movies again, shooting at those should be quite safe.

Wait until they find out -

[Geminii]

- that all the heat-sensitive materials were stored in the hidden basement!

Re:Pyros. All of them

[Securityemo]

Seconded. Maybe someone could voulenteer to put cameras inside there too?

Re:Pyros. All of them

[ErkDemon]

Some explosives can become more unstable with time. Depending on the range of materials he was playing with, the fact that he might have safely put something away in a box ten years earlier wouldn't necessarily mean that it'd be safe to attempt to move that box now.