Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Released footage of the police raid on the Kim Dotcom mansion (3news.co.nz)
167 points by AhtiK on Aug 8, 2012 | hide | past | favorite | 92 comments

So, there's an overblown police operation, using two helicopters, 5 paddy wagons, AR-15s, dogs, and a forceable takedown of a suspect deemed to be "low-risk", to serve an illegal warrant by a unit that NZ Police themselves describe [1] as "[providing] Police with the means of effectively and more safely responding to and resolving situations in which there is an actual or threatened use of firearms or other weapons against members of the public or Police." All of this was done so that K.C "couldn't destroy evidence" that he didn't have access to, in the first place.

Forgive me, but who the hell planned this? It sounds so incredibly American, but I don't see why the NZPD would allow the FBI to dictate tactics like that.

[1] http://www.police.govt.nz/service/aos/

As we know the entire thing was a staged PR-move, to show them filthy pirates what they're getting themselves into ("We will track you down and get you anywhere!").

The overblown Raid was likely part of the script - or it happened out of anticipatory obedience.

Try to see the positive in it; old money in the media mafia is literally kicking and screaming by now. They're in their death struggle.

After this public humiliation it seems unlikely they will be able to pull similar nonsense at such a scale again. It must have cost them a fortune to pull those strings, and not only are they running out of fortunes, but the involved puppets will probably also ask double next time, due to the now obvious risk that something might fling up and stick to their name.

After this public humiliation it seems unlikely they will be able to pull similar nonsense at such a scale again.

They've destroyed Megaupload and got away with it. I' not sure I'd call the result "public humiliation", at least not for them.

> They've destroyed Megaupload and got away with it. I' not sure I'd call the result "public humiliation", at least not for them.

Megavideo was replaced by a dozen video streaming sites (many with Indian .in domain names) within a week. Only ones who lost anything were the people using it to store personal files.

Correct, the people who destroyed Megaupload have not lost anything.

They had grounds to destroy Megaupload properly, law enforcement agencies (and governments) loose a lot of credibility when they ignore the law, especially when they are not doing anything time-critical.

I don't agree. A message to those filthy pirates would have been to shoot his kids dead. At least that's what the US does to Islamic clerics with terrorist connections (in this case via a drone strike).

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole operation used a movie director (seeing how it was done on behalf of MPAA) as a "consultant" on how to make the biggest PR impact.

I would take a bet that the FBI just handed New Zealand some warrants, told them what they wanted and paid them a bunch of money for expenditures.

The local PD probably got giddy over the idea that the US was footing the bill to use all their fancy hardware and tactical training so they went all out.

Police love having an excuse to put on the swat team gear and bang on doors, regardless of what country they live.

> Police love having an excuse to put on the swat team gear and bang on doors, regardless of what country they live.

Don't underestimate the impact of this simple truth.

I was thinking the exact same thing as I watched. It seemed ridiculous that any of that was needed, but I was like "I bet those cops are having a blast!". Hell, it made me want to strap on the kevlar and go kick a few doors in.

More seriously, it was interesting to hear Dotcom say he (smartly) decided to let the cops find HIM rather than go to them as he didn't want to startle them and get shot or something.

This is true, swat teams suit up and kick in doors daily to arrest kids with a half ounce of weed.

"...but when we got to the Scene of the Crime there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper story about it. And they was using up all kinds of cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station. They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography."

Remember, the raid was the day after the SOPA Internet blackout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA).

The last time an Australasian country stood up for itself and refused to acquiesce to US demands, they overthrew the government.

I think the FBI can do what it wants down these parts.

Ignoring all of the other nonsense comments below which have no relevance besides 'America is bad mmmkay', it was known Dotcom had gun(s) at his house. Also he has been convicted of crimes previously. Not that his hacking crimes make him a hardcore armed felon, but he did have weapons in his house at the time of the raid.

Also the overblown raid? Yeah probably a scare tactic to show him who he is messing with...

>but he did have weapons in his house at the time of the raid.

