Friday, November 30, 2012

US Navy X-47B UCAS first land-based catapult launch by theworacle

US Navy video of the first catapult launch of the Northrop Grumman X-47B unmanned combat aircraft system demonstrator (UCAS-D) on Nov 29, during shore-based aircraft-carrier integration testing at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The X-47B is to take-off and land on a carrier at sea in 2013.

New Amendments to NDAA To Rectify Old Issues?? (not really)

“Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of Military Police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy.”

Soooo....I caught this little gem while looking over the new National Defense Authorization Act 2013 amendments being voted on by the US Senate:
    (b) Report.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the use of naval vessels for the detention outside the United States of any individual who is captured pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Such report shall include--
(A) procedures and any limitations on detaining such individuals at sea on board United States naval vessels;
(B) an assessment of any force protection issues associated with detaining such individuals on such vessels;
(C) an assessment of the likely effect of such detentions on the original mission of the naval vessel; and
(D) any restrictions on long-term detention of individuals on United States naval vessels.
(2) FORM OF REPORT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(a) Notice to Congress.--Not later than five days after first detaining an individual who is captured pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) on a naval vessel outside the United States, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a notice of the detention.
So when did we start detaining people on boats? You do realize this is what this alludes to? We have or had a need to so and someone in Congress wasn't notified until it was almost too late. Oh wait. That did happen to a guy named Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, a Somali terrorist held for over 2 months on a Navy ship.

This is the one that will surely make headlines (if it hasn't already):
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.
``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.''.
Yup. You read it right. No more arrests of US citizens or permanent residents overseas without arresting them and bringing them before a US court. Actually. That's not exactly true. Check out what the folks at the ACLU think:
  • It would NOT make America off-limits to the military being used to imprison civilians without charge or trial. That's because its focus on protections for citizens and green-card holders implies that non-citizens could be militarily detained. The goal should be to prohibit domestic use of the military entirely. That's the protection provided to everyone in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. That principle would be broken if the military can find an opening to operate against civilians here at home, maybe under the guise of going after non-citizens. This is truly an instance where, when some lose their rights, all lose rights -- even those who look like they are being protected.
  • It is inconsistent with the Constitution, which makes clear that basic due process rights apply to everyone in the United States. No group of immigrants should be denied the most basic due process right of all -- the right to be charged and tried before being imprisoned.
  • It would set some dangerous precedents for Congress: that the military may have a role in America itself, that indefinite detention without charge or trial can be contemplated in the United States, and that some immigrants can be easily carved out of the most basic due process protections.
 It appears the contention about NDAA still stands.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Why It May Be Time For The Pakistani Police To Implement Fitness Standards (and some performance evaluations too)

I have nothing further to say.....

Thursday, November 22, 2012

OPINION: Why Benghazi Keeps Me Up At Night

I got to thinking again about Benghazi.  Actually, that damn city has been on my mind for months.  I digress.  I kept thinking tonight about why the intelligence community (IC) would redact its knowledge of the attackers being terrorists.  It's a common question among many "Benghazi-gate" - as I like to call them - "DIY investigators".

