Explosive-Laden California Home To Be Destroyed 424
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? (Score:2, Flamebait)
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: (Score:2)
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 fo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Bears are better. The second amendment clearly protects your rights to bear arms and by extension the rest of the bear.
Re: (Score:3)
Modded funny? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [shootersjournal.net], 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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Pyros. All of them (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Pyros. All of them (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The guy was living there for years. It can't be all that unstable.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Pyros. All of them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Pyros. All of them (Score:5, Funny)
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..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Really? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an explosives expert but perhaps the worry is moving/jostling the stuff, especially in a tight environment?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
From the article, too volitile (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Home made nitro is scary stuff (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, what's that file on his computer? He planned on setting up a wikileaks mirror? TERRORIST!!!
Security checks (Score:2)
It's a good thing the USA has all their airport security checks to stop these things getting on to their soil.
Oh, wait ...
satisfying my inner pyro (Score:3)
There's got to be a live feed of this that's planned...any hints as to who would be carrying it?
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
The Here-Hold-My-Beer Channel.
rj
Got a problem? Blow it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
3d! (Score:2)
Extra points for his profile photo being a cross-eyed 3d photo!
Sounds like bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Not bullshit. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sounds like bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Viral Video (Score:3)
Wow ! A house full of hidden explosives .... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [npr.org]
Call the Mythbusters! (Score:2)
Jamie wants BIG BOOM!
Why I love Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
More than 40 experts were involved in making DOS.
Due Process, Anyone? (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
"normally the domain of suicide bombers" (Score:3)
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.
Re:Owner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Owner? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!!
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
they come from new jersey.
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Owner? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
How the hell does someone buy crates of real live grenades?
Well, here goes another Craigslist category shot down in flames...
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Owner? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
"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."
not compensating the owners ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The government IS causing the loss of value (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Cheaper to burn/rebuild than remove contents? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:3)
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 tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Owner? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
SUE! (Score:4, Funny)
sue the tenant...that is an unemployed bank robbing bomb maker. That could go wrong in so many interesting ways.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 detona
Re:Owner? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You had me until the "It is also immoral."
Re: (Score:2)
Thermite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)