Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
It's all answered in TFA. You're welcome. :)
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
The world is how you make it
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!
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
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
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.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
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.
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!!!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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."
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!
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.
It's a good thing the USA has all their airport security checks to stop these things getting on to their soil.
Oh, wait ...
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
There's got to be a live feed of this that's planned...any hints as to who would be carrying it?
Sounds familiar.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
Extra points for his profile photo being a cross-eyed 3d photo!
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.
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.
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?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just hope they film this. It could be the next 'Exploding Whale'.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
"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."
"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."
You had me until the "It is also immoral."
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Are you serious? The tenant is responsible, the landlord did nothing wrong.
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..."
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
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?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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.
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?
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
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
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?
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.
Jamie wants BIG BOOM!
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
The guy was living there for years. It can't be all that unstable.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
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.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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.
Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess we should hope he didn't install some kind of booby trap in the event something like this happened.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
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'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
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.
*Still* negative function...
"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.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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.
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....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Poor guy was just preparing for some massive debugging.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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?"
And, of course, there is no way he would have booby rapped someone snooping for explosives.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
The whole "eight national laboratories are helping" bit put my fears to rest a little.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
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.
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?
The world is how you make it
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.
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.
or make more than what I'm sure are a specified number of surprise visits.
Zero.
Mass murder (espeically that of potentially innocent people) isn't immoral?
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...
That's the crazy part, all those explosives and no kaboom!
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.
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.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Explosives would still be able to detonate in an inert atmosphere, because they contain their own oxidizer, rather than relying on atmospheric oxygen.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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.
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.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Where is the transition between "virtual bomb-making factory" and "bomb-making factory?"
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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!
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.
The insurance company is unlikely to cover this sort of thing.
So are you going to volunteer to take the shit out one box at a time?
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.
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...
...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.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
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.
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.
Please post an album of pictures of your basement. Cc: the FBI, too.
of home chemistry labs now ?
Nullius in verba
Bomb squad is an all volunteer job.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Oh yeah, it didn't, did it.
Correct (in my state). The tenant effectively leases the rights of ownership while occupying the property.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
It was stated that he had forms to make the grenades.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I wonder what his slashdot uid is. 7654 maybe?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
they come from new jersey.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
There's nothing bony about Oprah's ass.
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
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
2. Sell the bombs
FTFY ;-)
...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.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
no the only way to be safe is to nuke the site from orbit ;p
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."
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?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
sue the tenant...that is an unemployed bank robbing bomb maker. That could go wrong in so many interesting ways.
music lover since 1969
Actually, insurance will likely cover it. The article only says that the government isn't going to be doing any compensating.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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
Have gnu, will travel.
True, but they should have given the owner the option anyway.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Who is the house owner
From the article, it sounds like they found Crazy Harry's House.
and why this amount of explosives?
Comedy.
I can see the fnords!
How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades?
I blame Costco. You just can't buy small quantities of essentials there.
Have gnu, will travel.
Now we just the Mythbusters test this scenario. Nitro with an earthquake simulator!
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
We'll have to have MythBusters run a few experiments.
Have gnu, will travel.
Apparently a bunch of us have real problems. Care to explain where the flaw in his analogy lies?
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?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
... 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.
Don't forget the cavity searches for the tenant's girlfriend(s)!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
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.
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.
They're evacuating the neighbourhood. Unless his booby trap involves thermonuclear weapons, I don't think it will be an issue.
Whoa. You've thought about this.
.
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.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Rigged explosives to the natural gas main?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
No, no, you rent the bombs, that you get a steady income with less overhead.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
No damage was done by the tenant's purchases. The government lighting the place on fire is where the damage will come from.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The man filled his house with explosives. He is crazy. You can not use his risk assessment as proof that it is actually safe.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Sent from my CR-48
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.
Sent from my CR-48
Volunteer != suicidal.
Sent from my CR-48
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.
Sent from my CR-48
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 .
Sent from my CR-48
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, just his history.
He lived there for years and nothing went off.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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?
That is all.
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....
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!!
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.
How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades?
Well, here goes another Craigslist category shot down in flames...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Using bears to patrol your illicit operation is no joke
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
No, what's funny in TFA is that the cops found molds of human feces. WTF?
Until it did and someone was injured.
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.
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.
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.
Learn about Photography Basics.
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.
No good deed goes unpunished...
True. But renting isn't without risk. And that's why, in case your tenant trashes your property, you buy insurance.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
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.
You moron. The guys gardner nearly got killed because of an explosive going off.
Good luck getting that security deposit back.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
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?).
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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!
He can even sell renter's insurance! Brilliant!
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
I wonder what's really in the jars, and why the place actually has to be blown up?
He didn't buy them, he MADE them.
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
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
[FUCK BETA]
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.
Sent from my CR-48
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.
And, like RICO, it has been abused and twisted by the authorities to deprive legitimate owners of their property.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
woosh!
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
The tenant is no longer there. Is the house still standing? Yes or no?
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.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Please read the complete article. A little comforting fact is that LLs will be compensated through their insurance.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A ruptured gas main doesn't explode. It *does* however, make your pitiful backyard bonfires envious of its 150-foot length.
What of the possibility that some explosives stay live after the burn?
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So it is highly unlikely that he is a Muslim.
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I'm sorry that you see it as negligence but the law in most states disagrees with you.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The girl is easier to replace than the house.
A girl is easy to replace. The girl is impossible to replace.
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?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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.
Fandroids hate facts.
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.
- that all the heat-sensitive materials were stored in the hidden basement!
Seconded. Maybe someone could voulenteer to put cameras inside there too?
Emotions! In your brain!
"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.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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.
Eric Baird