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."
It's all answered in TFA. You're welcome. :)
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."
Sounds familiar.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
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
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.
The Here-Hold-My-Beer Channel.
rj
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..."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.
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
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.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
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.
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.
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...
Poor guy was just preparing for some massive debugging.
Bears are better. The second amendment clearly protects your rights to bear arms and by extension the rest of the bear.
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.
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
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?
sue the tenant...that is an unemployed bank robbing bomb maker. That could go wrong in so many interesting ways.
music lover since 1969
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.
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.
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.
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.
Using bears to patrol your illicit operation is no joke
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
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'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.
Learn about Photography Basics.