Here's my take:
  • The IC allegedly received an intelligence report via email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility via Facebook.  We now know that post was either removed, never existed, or was posted by someone only familiar with the group, according to various "senior Administration sources" used by the media.  Why post something and then remove it?  Logic would dictate if you were bad enough to do the deed and then brag about it, why take it down.
  • If in fact the Facebook post were from the group, it's quite simple why they would remove it.  Terrorists aren't all that dumb and are certainly tech savvy enough to understand how IP addresses work.  If true, it is my supposition they realized that within minutes the IC would be running traces on the IP associated with that post and would be ramming a Hellfire missile down the author's throat not too soon afterwards.
  • I know what you're thinking - But that doesn't explain why the Director of National Intelligence would remove it from Ambassador Rice's statement.  Au contraire!  It does.  My guess is the IC was close to running that trace but hadn't acted on it for various reasons - one of which I'll explain in a bit.  In these types of dynamic situations, it can be difficult to ascertain fact from fiction.  When coordinating retribution attacks, you need to be accurate.  Supposing the Facebook post did exist, the IC presumably asked that Ambassador Rice not blow their cover by disclosing in fact that they knew who the bad guys were.  I see you over there making that face.  
  • Before this alleged posting by Ansar al-Sharia, we had no concrete evidence they were the culprit.  Had Ambassador Rice said this was terrorism too prematurely, we may have lost the tactical advantage of surprise and could have made things extremely problematic for our Libyan allies and our special operations units who undoubtedly would have/could have/should have been tasked with hunting down the culprits.  To give the situation some additional much-need perspective, it would do us all well to remember there wasn't a single capture from this attack.  With the absence of a significant amount of actionable chatter, the US government would have been flying blindly with a reprisal attack.
  • Oh. Did I forget to mention how unreliable the source that email cited was?  Yeah. About that.  CNN contacted a guy, Aaron Azelin who monitors jihadist sites for a living.  You'll love what he said.
"However, an examination of the known Facebook and Twitter accounts of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi reveals no such claim of responsibility. Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tracks dozens of jihadist websites and archives much of what they say. He told CNN he was unaware of any such claim having been posted on the official Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi.
Zelin, who said his RSS feed sends him any new statement from the group, provided CNN with a copy of that feed. It shows no Facebook update between September 8 and September 12, when a posting late that afternoon first referenced the attack. Zelin notes that the posting referred to a news conference the group had held earlier that day in Benghazi in which it denied any role in the assault on the consulate, while sympathizing with the attackers.
Accompanying a posting of the news conference on YouTube, a commentary says that the attack on the consulate was "a wave of rage for Allah and his Prophet, it came from the Muslim youths."
The posting continues: "Ansar al-Sharia brigade did not officially participate as a military body, nor received any orders directed from the brigade."
The group's Twitter feed tells the same story. The account, @anssarelshariea, bears the group's logo and a tweet on September 8 - and then nothing until four days later. And at no point is there a claim of involvement in or responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound."
All of this makes me wonder, "How is that we had a CIA station in Benghazi but the only intelligence we had to verify this group was responsible came from a single Facebook post?"  I know getting a hold of sources during a crisis can be difficult and the intel may not be very credible but I can't help but wonder why we haven't heard more about the human intelligence that should have been available.  You would naturally assume the CIA would have been working its assets into this group and would have had some indication this was coming.  Maybe it did but that hasn't come out of any of the testimony, as far as I know.  Instead of asking this and other questions relating to what happened on the ground, we've been stuck with an oversight committee more obsessed with talking points and adulterous 4-star generals.  I firmly believe in order to properly secure any resource in a hostile environment, you have to be procuring actionable intelligence.  This did not happen in Benghazi.  Until we address this shortcoming, it may continue to happen.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Could Israel's "Iron Dome" Make the Case for a Missile Defense Shield?

The last few days have been extraordinary in the Middle East to say the least.  Israel was attacked by a barrage of missiles fired from Gaza.  However, nearly all of those missiles were defeated by Israel's missile defense shield known as "Iron Dome".  Missile defense systems are nothing new and we've seen them work in a variety of theaters of operation.  Most recently, they were highly effective during the United States' invasion of Iraq where Patriot missile batteries went toe-to-toe with Scud missile launchers.

A recent article from explains the breadth of that success:
Israeli officials are claiming that the shield is destroying 90 percent of missiles and rockets it aims at that have been fired into southern Israel by Hamas. This level of success is unprecedented compared with older missile defense systems such as the American-made Patriot model used during the 1991 Gulf War. Israelis have almost always suffered far fewer casualties than Palestinians have, but Iron Dome has made that disparity even larger. As of Monday, Israel has reported three casualties, all of which occurred during a temporary malfunction in the missile-defense system.
Credit: Voice of America;

To say the least, this is a huge boom for future missile defense deployments. Hamas has launched 1,147 rockets at Israel between 14 November 2012 and 20 November 2012. Israel has claimed to have shot down 90 percent of those missiles. Did I forget what makes this system so unique? With the exception of a minor glitch that occurred at the beginning of the hostilities, Iron Dome is reported to have been 90 percent accurate with 400 kills in its first few days of days of operation.

A typical battery includes a radar and three launchers, each holding 20 Tamir interceptors. It reportedly had a 100% success rate in tests prior to deployment.


This graph provides an idea as to the area Iron Dome has to cover and what it is supposed to counter.

Many argue this missile defense shield is a "game changer". There is a lot to say that it has. Hamas and Hezebollah have used these attacks in the past as leverage and to demonstrate their resolve to see the conflicts to the end. By "taking the wind out of their sails", Israel has certainly taken much of the "punch" out of Hamas' most potent psychological weapons.

Most telling is the language and support coming from the United States before the November attacks.  The U.S. House of Representatives stated in its FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act  which not only supported Iron Dome with a $680 million investment.  It went a step further by directing the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, to "explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system." You don't have to be an expert in missile defense technology to know why the US considers this an "investment". We want to develop our own to deploy in the States. Stop rolling your eyes. Given the cost and logistics of coordinating prevention, mitigation, and response to surface-to-air missile threats in the U.S., this has the potential for a lot of "traction" in certain circles.

