ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bomb detectors , dowsing , Gary Bolton , hal bidlack , Jim McCormick , Samuel Tree , sniffex

Reply
Old 5th February 2010, 08:46 AM   #201
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Looks like the Iraqis have given up on their magic wands a.k.a. the ridiculous ADE651, they are buying dogs as quick as the US can train them. See the link for the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4bc0eab.html

Something about the ADE651 being unreliable
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 08:47 AM   #202
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 5th February 2010 at 10:25 AM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 08:52 AM   #203
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
Originally Posted by me View Post
I suspect that one reason these, er, "devices" became so popular is that dogs are very unpopular in that part of the world. Canines are unclean, you know.
My suspicions have been confirmed by the Associated Press.

Apparently some Iraqis really don't like dogs, but they like being blown up even less. The USA is rushing a bunch of the bomb-sniffing dogs to Iraq, and the Iraqis are actually REQUESTING them. From today's Toronto Star (AP):
Quote:
The worries over security are strong enough to overcome reluctance among Iraqi forces to use canines because of Islamic religious taboos that consider dogs unclean animals. While U.S. troops and foreign private security firms often used sniffing dogs, Iraqis relied on them far less--both because troops didn't like them and Iraqi citizens didn't like being searched by them.
According to the story, this new-found respect for canine capabilities comes "after accusations that widely used mechanical devices are ineffective to pinpoint explosives...."

The bad guys exploited this security weakness, killing hundreds in August with a series of major bombings, according to the report.
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
-- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North

"Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice
Brown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 10:01 AM   #204
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
Originally Posted by me View Post
From today's Toronto Star (AP)....
The Toronto Star's version of the story was an abbreviated version of the story linked by Techowiz.

The report indicates that religious (or as some prefer, cultural) feelings may create a flaw in the canine program:
Quote:
Because of the sensitivities, the job of dog handler is volunteer only, and dogs will be used to search cars, buildings and other areas not people, unless they are suspected of being a bomber, Hajea said.
The notion of "walking bombs," with explosives being attached to individuals bent upon mass murder, is certainly known. But such individuals will not be given the canine once-over unless they are "suspected" of being bombers, whatever that means.

As a result, it is at least foreseeable that some bombers will not be stopped by the canines, and this foolish lapse in security will cost the lives of many more innocents.
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
-- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North

"Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice
Brown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 10:22 AM   #205
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,312
Originally Posted by Brown View Post
But such individuals will not be given the canine once-over unless they are "suspected" of being bombers, whatever that means.
It means they've been spotted by someone using an ADE651.

-- Roger
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 10:24 AM   #206
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2010, 01:57 PM   #207
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?

Frequently, but they don't always pass.

Here's one amusing failure:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/1...010710.article
Quote:
A policeman slipped plastic explosives into a passenger’s luggage at a Slovak airport Saturday in a sniffing dog test. Instead of being detected, the small package ended up on a flight to Dublin.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 5th February 2010 at 02:00 PM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2010, 07:47 PM   #208
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
David Vollmar of Unival, which sells the HEDD1, which he describes as the fourth generation of Sniffex, is online defending his product and claiming it is nothing like the ADE651 or GT200.

The website defpro.com seems to have given Vollmar a pedestal to tout his claims, sadly without asking for proof of his claims of effectiveness.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/492/

After comments listing some of the blogs critical of these scams, it appears Mr. Vollmar posted a comment of his own.

Quote:
The mentioned blogspots unfortunately refuse to look at this issue with the necessary elaborateness and remain at their one-sided and unobjective behaviour. As a German company with very strict liability standards, we will not claim anything that we cannot fulfill! It is my understanding of intelligent assessment procedures that you create your opinion after serious data collection and serious testing. This is what all our clients have done so far, prior to any decision making. The last 4 years we have been working very hard to improve the technology and related working scenarios in order to make it the most reliable device that we can produce at this moment. So I can say with best conscience that we have a genuine device that is currently unique with its capabilities for real-time and covert detection of explosives! Presentation and testing of HEDD1 takes place under real-life scenarios with blind-tests that are set-up from our clients. In this set-up we clearly define what we can achieve and what we cannot achieve. It is then up to every potential client to decide whether these capabilities can create improved security standards or not. We train our clients within pre-defined scenarios and clearly limit the use of the device to these scenarios. I would like to remind you that only a couple of days ago Munich airport was closed due to a false alarm from a trace detector creating enormous economical damage (similar things happened in the US recently). Up to today there is no perfect explosive detection technology available and it is therefore widely accepted that a good security standard can only be achieved with multi-level system of complementary technologies. HEDD1 is a tool that needs to be used in line with complementary technologies. There is a big project being funded from EU that is now working with the same technological approach, so these are facts that you have to consider, if you want to address things on a correct way.
Created: 2010-01-26 17:03:31

