Saturday, September 5, 2015

Killer uses Google Earth, Targets Isolated Homes

I have enjoyed both your books.  Here is something that goes along with the point you've made many times - that an isolated location might actually invite unwanted attention.  Also, a bigger dog is a better deterrent.
Thank you Joe. That was an interesting read. 

Adam Deeds told detectives he used Google Maps to search remote areas around Boise and Mountain Home for high-end homes to rob. Dees told investigators he decided to commit a robbery because "that’ll give me money to play with for a while.” Dees admitted to killing Ted, Elaine and Tom Welp. Dees will spend the rest of his life behind bars.
He told detectives he staked out the home and came back after dark, dressed in black, to rob the family.
A door to the garage was open when he returned and Dees used a set of house keys he found in a truck to get inside the house. The home's security system was disabled at the time. The 22-year-old told detectives had it been armed, he would have left immediately.
He also said he probably would have given up on his plan if the family had a bigger dog.

I never understood why so many people fail to see how in spite of other advantages, when it comes to high levels of dangerous crime, isolation actually works in favour of the attackers, not the defenders. Rather than worrying about refugees heading your way (which by the way are mostly NOT criminals) worry about people like Adam Dees. This is real, it is possible, and as we clearly see it has happened before. On the other hand the idea of hordes of looters attacking everything within a full gas tank distance only exists in fiction novels.

What we can learn from reading the article:
1)Criminals prefer isolated residences away from curious bystanders and neighbours.
2)Criminals can drive cars. If you can get to your “isolated” residence by car, then so can a criminal.
3)Criminals know how to use Google Maps (and Facebook, so careful what you make public there as well)
4)Criminals don’t like alarm, or strong, locked doors.
5)People living “in the country” are more likely to have a false sense of security, therefore neglecting some aspects of home and personal security, mistakenly believing that distance = safety when it comes to dangerous criminals.
6)Criminals don’t like big, strong dogs that are capable of attacking them.


Don Williams said...

1) It should be noted that the man who did much to establish the logic of the rural
retreat and the value of assault rifles -- "Tappan on Survival" by Mel Tappan in 1979 -- argued strongly against isolated rural homes , group retreats or the idea of "bugging out" at the last minute. (A young rural couple he knew had been killed by one of California's roving motorcycle gangs-- US homicide rates were significantly higher in the 1970s)

What Mel advocated was quite different from the real
estate that those who claim to be his heirs now promote. Mel's argument:

"The empirical answer to this dilemma, which the theoreticians seem to have missed, is obvious: an already existing, functioning community in which the balance of skills, social interplay and other essential factors have been established pragmatically . A small town."

"1. SIZE AND COMPOSITION. The community you choose must be small -- one to 5,000
population, preferably, and 2,000-3,000 optimally. You are looking for a community large enough to be proof against any outside attack short of one by an armored division and still small enough to remain cohesive during hard times, with a minuscule disruptive

"2. ISOLATION. The community you select should be at least a tank of gasoline removed from any large city and far enough away from even moderately sized population centers to be truly self-sufficient. All of the vital skills should be present and there should be enough practitioners of them."

"6. PEOPLE. There is an inherent social discipline in small towns. There is no anonymity and, perhaps for that reason, the people tend to have a strong sense of responsibility . Further, unproductive people who are unwilling to work are seldom attracted to farm communities. Farmers are usually disciplined because their work demands it."

"There are, of course, a few sociopaths in every town, I suppose, but in a rural population of two or three thousand, that number is very small indeed -- probably no more than the cartridges contained in a single .45 magazine."

"Further, if you are to realize the full advantage of retreating in a small rural
community, it is extremely important that you allow enough time before the trouble starts for you to become a part of that community. The last thing you want is to be the stranger -- perhaps the expendable stranger -- who just blew into town before the crunch began."

"The whole point of small-town retreating is to obtain the benefits of a
de facto group retreat without the drawbacks of creating an artificial assembly. If you choose a farm fifteen miles away from town down a dead-end road, you might just as well go back to the isolated wilderness cabin concept -- in fact, you would probably be better off if you did."