All of which is taken into account in the risk profile, and he was judged to be of low risk. Besides, who cares if he has legal guns? I have guns, doesn't mean I'm going to shoot someone who comes to serve a warrant.

>probably a scare tactic to show him who he is messing with

It's sad that people (particularly Americans, but also citizens of more brutal regimes) are so used to such tactics by police that they seem normal.

There are a lot less guns in NZ than Amurrica, so it is probably more of a big deal over there than here. But I'd let someone from NZ chime in on that to be sure.

I'm an expat Kiwi now living in Canada. Gun control is much stricter in NZ - you need a firearms license with different endorsement, and restrictions on the types of guns allowed http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/

A fair percentage of farms out in the country would have a license for dealing with farm issues (possums/live stock etc). As a teenager growing up in the country, you would likely have a friend and go possum hunting. And/or things like Scouts where you would be shown how to safely handle a gun. However it was always in a safe light - for farming reasons. In Coatesville, the area where his mansion is, it wouldn't be out of the norm to have a rifle on hand. I can't comment on the last 7 years, but police officers (do, or did) need to have guns locked in a lock box in the back of their cars, they're not carrying them around in public. Members of the public with pistols and semi-auto style weapons are very rare indeed. When I moved to Auckland from the country I didn't know of a single soul that would have a gun.

As always the gang element would have some serious guns but it's really not as prevelant from both an anecdotal when I lived there, or statistical view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence). NZ 15% of homicides with guns vs 65% in USA. (Source UN, 2000 per the entry). That's a staggering difference.

It was 16 years ago my first trip to the US, but I was shocked/stunned seeing guns in public. Texas of all places. Being a company owned by kiwis, our "culture shock" of the year was going to a gun show. Abso-frigging-lutely mind blowing. I don't care what potential use case you put it under, some types of guns are for one reason, and one reason only.

All guns are for one reason only - shooting bullets. Also, most firearm-involved homicides in the US are committed with handguns, a fact routinely ignored or brushed aside by those trying to keep the focus on the guns that are 'scarier', but usually less effective for criminal purposes. Knives kill more people per year than all other gun types combined.

The gun control debate in this country is effectively screwed because of the fact that there is a second amendment whose purpose is to ensure civilians remain armed well enough to defeat military occupation, and 'well enough' is being argued about by extremists who set tone of the entire debate.


It is true that while the US army might have the most guns in the world, the US public seemingly isn't all that far behind. Even if your armed forces were not allowed to take part, you'd still probably win in a land war against Canada or Mexico.

I don't necessarily disagree, though I seriously doubt Canada or Mexico would ever invade the US, as there would be too much to risk and too little to gain for the cost. The sad thing is, and I feel really strange saying this as a former member of the US military, we also are supposed to be able to combat our own military should they one day be used against us. Though the US military has not been used against the people of the US since Posse Comitatus (excepting recent drone strikes in foreign countries), history (and present day) is full of examples of this not always being the case.

I don't think you can talk about the point of the second amendment completely without mentioning the fact that it was envisioned to apply against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. I'm pretty sure 'self-defense' was a given to the founders, and did not enter into the thinking for it - they were explicitly laying out out the need for civilians to be able to rise up against their own government.

Jefferson's famous quote, "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is actually a smaller snippet of a quote which speaks directly to this:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Hollywood movies do a pretty good job of reminding the US public of the facts of the cruel world out there. Well, the paying US public. Hold on a mo', perhaps there's a case here for allowing unrestricted access to such movies to those who can't afford it, or would rather buy something else. Unrestricted access via, say, Megaupload.

Are you saying Kiwi gun control laws are stricter than America's, or Canada's? Here in Canada there are two basic classes of firearms a citizen can acquire: restricted and non-restricted. Non-restricted guns include shotguns, bolt-action rifles, center-fire rifles, and most semi-automatic rifles. This requires a safety test and license to acquire. Restricted firearms include handguns and some semi-automatic rifles such as the AR platform. This requires just a further test and different license.