Will this put an end to rocket attacks? Probably not. I say this because the technology behind these rockets is constantly evolving. Unless Israel can shore up the transportation/smuggling routes arms dealers use, then there will never be an end to such attacks. However, as Israel has convincingly demonstrated, their relative lethality can be greatly reduced by missile defense shields such as Iron Dome.

The Confusion behind Fusion Centers

On October 3, 2012, the United States Senate published some not-so surprising news for many of us familiar with the "results" produced by fusion centers.  It turns out someone decided to look into what many assumed was one of the largest examples of bureaucracy - "fusion centers".  For those of you unfamiliar with fusion centers and what they do, essentially they are intelligence sharing centers created by state governments and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to work in concert with federal efforts to prevent, respond, and mitigate the threat of terrorism in the United States.  There are currently 72 centers nationwide.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations stated, "Department of Homeland Security efforts to engage state and local intelligence “fusion centers” has not yielded significant useful information to support federal counterterrorism intelligence efforts."  This a very damning report to say the least for fusion centers.  It doesn't help their cause that they have been mired by criticism ranging from the infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) 2009 report which labeled supporters of the Ron Paul movement and various right wing organizations and grass roots movements as terrorists and the Virginia fusion center 2009 report which stated universities were potential hubs of terrorist activities and labeled hacktivism as a form of terrorism.  

The Subcommittee stated in their press release
“It’s troubling that the very ‘fusion’ centers that were designed to share information in a post-9/11 world have become part of the problem. Instead of strengthening our counterterrorism efforts, they have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans’ civil liberties,” said Senator Tom Coburn, the Subcommittee’s ranking member who initiated the investigation.

The investigation determined that senior DHS officials were aware of the problems hampering effective counterterrorism work with the fusion centers, but did not always inform Congress of the issues, nor ensure the problems were fixed in a timely manner.
“Unfortunately, DHS has resisted oversight of these centers. The Department opted not to inform Congress or the public of serious problems plaguing its fusion center and broader intelligence efforts. When this Subcommittee requested documents that would help it identify these issues, the Department initially resisted turning them over, arguing that they were protected by privilege, too sensitive to share, were protected by confidentiality agreements, or did not exist at all. The American people deserve better. I hope this report will help generate the reforms that will help keep our country safe,” Dr. Coburn said.
Where it gets particularly disturbing is in their highlighted conclusions about their investigation.
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that it has spent somewhere between $289 million and $1.4 billion in public funds to support state and local fusion centers since 2003, broad estimates that differ by over $1 billion. The investigation raises questions about the value this amount of funding and the nation’s more than 70 fusion centers are providing to federal counterterrorism efforts:

• The investigation found that DHS intelligence officers assigned to state and local fusion centers produced intelligence of “uneven quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.”

• DHS officials did not provide evidence to the Subcommittee showing unique contributions that state and local fusion centers made to assist federal counter terrorism intelligence efforts that resulted in the disruption or prevention of a terrorism plot.

• The investigation also found that DHS did not effectively monitor how federal funds provided to state and local fusion centers were used to strengthen federal counterterrorism efforts. A review of the expenditures of five fusion centers found that federal funds were used to purchase dozens of flat screen TVs, two sport utility vehicles, cell phone tracking devices and other surveillance equipment unrelated to the analytical mission of an intelligence center. Their mission is not to do active or covert collection of intelligence. In addition, the fusion centers making these questionable expenditures lacked basic, “must-have” intelligence capabilities, according to DHS assessments.
Here's the report: 

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Power of Sound In Security


So, I don't have my hover-board nor my flying car. However, we have seen numerous technological feats within the security industry. Whether it be BRS Labs' use of artificial intelligence to "learn" and detect human behavior via CCTV feeds or the ever-changing world of biometrics, we have witnessed some very interesting and promising tech tools for the industry. Some of them we have featured here at The Security Dialogue.  The other day I came across the Twitter feed for Audio Analytics, a UK-based company which has developed a new dimension to the electronic security world.

Being the curious soul that I am, I contacted Audio Analytics about an interview to learn more about their products.  I spoke with Dr. Christopher Mitchell (PhD), Audio Analytics's CEO and Founder.  Going over his LinkedIn profile and other information I gathered from the Internet, I was drawn to Dr. Mitchell's extensive knowledge of sound information and signal processing.  He's received training at Harvard and a NCGE Fellow.  I digress.