"When the trouble comes, the greatest value of a small community is that it can
become an enclave, excluding danger from without and trading goods, services and social contact within. You must, therefore, be within the probable confines of the enclave if your proximity to others during the crisis is to contribute to your safety and general welfare."

Don Williams said...

There are several arguments agains Mel's idea, of course. One is that self-sufficient farming implies a very low standard of living, although one certainly preferable to living in one of America's inner cities in the 1960s when entire blocks were being burned down in race riots -- the Democrats never examined what that did to the small businessmen in those areas.

Two, having skills is not enough -- today's specialized doctors would lose much of their value if they were without the massive inventory of medicines and devices found in the hospital , although a rural hospital would provide time to possibly develop the more primitive tech. Mel did advocate having a large library of reference books and some of the older editions of Encyclopedias provided a lot more detailed information on basic tech that would have helped reconstitute civilization. The benefits of a university without all the bloodsucking
parasites in the humanities and social sciences departments.

Three, Mel envisioned a massive collapse of civilization that probably would not occur because of the US government's huge -- and largely secret -- Continuity of Government program. As a survivalist, the US Government makes Mel look limpwristed. Billions of rounds of Ammunition , huge armories of weapons, massive underground caches, invulnerable nationwide communications systems, and huge bunkers buried under 500 feet of metabasalt --some of the hardest
rock found on earth.

If your tanks seize the grain silos then you control the food supply and
hence you control the population. And the first time the raging horde sees what a
50 caliber Browning bullet does to a pickup truck's engine block, that will be the end of "spontaneous evacuation".

Of course, Mel wasn't cleared for that Cold War information back in 1979, heh heh.
Although he did recognize the likelihood of the ensuing government tyranny and his small rural towns would be one of the better refuges from that tyranny ( he argued for choosing an areas with diverse agriculture, not the massive grain farms like those seized by Stalin in the Holomodor.

And Mel had dealt with the elective poverty of small scale farming by one of his better survival tricks --one which he did not reveal. He married a wealthy heiress. If you have a huge pile of money, then economically depressed areas with low prices , a low rate of crime and a docile work force look like a bargain.

Don Williams said...

PS Mel Tappan did raise some interesting ideas. If you and your family are not behind a town's walls at night --and protected by armed sentinels -- then you are not safe. And if you don't want to be screwed by the town council, then you need to be able to attend the town council. Which means your farm needs to be within a mile of the town walls.

Another consideration is that a paramilitary force is likely to be weak and ineffective if its members fear being hung later for murder and banditry if
they use their guns --just look at what happened to George Zimmerman here in the USA. Whereas here in the USA, towns --even in sparsely populated rural areas -- have their own police force and their police chief can make town civilians his deputies --thereby giving them the protection afforded to regular policemen and soldiers.

Mel's point about the prime importance of social unity -- and the speed and decisiveness it provides -- is important. Although things obviously can work differently in other countries.

However, Mel's idea that a town of 2000-3000 people can hold off any armed force smaller than an "Army division" shows Mel's lack of military service. A band of 20 or so bandits --yes. An Army company of 100 or so men --maybe. An Army battalion --no way. Although the US Army would start to disintegrate if an economic collapse ever cut the $200+ billion umbilical cord to the US economy that sustains it.

Anonymous said...

Thus many people need to understand that facebook, Instagram, etc are all dangerous. With perverts and crooks out there the less anyone knows about you or your family the better.

They keep all the notes, photos , dates, etc FOREVER.

Follow the gray man approach to life, remember, just as in the military,,give information out only on a "need to know" basis.

Anonymous said...

Don -

Always enjoy your input. I'm at this site every day, and frankly I look forward to your input as much as I do Ferfal's.

Thanks again-

Don Williams said...

If you are interested in Mel Tappan's ideas, I think his "Tappan on Survival" may be on the internet somewhere --try Googling on the phrase.