900 cops used in gang bust

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Armitage
Just my guess - I've never been involved in law enforcement. But it adds up quick.

My thoughts exactly. With 42 suspects, there could have been maybe double that in possible locations, lets say 90 locations where the suspects typically are at. So that leaves only 10 cops per location. If there were multiple suspects at one location, having fewer than 10 could have been quite dangerous.

So no, it probably wasn't much overkill. It was, however, a sign that they didn't track the suspects well enough that they only netted 19.

That'd be an interesting piece of software for mass raids like this. Dump in what you know about the suspects - what they're schedule looks like, etc. With enough data, you could start developing statistics. Then schedule the raid for when you have the highest probability of knowing where the most suspects will be. You could also roll in police manpower, various logistical issues, etc. Print out per-team tasking orders, complete with maps, buiding schematics, mugshots, etc.

This was a federal operation. It wasn't just some rural cops with shotguns busting down barn doors. I'd surmise that they went through and did everything you listed, but not using just one piece of software. They've also probably taken into account information and statistics we wouldn't even think about considering. A single program with all those capabilities would be extremely hard to design.

Yep, I'm sure some tools along this line already exist - maybe the whole thing. At least I hope so. You'd have to have experience in the field to really know what's needed, what data is available etc. Although, there's something to be said for an outside perspective on occasion.

As for extremely hard to design - I've seen applications along the same line in other fields. It's not trivial, but it's certainly possible.

See, something like this: http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,68263,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5