The reason I ask is that some states, namely California, Mass., and the like have far greater restrictions than Canada, yet gun crime is generally not an issue here. Hell, in Switzerland, every male does mandatory military service and is given a fully-automatic assault rifle to keep at home upon completion, and they have a very low rate of gun crime.

>some types of guns are for one reason, and one reason only.

Not necessarily. The vast majority of what most people call assault rifles (which aren't; assault rifles are by definition select-fire) are used for sporting purposes only. The fact that they could be used were there ever to be a fecal-fan collision doesn't detract from the fact that almost all owners use them for hobby shooting.

They know he had guns but they all went in without any armour. Sure looks like they were anticipating the use of guns!

You need to justify those expenses somehow. How can you justify the police helis if you never use them?

This is what the default posture for a domestic raid looks like because the men who trained these troopers were most likely veterans who specialized in urban operations over the last decade of conflict.

The line between military and police is blurred beyond distinction at this point. It is more jurisdictional than much else. As I watched the raid footage it was clear that I was watching a familiar routine. Probably rehearsed several times but not exclusively for this particular raid.

Some argue that conflict is universal and the tactics of SWAT, for example, naturally resemble those of the military. Close quarters battle (CQB) is made up of a dynamic that has few enough variations that a universal approach might make sense. Rather than asking how a Ranger unit should clear a mansion versus how SWAT should do it, the idea seems to have been that there ought not be a difference. This wasn't always the case. To prepare for urban operations in Iraq, many units trained according to police tactics (CQB in particular). There were fatal flaws in the method and it cost lives. Better methods were developed and later became SOPs shared with the police.

There are a handful of contracting outfits that employ recently retired operators from Special Operations to train international elements in tactics. Special Operations operators have experience working in small teams and training other elements. This model is not only effective at lowering costs for Defense, it also resembles the size element a police unit might have at its disposal. Operators with experience working under austere conditions could provide a lot of value to an organization with a comparatively limited budget. The training given to Special Operations is without rival. Being trained by the retired SOF is the next best thing to being trained for SOF.

The NZPD definitely planned the execution around the SOPs. The contingencies their plan prepared for did not seem to be the most likely course of action they expected from Dotcom's two man security element. I felt like they started with a more excessive template and stripped out what they could according to the risk assessment. This is radically different from building the concept of operation from the risk assessment.

For example, consider the M4's used. It was said these were standard issue. These had optics for engaging at a distance between 150 - 300 meters. Each trooper had a 9mm side arm. An MP5 or UMP9 as their primary would make more sense given that it also uses the 9mm. Sure, those are limited in engaging distance targets but what were they expecting? A shootout at the perimeter? Not with a helo infil.

This tactic is called a show of force. It is very consistent with American tactics but not uniquely so. It is exactly what it sounds like- an exhibition. The justification is typically "force protection". A trooper is more valuable than equipment so spare no expense to protect the trooper. That's the line, anyway.

I think the most interesting aspect here is the decision to execute with downgraded armor. The mentality of the operators was that they could make compromises in their defensive load but not their offensive load. But their plan was to breach a huge mansion. They have some idea what's inside but who knows what Dotcom might be doing on the other side of the front door at the moment of breach (or any other door thereafter). These men certainly weren't expecting that he was sitting on the other side with a weapon or they never would have conducted a breach with light armor. The first guy in is guaranteed dead if he isn't wearing a chest plate that can stop 7.62. The chances for the second guy are slim. Their infil was by helo meaning the weight of heavier armor would not matter much. They had to sprint about 100 meters from touchdown to the front door. The light armor is the most damning aspect of the testimony, in my opinion. It is the clearest indication to me that these guys were very confident that they would catch Dotcom sleeping or reading the paper in his underwear. These guys began the mission confident that they could walk right through the front door and scare the piss out of Dotcom. So why not do just that? Why was this level of force the default posture? It only increases the likelihood of unnecessary casualties.

I find it a little scary that Hollywood can order armed men in helicopters to raid a man's home, anywhere in the world.