I love the fact he says they train their clients within predefined scenarios and limit the use of the device to those scenarios. When Randi challenged Sniffex to win the Million Dollar Challenge, he said they could even use the protocol listed IN THEIR OWN TRAINING MANUAL!! If they claim a user should be trained to find a sample within one of several identical boxes, why don't they accept the challenge? That is exactly what they claim their device can do!

Techowiz - You did a great job helping the BBC gain interest in these devices. Do you know anyone at Der Spiegel?
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2010, 02:54 PM   #209
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
This will be the same David Vollmar that sent an email to DD stating he was going to take the MDC with the ridiculous Sniffex Plus, funny how he never got round to it. Biff, someone on the link you posted took Vollmar to task rather well so it wasn't all one way. Working on Gary Bolton now with his fraudulent GT200.
The fight goes on till all the scammers are arrested and sent for a long stretch in Jail for the suffering and pain they have caused with their scam devices.
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2010, 05:21 AM   #210
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Now the turn of the ridiculous GT200 for exposure on the BBC, check the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQEkXkSVd0

See the youtube of the BBC newsnight programme, the same people that gave slim Jim McCormick his tv debut.
Well done to DD for getting his letter from the MOD mentioned, great work my friend.
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!

Last edited by Techowiz; 17th February 2010 at 07:01 AM. Reason: Previous link removed
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2010, 07:01 AM   #211
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Now the turn of the GT200

Duplicate post. Sorry.
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!

Last edited by Techowiz; 17th February 2010 at 07:02 AM.
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2010, 01:23 PM   #212
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,135
The thread on the GT200 story is here Thai Government finds GT200 bomb detector to be useless
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2010, 07:23 PM   #213
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Have dogs been subjected to double-blind tests of detection accuracy?
I saw a documentary about bomb-sniffing dogs in some European country and how they had to not only go through a very rigorous certification process and but also be re-certified every few years. I guess the standards vary a great deal from country to country.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2010, 07:25 PM   #214
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,646
As ex US Army, I think that Any Military officer who approved the purchase and use of this device needs to have his butt Court Martialed for either bribery or incompetence, like yesterday.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2010, 08:07 AM   #215
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
CNN have now joined in with further exposure of the ridiculous GT200, see the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w6VGE-TYS0

regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2010, 04:58 PM   #216
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,135
If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2010, 05:50 PM   #217
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that showing criminal negligence would be relatively easy in this case. I have no idea how far a step it is from that threshold to murder or to manslaughter. I also suspect that it varies a great deal from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I would love to see him do some hard time in an Iraqi or Thai prison. That'd be so cool.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2010, 07:30 AM   #218
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
If you sold something that did not work and you knew it did not work and as a result lives were lost then is that murder?
In U.S. law, I'd say no.
Fraud, yes.
Criminal negligence, maybe.
Negligent homicide (manslaughter), probably not.
Intentional homicide (murder), almost certainly not.

Supplying a faulty crime-detection tool doesn't suddenly make you responsible for crimes that the tool fails to detect. The fact is that there are actual, real killers here. They are the ones who committed murder. Establishing proximite cause between selling a tool that doesn't detect explosives, and people being killed by a terrorist setting off those explosives, is probably not going to fly.
Of course, defrauding the Iraqi and Thai governments will probably get you bad enough punishments under their laws without having to bring specific deaths into it at all.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2010, 04:45 PM   #219
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
In U.S. law, I'd say no.
Fraud, yes.
Criminal negligence, maybe.
Negligent homicide (manslaughter), probably not.
Intentional homicide (murder), almost certainly not.

Supplying a faulty crime-detection
It is not a faulty detection tool. It is an empty box! The makers knew people would die trying to use this device and sold it anyway. There was a certainty that deaths would occur if this device were used often enough. There was a 0.000000% chance that the device would work as advertised. How can you describe this as "probably not" a case of negligent homicide?