Using audio in security applications is nothing new. Sonitrol was the first and remains the only company using audio as part of its monitoring service. So I asked what was the difference between what we've seen traditionally done with sound in our industry.  Dr. Mitchell replied, "Where Audio Analytic differs is that it does not capture a sound and then trigger an alarm at a monitoring station based on audio level for a human to interpret." Audio Analytic analyses the sound looking for specific sound pattern that can be used to raise an alert into an existing piece of security equipment such as a IP camera or VMS. The sound is looked at as data rather than as a recording or real-time stream of sound.

What surprised me about was the breadth of sound the software can detect.  Dr. Mitchell said it currently looks for sound in four categories - glass breaks, signs of aggression, car alarms, and gun shots. As you can imagine, glass breaks, gun shots, and car alarms didn't trigger as much interest as "aggression".  We've seen glass breaks and gun shot detection in various forms.  In law enforcement, ShotSpotter has become the latest in a growing use of sound analysis technologies.  When asked how they detect for "aggression", Dr. Mitchell stated they look for changes in pitch mostly and sounds attributed to aggressive behavior. Applications where you might see this deployed are lone workers, hospitals, convenience stores, and other places where any sign of aggressive behavior would need to be detected and mitigated as soon as possible.

Speaking of deployments, given the vast array of sounds Audio Analytic could possibly detect with applicable algorithms, it is not surprising to imagine the customers and applications extend far beyond the traditional security realm.  When pressed about this, Dr. Mitchell was quick to inform me they had been contacted by various entities who also recognize its potential and whose specific requests could not be discussed.

Knowing many of our customers are particularly liability conscious, I also inquired as to its implications to privacy. Mr. Mitchell explained the software "analyzes the sound as bits of data".  Therefore, there is not the ability within their software to "hear" the data being analyzed.  That capability would need to be addressed by a secondary piece of software or hardware.

Like all analytics, this is purely software that would need to be integrated with existing hardware designed to capture both sound and video. A company who has already integrated many of Audio Analytics' features is Next Level Security Systems an integrator offering a full suite of security services. NLSS' Gateway Security Platform provides "Audio Analytic with Glass Break Analytic and optional Gunshot, Aggression and Car Alarm packages", among a slew of other features

Overall, I am quite impressed with what I see being developed in analytics and Audio Analytic's software is no exception.  I can only imagine its applications and deployments as it continues to develop.  One of the greatest problems we face in security are false alarms.  Audio Analytic has the ability look deeper into the environments we protect and aid us in determining more accurately the difference between the benign and an actual threat.  Dr. Mitchell said it best, "In the security world, we have affection for silent movies".  Perhaps it's time we move on.  As I stated before with BRS Labs, I have seen the future and it's now.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