  A dark, sleek office room, filled with cigar smoke, expensive 
  gadgets and designer furniture. The cigar smoke rises above 
  Hollywood executive GOLDBERG like a whirlwind, framing his 
  grinning face...

  He dials his Blackberry phone to the hum of his $9000 Dell PC,
  while leaning back into his chair a little.

               (on the phone)
         Is this The Agency?

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
               (in a clearly american accent)
         How can I help you, Mister Goldberg?

         I would like to order a raid.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Yes sir, what do you want with it?

         I want a heavily armed para-military squad, 
         carrying the latest gear. I want two helicopters, 
         half a dozen paddy wagons, the whole works.

               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Would you like dogs with that?


               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Is the recipient an organization or an individual.


               UNKNOWN OPERATOR (v.o)
         Alright, sir. Must be quite a party you're planning.

         Party? I'm about to destroy democracy as we know it!
         Nobody, henceforth, will ever be able to make 
         millions off of stolen media without repercussions!

               (looking at the viewer ominously)

IIRC Accelerando (linked below) by HNs very own cstross postulated something similar in 2005.


Yeah, but in that case the RIAA/MPAA had sold off the collections rights to organised crime. This is the _cops_.

But if the "state"(s) co-ordinates a raid that rests on illegal arrest warrants, is this not also organised crime?

Every time I see things like this, Accelerando is the first thing I think of. Also, if you like that, you'll probably like Life Artificial by David A Eubanks:


It would have been nice if Hollywood supplied them with a better camera. That said, the footage looks fine for an anti piracy ad, on VHS.

Actually, the footage looks great for an anti-copyright advert. "If you are suspected of copyright infringement, we send in police with weapons, in a helicopter".

From the outside it kinda looks like New Zealand is just trying to make 'murrica happy on this one, so I'm not sure they would be so lucky elsewhere (ie not the UK/CAN/NZ)

No, they can't do that everywhere. For example, in Sweden, China, Iran, France they would not be allowed to do that. It can be only done in anglo-american countries.

the pirate bay might argue with you about sweden.

and Julian Assange too.

Two helicopters, AR-15s, police vehicles, dogs, ninja-clad police, FLIR, and beating him up all over...... copyright infringement. Does anyone else see a problem here?

I think it shows an interesting trend in our society, maybe something that will become more and more common.

We now value money immensely, and have a lot of laws in place to protect not only the money we have, but the money we're trying to earn (see Apple v Samsung).

Sooner or later, it could plausibly be a more serious offense to steal money, or the means of making money, than murder or child abuse.

But everyone knows that Time Warner, Disney, 20th Century Fox, are all going bankrupt because of his terrible crime of running a file uploading site!


What if the guards started shooting at the police for tresspassing if they couldn't identify them in the first second of seeing them? Why did they have to use the helicopter?

That's a real danger with SWAT raids. IF you've got an already violent subject then making them as confused as possible will tend to make things safer for the SWAT team. But if you're sending a SWAT team in against people who aren't already violent there's a chance the subject will think they're being invaded by criminals and try to fight back. Several SWAT officers die every year because of that. And many more people on the receiving ends of SWAT raids.

So, there's a good reason that the way the police traditionally do things, surround a house and ask the people to come out. The US military actually generally does the same thing with insurgents in Iraq. But no police department wants to be the one that "doesn't even have a SWAT team". And once you have one, you have to use it or else how do you justify it to taxpayers?

Unless you're a South American drug lord, I don't think that's how security guards work. You don't get to just shoot wildly at anyone approaching, unless you're being shot at.

If Kim had trigger happy guards like that, that alone would seem a little suspicious. Who was he afraid of?

For that matter, this is a pretty paranoid panic button setup:

“I was on my bed, once the banging started, I pressed an alarm button that is situated right at my bed which was installed in case of an emergency. When I press that it automatically sends a signal to all security guards including Mr [Wayne] Tempero’s room including SMSs to everybody informing them there is an alert.