If you sell bullet-proof vests made out of tissue paper to police and then claim "it was the criminal's bullet that killed the cop, not our inadequate vests," then prosecutors will still hold you responsible. Especially if you, like these people did, staged a fake demonstration showing the effectiveness of a product that was, in reality, inherently incapable of working.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 19th February 2010 at 04:50 PM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 09:23 PM   #220
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
If you sell bullet-proof vests made out of tissue paper to police and then claim "it was the criminal's bullet that killed the cop, not our inadequate vests," then prosecutors will still hold you responsible.
Not of negligent homicide, no. Of product liability, definitely, of fraud, yes. Those who died might even make successful wrongful deaths suits against the manufacturers. But you're not going to get negligent homicide. Not for failing to prevent a murder by someone else. If you disagree, feel free to walk us through the elements with relevant case law.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 03:33 AM   #221
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,631
They didn't just sell a box which they knew would fail to detect bombers, they also led the buyers to believe they would detect them, thereby discouraging users from trying other search methods which may well have been effective.

(Disclaimer: Just sayin' - IANAL - and I imagine any prosecution is most likely under English law anyway.)
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 04:59 AM   #222
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Not of negligent homicide, no. Of product liability, definitely, of fraud, yes. Those who died might even make successful wrongful deaths suits against the manufacturers. But you're not going to get negligent homicide. Not for failing to prevent a murder by someone else. If you disagree, feel free to walk us through the elements with relevant case law.
Texas Penal Code:
Quote:
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

* * *

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.

* * *
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
Emphasis added.

The offense easily fits Criminally Negligent Homicide and should actually qualify for Manslaughter. The seller of the empty box is actually aware of a real risk of a substantial harm (serious harm or death).

A typical discussion (from 08-07-00299-CR Workman v. State, Unpublished, Court of Appeals, El Paso)

"[A]t the heart of reckless conduct is conscious disregard of the risk created by the actor's conduct [.]" Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). "Recklessness requires the defendant to actually foresee the risk involved and to consciously decide to ignore it." Id. Mere lack of foresight, stupidity, irresponsibility, thoughtlessness, or ordinary carelessness, regardless of the severity of the consequences, do not suffice to constitute recklessness. See Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 751. Recklessness requires the defendant to actually foresee the risk involved and to consciously decide to ignore it. Id. Such a "devil may care" or "not giving a damn" attitude toward the risk distinguishes the culpable mental state of criminal recklessness from that of criminal negligence, which assesses blame for the failure to foresee the risk that an objectively reasonable person would have foreseen. Id. at 751-52. "Those who are subjectively aware of a significant danger to life and choose, without justification, to engage in actions (or in some cases inactions) that threaten to bring about that danger have made a calculated decision to gamble with other people's lives." Id. at 752.

So, at best, we have criinal negligence -- if the seller can convince anyone they were not somehow aware of the risk of selling an empty box as a bomb detector. Otherwise, it falls into Manslaughter.

This is all Texas law; your mileage may vary.

Last edited by NoZed Avenger; 23rd February 2010 at 05:01 AM.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:55 AM   #223
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Right, both of the Texas offenses you mentioned require that the accused "causes the death". Look up proximate cause in the law -- you'll find that these shysters didn't "cause" any deaths as the term is defined legally.
Again, if you disagree, feel free to walk through the elements of the crime; pay special attention to the causation element, and use case law that establishes that my negligence can still cause the death when someone else intentionally kills the person.

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 23rd February 2010 at 05:57 AM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:55 AM   #224
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,287
Iraq: bomb-detecting wands to be kept in service
Published: 2/23/10, 7:25 AM EDT
By REBECCA SANTANA
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

Exports of the British-made bomb-hunting instruments have been banned by Britain amid concerns that they do not work. The U.S. military also says they are ineffective.

But Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement Tuesday that an Iraqi investigation has determined that most of the devices do work. The instruments are used at checkpoints to check for bombs.

He says some of the hand-held devices are broken or were not activated and will be replaced.

The instruments' effectiveness came into question after a string of major bombings in central Baghdad killed scores.

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pn...&rg=blsadstrgt
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:58 AM   #225
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Iraq: bomb-detecting wands to be kept in service
Published: 2/23/10, 7:25 AM EDT
By REBECCA SANTANA
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

Exports of the British-made bomb-hunting instruments have been banned by Britain amid concerns that they do not work. The U.S. military also says they are ineffective.

But Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement Tuesday that an Iraqi investigation has determined that most of the devices do work. The instruments are used at checkpoints to check for bombs.

He says some of the hand-held devices are broken or were not activated and will be replaced.

The instruments' effectiveness came into question after a string of major bombings in central Baghdad killed scores.