My Problem With Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

Folks, I have some fundamental issues with most conspiracy theories.  Many have very little data to substantiate what they either indirectly imply or overtly say.  Most of it is pure speculation with very vague familiarity of the incident (i.e. "I have a cousin who knows a guy in the military that says", "Newt said", "I heard it from Sean Hannity").  If you weren't there, then it's just speculation.  The various theories and innuendos about Benghazi are of the same ilk.  I'll spell out why by attempting to debunk the top four Benghazi theories/innuendos:
  1. As I mentioned before, Chris Stevens was NEVER EVER raped.  No one has stated this except for a lone newspaper out of Lebanon and few Facebook bloggers.
  2. Chris Stevens was not killed as the result of being shot, beaten, or burned.  He was killed by smoke inhalation.  Simply put, it takes only 20 minutes of active burning for lethal levels of smoke and heated air to accumulate.  Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, stated in her testimony before the House Oversight Committee on October 10, 2012
    1. "Gunfire was heard from multiple locations on the compound.  One agent secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the information management officer, in the safe haven.  The other agents retrieved their M4 submachine guns and other tactical gear from Building B.  When they attempted to return to the main building, they encountered armed attackers and doubled back to Building B. The attackers used diesel fuel to set the main building ablaze.  Thick smoke filled the entire structure.  The Diplomatic Security agent began leading the Ambassador and Sean Smith through the debilitating smoke toward the emergency escape window.The agent, nearing unconsciousness himself, opened the window and crawled out.  He then realized they had become separated in the smoke.  So he reentered the building and searched multiple times for the Ambassador and Mr. Smith.  Finally the agent—suffering from severe smoke inhalation and barely able to breathe or speak – exited to the roof and notified the Tactical Operations Center of the situation (TOC)." 
    2. Even IF, the Department of Defense could have supplied tactical resources to respond to Benghazi, the likelihood Chris Stevens would have already been dead is very high.  Chris Stevens, more than likely, died at the early onset of this engagement.  Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamb got her intel from the TOC and the agents' after-action reports.  In other words, she heard it from the folks on the ground and not Fox, ABC, CBS, etc.
  3. The Department of Defense got an email to stand down.  This one comes from our dear friend, Newt Gingrich.  You'll do good to click on that link and note the timing of that email in relation to the election and the word "rumor" (ahem!....not a fact) in his quote.  
    1. Okay, folks the likelihood the DoD would have received an email to "stand down" is very unlikely.  If there is one thing we've learned since Ollie North, it's never send an email when involved in far-reaching conspiracies.  This conversation would have happened over a secure communications line or in person at the Situation Room and would have relayed the assets DoD would have needed to support and/or pull of a successful rescue operation and their respective availability.  I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it takes the DoD a LONG time to respond to anything.  The assets (Special Operation Forces) DoD would have sent were more than likely on other missions related to GWOT (Global War on Terrorism).  Contrary to popular belief, the nearest special operations unit was in Rota, Spain. Folks, these guys don't ride on supersonic jets.  The flight time, not counting preparation, narrows your response time greatly.  Also, remember everything the government does in terms of its official actions is almost always recorded.  Leon Panetta will soon testify before Congress knowing this data was fully available to Congress.  My guess is Patraeus will testify to the same as it was his agency that provided most of the backup.
  4. The White House is blackmailing Patraeus with the affair scandal.  Why?  Seriously.  Why would the White House blackmail a guy who was going to testify any way?  This investigation has been going on for months.  Why now?  Divorces are messy and affairs even messier but lying to Congress about what a whole division of an intelligence agency knew is even worse for everyone involved.  Patraeus and anyone with a pulse in DC knows that.  But wait - there are more problems with this theory:
    1. The original investigator had sent shirtless pictures of himself to the victim.
    2. The investigation began by a complaint from someone with no connection to the White House and also sleeping with another General officer supposedly.
    3. The Patraeus affair would have presumably never have came to light had it not been for his mistress' threatening emails about her suspicions of the victim and Patraeus.  
    4. Just in case you're wondering the FBI's jurisdiction in all of this, remember threatening someone is a crime and if done over email is federal offense due to the federal government's jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
    5. Patraeus was still going to testify.  Remember Congress has subpoena power over anyone for any reason.  An oversight committee hearing is much like testifying in a court of law.  There is even oath.  The risk a blackmailer takes with blackmail once they reveal their hand is that target may be even more inclined to tell the truth.  If huge conspiracies are your thing, you can't afford to have this happen.
    6. Two GOP congressmen knew of the investigation days before the election and just sat on it.  In any conspiracy, you need loyal and discreet people - a shirtless FBI dude and a couple of GOP congressmen "in the know" are less than ideal. 
Before I get deluged with comments, let me answer some questions:

Were there screw-ups in Benghazi? 

Am I excusing those? 

Do I believe this investigation has become partisan beyond comprehension?  

Do I think the American people will ever get the whole truth?  
No for a variety of reasons.  

Should this diminish our need to find the truth? 
No.  People died and we need to know why in order to fix it.  

What/who do you blame for these deaths?  I think it is very ironic the CIA is rumored to have had an annex devoted to assisting the Libyan government in covertly collecting heavy weapons such as mortars from local militias and the consulate across the street from them is hit by mortars.  There was an intelligence and diplomatic failure on several levels.  My sources in Libya tell me the government was beginning to crack down on these rogue groups who were holding on to these weapons as insurance and as leverage to further their own burgeoning political agendas.  My supposition is the CIA mission was discovered.  In order to show their discontent at the Agency's participation in this crackdown, they retaliated.  They couldn't identify the location of the CIA mission so I assume they hit the next biggest American target on a historic day.  As luck would have it, Chris Stevens was there.  Will we ever hear that from anyone?  No, but perhaps - just once - we need to.

Here's a link to all of the public testimony given so far:

Sunday, November 4, 2012

VIDEO: Drug-related Assassination Attempt Gone TERRIBLY Wrong!!

Ever wanted to know what a failed drug-related assassination looks like?  Check out the video below.  I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of home invasions so excuse me if I point out some glaring problems with the "innocent homeowner defends himself" story.

  • You had three HEAVILY armed suspects going to a house in broad daylight.
  • One of these suspects was carrying an AR-15.
  • No one had any burglary tools in hand.  Not even a bag or a box to carry their stash away.
  • They showed up with a three-man team and not a large vehicle to make off with a sizable stash.
  • They work masks as they approached aka assaulted their way to the victim's home.

Anyone see any glaring problems with this?

About Us