Perhaps that's just standard operating procedure for a multi-millionaire.

Full story in text: http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-What-really-happened-in-the-Dot...

Alarm-Buttons and panic rooms are not so uncommon and often installed in houses of much-more low-key persons then Kim Schmitz. A family friend purchased a house (not a mansion, just a bigger house in a suburban neighborhood) here in germany that was formally owned by a CEO of a mid-sized tech company. And there is a panic button in every room, as well as a hidden room. Why should such a system be uncommon in, from what I remember, the biggest mansion in NZ? I guess it was already there when he bought the place.

To be fair, his actual name is Kim Dotcom, as ridiculous as that is.

I suspect he might change it again to spite his American tormentors. We might see "Kim LOL USA SUX" or "Kim Vote-Pirate-Party" in the news.

Kim Nohollywood?

Kim Unamerican?

I mean... is it really that paranoid?

Would it have been much different if instead of a button, it was an intercom system, and Dotcom queried his staff as to what the banging noise was?

In one way it does seem comically super-villain-esque, but then, i wouldn't say that Dotcom's impulses were anything more dramatic than anyone hearing unusual noises in their home. It's just, most of us don't have a staff to query, or a saferoom to evacuate to.

No less paranoid than moving to New Zealand?

Ha. As a NZer I'm not quite sure how to take that. It's pretty much sheep, some locals, and copyright infringers down that way.

Having a gun for protection in NZ is unusual. That said, he's reached a station in life where some hired professional protection for himself and his family seems relatively sane.

What's paranoid about moving to NZ?

> If Kim had trigger happy guards like that, that alone would seem a little suspicious. Who was he afraid of?

Afraid of exactly this scenario where one early morning, heavily armed men were storming his home where his wife and kids were?

I'd have been terrified.

If your wealth is ostentatious and/or you believe you own enough assets to target thieves, I suspect it's not very paranoid at all. For a normal everyday joe, probably.

But while things like this happen, it seems sane if you have the money: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184641/Waterboarded...

> this is a pretty paranoid panic button setup

It is not terribly uncommon for agents of the US government to forcibly enter homes and kill the residents, often under mistaken circumstances. And as this story shows, their reach is extremely broad.

So, I certainly wouldn't classify it as paranoid, in this day and age it seems like common sense.

This woman might have benefited from such arrangements: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-19160222

I've just read a story recently about an American shooting a sales agent for "tresspassing"...so yeah.

Wouldn't happen in NZ.

I'm not even sure the guards would have guns at all. I don't think they would be allowed to have pistols. They might have shotguns I guess.

I highly doubt any guard would have raised any opposition, given at least one of them was a serving police officer.

src: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...

Expat kiwi here. Unless something has changed in the last 5 years - security personal in New Zealand generally don't carry firearms and I don't believe there is a legal justification for lethal force. We don't have anything like the "Castle Law" found in some US States and gun owners rarely use firearms defensively. Also, if people dressed in black and armed with M4's are knocking on your door you can safely assume it's the Police in NZ.

It's hard to understand why they would raid his house like this.

TV news in New Zealand spent a whole 10 minutes on the same story. That would be an unprecedented level of detail on an American news program.

*for any news story not involving a pretty young white woman.

The site is still overloaded, link to the video itself:


edit: OK, it works now, but well, you can have it as mp4 :)

Kim seems a bit douchey at times but all the man power they put into this raid seemed a bit overkill.

Without commenting on whether Kim is in the right or the wrong ... this whole thing was pretty disgusting. For a case where there are no drugs, no murders, nobody hurt, to storm in with weapons and detain women and children is pretty despicable. Completely unwarranted.

Well, he was really good at "Call of Duty" apparently. Maybe they were concerned about his "mad skillz?"

So did they get Bin Laden or what?

Was the C-130 Gunship on standby circling overhead or something? Why were so many 'assets' thrown into a raid? Who sanctioned this? I would be looking for resignations and full hearing/inquiries into total miss allocation of resources.