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pn...&rg=blsadstrgt
...
... this is the most frustrating thing I've ever heard.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 09:09 AM   #226
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Right, both of the Texas offenses you mentioned require that the accused "causes the death". Look up proximate cause in the law -- you'll find that these shysters didn't "cause" any deaths as the term is defined legally.
Again, if you disagree, feel free to walk through the elements of the crime; pay special attention to the causation element, and use case law that establishes that my negligence can still cause the death when someone else intentionally kills the person.

I am familiar with the term proximate cause.

You have requested everyone else prove the opposite of your claim. Do you have any relevant case law or precedent you would like to cite?

Proximate cause encompases "but for" causation and that the harms be generally foreseeable. This fact pattern matches the requirements. There may be more than one proximate cause of any event.

I assume you are invoking the doctrine of intervening or superceding causes. In general terms, the intentional, criminal action of a third party will sever the foreseeability element of a proximate cause analysis in tort and sometimes in criminal law -- a "superceding" cause. However, there is a specific and well-established exception in cases where the danger being created by the original actor's negligence or recklessness is the specific harm that occurs because of the criminal third party. Example: a person who is negligent by failing to lock a locker door may be held responsible for that negligence, even though a thief intentionally commits a criminal act in stealing from the locker -- because the negligence of the first person specifically created the danger that occurred. In short, an intervening cause only allows an actor to escape liability where the intervening action is "unforeseeable." In a case where you hand a non-existent bomb detector to a person knowing he is going to go looking for bombs, the intervening event is not unforeseeable.

Last edited by NoZed Avenger; 23rd February 2010 at 09:18 AM.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 09:27 AM   #227
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.
Is anyone really surprised by this report? Don't forget these people have bribes and face to defend. We all saw the 'test' of these scam devices on the youtube video previously posted. They placed a grenade in full view of the 'EOD' officer and the device pointed to it. When they tried the same 'test' with The New York Times reporter, somehow it did not work The General then trotted out the well worn phrase, 'you need more training'.
No doubt they will be contacting Randi anytime soon to take the JREF challenge, don't hold your breath waiting.
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 09:47 AM   #228
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
I assume you are invoking the doctrine of intervening or superceding causes. In general terms, the intentional, criminal action of a third party will sever the foreseeability element of a proximate cause analysis in tort and sometimes in criminal law -- a "superceding" cause. However, there is a specific and well-established exception in cases where the danger being created by the original actor's negligence or recklessness is the specific harm that occurs because of the criminal third party. Example: a person who is negligent by failing to lock a locker door may be held responsible for that negligence, even though a thief intentionally commits a criminal act in stealing from the locker -- because the negligence of the first person specifically created the danger that occurred. In short, an intervening cause only allows an actor to escape liability where the intervening action is "unforeseeable." In a case where you hand a non-existent bomb detector to a person knowing he is going to go looking for bombs, the intervening event is not unforeseeable.
You make a good point. Perhaps a negligent homicide charge has more merit than I thought.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 10:34 AM   #229
Her Dark Star
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 104
Corporate Manslaughter would certainly be my choice as a murder charge (under UK Law) would never stick due to no intent to kill, been recommending that one for a while. Thanks for the Hedd1 info too, hadn't heard about that one. Unfortunately criminals never end, just have to keep chasing them.
Her Dark Star is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 12:41 PM   #230
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Sadly I just heard that the Iraqis claim that -some- of those 'bomb detectors' were faulty and are going to replace them...
Those who make those claims should be those using the dud things.
Then we could think of it as evolution in action instead of sending brave unequipped men to their deaths
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 03:01 PM   #231
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
Sadly I just heard that the Iraqis claim that -some- of those 'bomb detectors' were faulty
How would they know, which ones were faulty and which just do not work?
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2010, 05:47 PM   #232
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

I love the phrase "wand-like instruments". In fact, they should take it one step further, and simply call them magic-wands.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2010, 09:01 AM   #233
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
It seems that after the opening of the ADE651, 'detector card' by the BBC newsnight team, the Thais have at long last decided to do the same to the, GT200 'detector card'. Credit to RDX on UK skeps for finding this video. Sorry there is no surprises at the end, enjoy, follow the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2E3Gf5p-m4

regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2010, 10:46 AM   #234
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
I have obtained a confidential Royal Engineer 'Test report' of the MOLE, the predecessor of the ridiculous GT200. Sadly, the Engineers give the MOLE a glowing report, which just goes to show that even the experts can get it very wrong. The report was used by Global Technical on their website, until Dubious Dick complained to the MOD and Global was instructed to remove all reference to it from the web and sales material.
I have posted the report on my blog at:
http://explosivedetectorfrauds.blogspot.com/
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2010, 06:09 AM   #235
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Sorry to have to tell you but ATSC, the bloody makers of the useless ADE651, have like the ,mythical Phoenix risen again. They have re done their webshite,now you can even apply for a position with them, I don't think honesty and integrity are required. Don't get too excited when you see the section marked 'trials and tests' it is just the same Jim bs allegedly test have been done and documented but kept secret by those that did them.
http://www.atscltd.com/
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2010, 01:14 AM   #236
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Apparently there are some believers on youtube who have been telling me how the ADE saves lives, check out the fun at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0mJxCF_PKQ
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2010, 06:46 AM   #237
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
More police raids in UK of Scandec, Global Technical, and Grosvenor Scientific

"Offices and homes linked to three businesses suspected of selling fake bomb detectors, including one in Nottingham, have been raided by officers.

Police suspect Scandec, and the other two companies, of fraudulently selling bomb and drug detection equipment to countries worldwide, including several war zones..."

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...probe_1_648868

With any luck the raids on these three companies will help stem the flow of these fraudulent detectors. I am glad the police in the UK are still going after these crooks
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2010, 08:27 AM   #238
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by Biff Starbuck View Post
With any luck the raids on these three companies will help stem the flow of these fraudulent detectors.
I don't think luck is going to be enough to stop people from selling 75-cent products for $10,000. The greed of these criminals is simply too great.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2010, 11:09 AM   #239
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
 
Biff Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I don't think luck is going to be enough to stop people from selling 75-cent products for $10,000. The greed of these criminals is simply too great.
True. I still hope the fear of punishment starts to work though. But sadly, with the ideomotor effect, some of the mid-level salesmen if not the "inventors" themselves think these things work. Randi's page on this site about dowsing talks about how deeply ingrained the need to believe becomes, and that dowsers are among the hardest to get to change their minds. I think the best description I have seen is that people don't think they can successfully and unintentionally fool themselves into pointing the antenna at the sample during a demonstration of the rods. The user is certain they did not intentionally point it, so they feel there MUST be some other explanation, and the seller is happy to suggest the explanation is that his product works. As Randi says of the ideomotor effect: "The effect is very powerful with some personalities, and no amount of evidence will disabuse believers in the magical nature of the phenomenon."

After looking at one of Techowiz's links to a video, I went back and watched Randi's video about the arrest of McCormick. I think Randi misremembered the outcome of the Quadro Tracker case in the US. Some of the people in the case took plea bargains, but when the heads of the company went on trial, they were not convicted. Basically, the prosecutors did not successfully show the makers of the Quadro Tracker knew their device did not work. Ironically, Randi himself is not only the best prosecution witness about the ideomotor effect and that it is an illusion not a tool for finding things or information, but he would also be the best defense witness to call regarding whether or not most dowsers believe they can actually find things.

In Randi's encyclopedia, he says: "Dowsers are, generally speaking, very honest, sincere people, and almost always seem absolutely convinced of their abilities. That conviction is not well founded, since all properly performed, comprehensive tests of this particular claim have produced negative results."

The next question then is: Are the sellers culpable if they SHOULD have known their product was a worthless piece of junk risking people's lives. It might be easier to convict someone like McCormick of homicide, for recklessly causing the death of innocent Iraqi citizens, rather than trying to prove he knew his product did not work. Unless you have testimony, e-mail, or phone calls where he admitted it was a scam, it would be hard to prove criminal intent of defrauding people. IMHO, it is much easier to prove that countless tests have been done on dowsing and it never works significantly better than random guessing, so the seller was reckless or at least negligent for selling what is an utterly defective product.

I found another article about the new searches by police at the other companies.

Inquiry into sale of fake bomb detectors expanded

Police raids expand bomb detector probe

Last edited by Biff Starbuck; 8th June 2010 at 12:02 PM. Reason: BBC link added
Biff Starbuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2010, 03:52 AM   #240
Techowiz
Scholar
 
Techowiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 73
Dam it all Biff you beat me to it, see what happens you go out for a drink in the evening and when you wake up, all this happens.
So pleased about all this couldn't have happened to a nastier bunch.
regards
__________________
The laws of physics are no impediment to marketing a wonder gadget provided the BS is up to scratch!
Techowiz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.