I for one think this whole raid was made so that the media, and people around the world are distracted and ask the wrong questions while the real issue at hand is silently taken care of.

There was probably a file, or a bunch of damaging data to the US government that has found it's way to megaupload.com and had to be eliminated without a trace so that it doesn't resurface at an inconvenient moment.

The raid, the illegal warrants, the choppers and swat teams are all just a big show that will have people talking for years now while the FBI/CIA secretly got what they needed behind the scenes.

Speaking of.... why is the FBI the one giving directions to NZPD... isn't this supposed to be a CIA operation if it's outside US borders?

He was, "low risk" but the police carried AR-15s and handguns, brought along with 2 helicopter units and apparently copyright infringement sniffing dogs. What a gross waste of police, as well as taxpayer money.

Reminds me of this (acted) video, which is currently front-page on the pirate bay: http://www.political-prostitution.com/

I can't believe they brought assault rifles to a raid for copyright infringement? What next - bazookas for shop lifters?!?!

There was definitely political pressure from someone on this one - and I would definitely point the finger to someone within the United States.

The real question is, why release the footage now?

One likely reason is that they are loosing this case in the court of public opinion and this video may have been thought to make him out to look like "the bad guy".

It's so over-the-top though it seems to have had the opposite effect. The intro to the video indicates the footage came from a source within NZ law enforcement; perhaps he had a change of heart and felt the video needed to be seen.

They may not have understood what effect it would have.

Wonder if the recorded video was saved to megaupload... :)

why did kim go to the red room alone, presumably leaving his wife and kids to be handled by the intruders?

It doesn't sound like they were in the same room as him at the time (it seemed like they were on the other side of the house or something), and given the intruders, I'm not sure what else he could have done.

a/v 6/5, no sample wtf?

This is a disgrace for New Zealand and as a European this whole ordeal has warned me plenty to not do any business there ever.

The US who were obviously the ones in charge of NZ police and general "law" enforcement are another story. The world police has done their will again. Without thinking, without logic, without sense, but Hollywood money behind them.

The way this has been handled has been disgraceful, but this is a ridiculous reaction. I am a New Zealander (now in SF) so I'm biased, but New Zealand is a peaceful country [1], frequently rated as one of the least corrupt [2], with excellent freedom of press [3], and is relatively easy place to do business [4].

You could certainly do a lot worse.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index [2] http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ [3] http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html [4] http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/new-zeala...

This is most certainly not normal or accepted in NZ, and in case you missed it, the courts have ruled it was not legal, have asked the US to back up claims, and have not extradited Dotcom.

The raid was written by Michael Bay.

Well. To play the devil's advocate - when you listen to what Kim Dotcom says, it sounds like he has hell of a security on his place. In that light, the operation was not that overblown - especially when the officers couldn't know the exact details of his security.

The night drop was not as smooth as planned. The 101st missed the drop zone and found themselves scattered over most of the back yard. Small units formed and conducted raids, where possible, taking the shed and guest house, but the primary objective remained unaccomplished.

The transports dropped the first wave within sight of the massive compound but the gate loomed shut. The airdrop obviously failed to open a safe passage.

Multiple twisted ankles resulted in 50% casualties but a squad of men reached the gate. A brave private, barely old enough to shave, rang the buzzer and asked "Hey mate, would you mind opening the gate? We have a warrant."

Truly, New Zealand's greatest generation.

Not to mention, it took them 15 minutes to actually find Dotcom.

He wasn't a drug dealer, he wasn't engaged in human trafficking. No mater what security he had, he didn't have anything that would be worth shooting at a cop over. This operation was beyond idiotic. Hollywood was trying to "make an example" here and it backfired massively.

Let's hope they raid the homes of bankers in the same way.

They could have tried knocking on the door. That's usually what happens in warrants for non-violent crime with a suspect who has no history of violence. This was a copyright case with all the evidence across a huge ocean, no need for a paramilitary operation.

To play the devil's advocate -- it sounds like he would have surrendered himself to the police if they had just asked.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact