[HN Gopher] Letter from Union Pacific to LA District Attorney re...
___________________________________________________________________
Letter from Union Pacific to LA District Attorney re: train thefts,
safety [pdf]
Author : tomohawk
Score : 77 points
Date : 2022-01-18 20:50 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.up.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.up.com)
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| >we estimate over 100 arrests have been made of active criminals
| vandalizing our trains.
|
| I think the graffiti on trains looks cool. Much nicer looking
| than the logos on the side.
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| I can't stand graffiti anywhere because it implies a lack of
| respect for those around you.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| I agree. Advertising has gotten out of hand. It is insulting
| to the citizens of our society, and often outright dishonest
| as well. The advertising industry should be illegal.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Would you apply this same standard to wearing a mask during a
| pandemic? How about being vaccinated?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What I see is someone taking ugliness and artlessness and
| creating beauty.
| greggman3 wrote:
| Sometimes I see street art and I'm more mixed. But 99% of
| the time it's just tagging and names. If you really believe
| graffiti is ok then I'll be happy to come over and tag your
| car, your laptop, your phone, your house. No complaining if
| you don't like what I write or its style.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That isn't what we are talking about. I don't recall any
| graffiti on personal, private property. Usually it's on
| highway overpasses, railcars, etc.
| andjd wrote:
| > On average, over 90 containers compromised per day.
|
| > 160% increase in criminal rail theft
|
| Combining these statistics indicates that UP was experiencing
| over 56 containers compromised per day before the policy change.
|
| Compare that with the almost 50,000 containers daily that flow
| through the Ports of LA and Long Beach. I don't know what
| percentage of that UP handles, but I think it's safe to say that
| even 90 containers is a small fraction. UP has insurance, and,
| I'm sure treats a small percentage of thefts as the cost of doing
| business.
|
| UP can increase their investment in securing their trains and
| property. The alternative is the taxpayer spending a lot of money
| on police and incarceration. The US's incarceration rate is
| ridiculously higher that all other advanced economies. We can
| probably find better things to spend all that money on.
| DantesKite wrote:
| The US justice system is the best in the world and one of the
| reason's why capitalism has flourished so well here. It is by
| no means perfect, but a free market only works when the rules
| are enforced.
|
| Giving up on crime doesn't strike me as a sensible solution for
| any community. See San Francisco et al.
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| > The U.S. justice system is the best in the world, and one
| of the reasons...
|
| I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard such a
| statement, and would like to know more.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| The shariah justice system is the best in the world and one
| of the reason's why Islam has flourished so well there. It is
| by no means perfect, but a pious society only works when the
| rules are enforced.
| solumos wrote:
| I'd rather live under sharia law than anarchy
| akersten wrote:
| By your math, how many containers per day were being
| compromised were they to have said only a 100% increase in
| criminal rail theft?
| codekansas wrote:
| Personally I'd rather not have big businesses carrying out
| vigilante justice to secure their property
| version_five wrote:
| Some jurisdictions have the concept of "railway police" who
| are sworn officers protecting the railway land. See the US
| section for example:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police
|
| They still work for the railway so there is some conflict but
| I don't know that they'd by any more vigilante than regular
| police, and they have a special status with the states
| compared to security guards
| chasd00 wrote:
| > Personally I'd rather not have big businesses carrying out
| vigilante justice to secure their property
|
| you mean like a security guard? That is very common
| everywhere, at least in the US.
| thrill wrote:
| You only own what you can and will defend.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| That's why nobody in any developed country other than the
| US owns anything.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| Technically, no one owns property. True ownership is in
| allodium (by virtue of you being there and keeping others
| off) but there are no allodial land titles left except in
| certain US states (Arizona and Texas?) but the Federal
| government kind of supersedes them by virtue of having
| the most and biggest guns and controlling all of the
| surrounding land.
| MarkLowenstein wrote:
| This is often the opinion of people who don't see a cost to
| them. I'm going to guess that
|
| (1) You don't live near one of these tracks where violence may
| occur and violent individuals are congregating.
|
| (2) You don't know if anything you buy travels along these
| tracks.
|
| (3) You are wealthy enough that a 0.1% increase in price
| doesn't bother you.
|
| (4) You don't have kids growing up in that area who notice that
| it's more profitable and easier to rob trains than to go
| through school and produce something.
|
| (5) You aren't on a train crew whose lives are being
| threatened.
|
| How am I doing so far?
| [deleted]
| solumos wrote:
| > UP can increase their investment in securing their trains and
| property.
|
| That's exactly what they're proposing/threatening:
|
| > As a result of Los Angeles County's rail theft crisis,
| customers like UPS and FedEx that utilize our essential rail
| service during peak holiday season are now seeking to divert
| rail business away to other areas in the hope of avoiding the
| organized and opportunistic criminal theft that has impacted
| their own business and customers. Like our customers, UP is now
| contemplating serious changes to our operating plans to avoid
| Los Angeles County. We do not take this effort lightly,
| particularly during the supply chain crisis, as this drastic
| change to our operations will create significant impacts and
| strains throughout the local, state, and national supply chain
| systems.
|
| You'd think it would be common sense to not let repeat
| offenders get off easy, but it looks like that's exactly what
| the DA is doing here. Pretty simple case of "show me the
| incentives and I'll show you the outcome" -- if you let people
| rob trains with little to no consequences, they're going to
| keep doing it.
| leephillips wrote:
| When I lived in DC and called around for contractors to do
| things to my house, I encountered some who would not take jobs
| in that city. It wasn't worth it to them, because tools were
| routinely stolen from their trucks. Of course they could have
| invested in guards and armored trucks. But it made more sense
| to only do business in VA and MD, which had more effective law
| enforcement.
|
| Toward the end of the letter UP warns of the same outcome:
| unless the government starts doing its job they'll just avoid
| LA. The end result of more businesses making this choice will
| lead to LA becoming another Detroit.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| > The end result of more businesses making this choice will
| lead to LA becoming another Detroit.
|
| That's not the only possible future. Another is that
| contractors charge more for working in a high-risk area.
|
| For example urban grocery stores tend to have several
| security guards, some which might be armed. And they charge
| higher prices than their suburban counterparts (of course
| higher rents, taxes, local minimum wages and what not also
| contribute.)
| zthrowaway wrote:
| "They have insurance" is unfortunately a common phrasing in
| defense of cities not enforcing the law. You do realize
| insurance cost will increase the more it's used.
|
| How about the city just doesn't let criminals run rampant? From
| what it seems, they are barely trying and they have a DA that
| refuses to play ball anyways.
| chasd00 wrote:
| yeah isn't insurance costs based on a risk assessment?
| Insurers aren't in the business of giving away money.
|
| edit: people will only put up with it for so long and then
| you'll have vigilante squads running around which is a much
| more dangerous and expensive problem than just enforcing
| existing law
| cissou wrote:
| It's a 160% INCREASE, not a 60% one (you misread as +60%). But
| even +60% year over year would be no joke. Your comment assumes
| it'll stay constant but if the trend holds the required
| investment in security could become sizable. Not that I even
| see the case for not prosecuting crime just because << UP has
| insurance >> (you sure their insurer will be happy to pay for
| that crime and not raise premiums? Why should UP customers pay
| for security directly when the rest of the country gets it
| through actual police?)
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| > UP has insurance, and, I'm sure treats a small percentage of
| thefts as the cost of doing business.
|
| And the revenues from shipping -- just revenues, let alone the
| profits -- are a fraction of the value of the cargo. If, say, a
| container full of new MacBooks gets broken into and looted,
| that is going eat the profits they'd earn from a _lot_ of other
| containers. While they have insurance, they pay for that
| insurance, and unless the insurer is (a) stupid or (b) a
| charity, they pay at least as much as the amount of the losses,
| and probably more.
|
| UP and their customers seem to be uninterested in simply
| shrugging, saying "insurance", and eating that cost.
|
| Oh, and then there's the risk to employees who may occasionally
| be attacked or held at gunpoint. It doesn't take a lot of that
| before the impact on your personnel becomes a drain, too, and
| hiring is tight enough in this economy even _without_ asking
| for people to risk life and limb.
|
| > UP can increase their investment in securing their trains and
| property. The alternative is the taxpayer spending a lot of
| money on police and incarceration.
|
| It looks like they propose to secure their trains and property
| by doing business in places that are not Los Angeles.
| ylhert wrote:
| > UP can increase their investment in securing their trains and
| property
|
| Not sure what more they can do, considering the fact that they
| go so far as to weld these container shut now.
| ilamont wrote:
| _* On average, over 90 containers compromised per day. * In
| partnership with Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Los
| Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), and California
| Highway Patrol (CHP) we estimate over 100 arrests have been made
| of active criminals vandalizing our trains. UP alone making
| several dozens of arrests. * With our law enforcement partners we
| have deterred hundreds of individuals from trespassing and
| vandalizing our trains. * Of all those arrests, however, UP has
| not been contacted for any court proceedings._
|
| The damning thing here is the lack of prosecution for the arrests
| that have happened. It's a clear message to offenders that they
| can continue what they are doing with no serious consequences.
|
| However, a figure that's missing from Union Pacific's letter is
| how much (or how little) UP has invested in security measures
| since the theft wave began, or relative to another time period.
| Symbiote wrote:
| > UP by its own effort and cost enlisted additional and
| existing Special Agents across the UP system to join our local
| efforts with LAPD, LASD and CHP to help prevent the ongoing
| thefts. We have also utilized and are further exploring the use
| of additional technologies to help us combat these criminals
| through drones, specialized fencing, trespass detection
| systems, and other measures.
| pempem wrote:
| Maybe its because the LAPD has such a little budget?
|
| /s.
| millzlane wrote:
| >The damning thing here is the lack of prosecution for the
| arrests that have happened. It's a clear message to offenders
| that they can continue what they are doing with no serious
| consequences.
|
| Also missing, is the figure of number of arrests that haven't
| been prosecuted. That data should be out there somewhere. It's
| interesting that no data to prove the theory has surfaced.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| That's what they are saying, the government isn't supplying
| them with that data.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| All prosecutions are public data. So the government may not
| be serving it up on a plate, but they also must not be
| trying to find out.
| pmorici wrote:
| UP implies they believe there have been zero prosecutions. If
| there were any resulting from the arrests they made they
| would have had to be involved as witnesses and they say they
| haven't been contacted in that capacity.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > UP implies they believe there have been zero prosecutions
|
| Under the California Victim's Bill of Rights they have a
| right to information on this on request (but they don't
| have to be provided with it proactively), so if they merely
| "believe" this but can point to neither concrete
| information or a failure to respond to inquiries, it means
| they have _chosen not to ask_ to avoid their belief being
| proven wrong.
|
| But, anyway, they don't say that, so its immaterial: they
| specifically acknowledge prosecutions and convictions, they
| are just upset that the DA is taking plea deals to charges
| they feel are insufficiently serious rather than expending
| more resources seeking convictions (and risking acquittals)
| on more serious charges.
|
| (They also specifically are validating the argument of
| anti-cash-bail advocates by portraying cash bail as a
| punitive and disabling measure against unconvicted suspects
| rather than a means of securing appearance.)
| mikewarot wrote:
| almost_usual wrote:
| Interesting they choose the word vandalism here. I hope they're
| distinguishing between someone doing graffiti and someone
| breaking into a container and stealing what's inside it.
|
| Before anyone jumps to "well broken window" freight graffiti
| has been a thing for like 40 years and has no correlation to
| container robberies.
| beerandt wrote:
| Theft before the actual thing is taken would require at
| minimum a proof of intent, and could still be problematic. So
| vandalism is the "easiest" charge for those caught in the
| act.
|
| And gets around one potential argument from prosecutors that
| charges should be dropped.
| mleo wrote:
| The use of "vandalism" vs theft seems to be perspective. The
| container was vandalized to access. The actual theft of items
| within is secondary. Related use. I had a storage space where
| the company said there was vandalism in the area of my locker
| and I should come check. Sure enough it was broken into and
| items had been taken. As far as storage company was
| concerned, it was vandalism of their property and theft of
| mine.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| It's at best accidental lack of precision. It is inarguable
| that graffiti is vandalization: it is _possible_ but
| unlikely that they are using it here only to describe a
| subset of the activities it means.
| csdvrx wrote:
| pempem wrote:
| !!!
| Ma8ee wrote:
| /s?
| csdvrx wrote:
| No it's factual, it's a tragedy that will eventually
| happen, if the DA decides to keep not enforcing law. UP
| will be blamed, but IMHO it'll totally on the DA due to his
| inaction.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I agree with you as long as we apply the same standard to
| "white collar crime". Embezzle money from your company?
| Off to death row for you. Defraud investors? Death row.
| Run a Ponzi scheme? Death row.
|
| Alternately, give defrauded investors the same rights you
| suggest for property owners so they can hunt the guilty
| party themselves.
| csdvrx wrote:
| I love of whenever we talk about "theft", people cry "but
| what about wage theft".
|
| There's a clear difference in scope, amount, consequence
| (...), so much that except having the same letter in the
| same order, it's not the same thing.
|
| "Wage theft" means a small underpayment, which is (1)
| directly and immediately found, (2) can be put to a stop
| right after it happens by going to another job, (3)
| carries financial consequences to someone with deeper
| pocket, the employer.
|
| "Theft" in the case of the attacked trains is for much
| larger amounts, is apparently unstoppable and carries 0
| consequences to the perpetrators - should they even be
| found, charged and convicted, I don't think their estate
| would be able to cover even a fraction of the losses.
|
| To your favor, you didn't mention "wage theft" (yet), but
| here, you're doing essentially the same thing with a
| bunch of similar words.
|
| FYI, all that you mention carry heavy consequences. Just
| look at how it went for Holmes or Madoff.
| integrii wrote:
| Seems like you're suggesting that private security should be an
| expected cost because the state will no longer protect you like
| they have been for many years...
| vkou wrote:
| How much protection of their property can the average
| American expect from the state? Very little.
|
| The only thing you can expect of the police will do for you
| if you get burglarized is a signed police report, and if
| you're lucky, unsolicited advice to move to a better part of
| town.
|
| My wife's workplace gets stolen from fairly regularly. It's
| _not_ located in one of those 'liberal' cities that
| allegedly don't enforce any laws.
|
| Despite that, the police have yet to do anything about it.
|
| The primary function of the police is not, and has never been
| protecting your property. The primary function of the police
| is protecting the upper classes from you.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| I certainly did not expect the libertarian ideal of depending
| for protection wholly on private security, instead of on the
| state, to be first implemented in Los Angeles, of all places.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| UPs police force is not private security in the usual
| sense. Those in CA are California peace officers, and all
| of them are also specially federally empowered for
| interstate operations.
|
| And this isn't new, major railroads have had these
| publicly-empowered police forces since the late 19th
| century.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| UP already has their own police. Why bother investing in
| more, if none of the arrests result in charges? It's
| pointless to spend more.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why bother investing in more, if none of the arrests
| result in charges?
|
| UP is not complaining that none of the arrests result in
| charges. (They are complaining that the DA is settling for
| plea deals to lesser charges than they would prefer and not
| trying to employ cash bail as pre-conviction punishment for
| disabling [by incarceration of those who can't afford it]
| suspects and deterring potential future criminals instead
| of not using it when it is not necessary to secure
| appearance of a suspect legally presumed innocent.)
|
| Also, it's well known that sufficiently visible security is
| a deterrent to crime, which is better than after-the-fact
| arrests, so an eruption in undeterred crime is evidence of
| a need for more and more visible security.
| analog31 wrote:
| To make an analogy, my dad worked at a large chemical
| factory. It had its own full service fire department. This
| department also participated in mutual aid with the
| surrounding town. One thing they could do was provide
| services that would normally not be a consideration for a
| sleepy suburb, such as a bomb squad.
|
| I think if your business is particularly security intensive,
| I don't see a reason not to supplement the basic services
| provided by the government. There have always been railroad
| police, armored car services, and so forth.
| munificent wrote:
| I don't think moving random manufactured products from
| point A to point B should be considered "particularly
| security intensive". This is just basic commerce and
| logistics.
| ilamont wrote:
| Private security is an expected cost for any business (or
| homeowner for that matter). Even if the local police
| department is fully staffed, they certainly can't be
| everywhere at all times, respond instantly to a report of
| crime, or deal with issues that it is not staffed for such as
| rampant technology-enabled crime.
|
| So, maybe the security is an investment in new cameras. Maybe
| it's a better lock that can't be bypassed. Maybe it's an
| investment in network security personnel or systems. Maybe
| it's a doorman at the apartment building, or a security guard
| serving as "eyes and ears" for the police.
|
| My question earlier is how much UP - a publicly listed
| company with $20B in revenue in 2020 - has increased security
| expenditures to keep up with traffic, theft, and other
| potential threats to its business.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Insane that this discussion is happening like this.
| Depending on the state for property protection is a basic
| facet of a functioning government. Literal organized stage
| coach robbery is not an issue anywhere else in the US, and
| it is not UPs responsibility to deal with it, unless we
| want to return to a period of private armies.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Fun fact -- contract work as railway police was one of
| the original lines of business for the notorious
| Pinkerton Detective Agency.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Camera's not going to do anything by itself if you can't
| actually stop the person who is on the camera, and it's a
| lot harder to stop that person if they're never going to
| jail even when they're caught red-handed and arrested at
| the scene.
|
| I mean, heck, if it comes down to it, Private Security can
| also mean that UP just gives up on Los Angeles and its
| eponymous port entirely.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Cameras provide evidence that is far more reliable and
| simpler to present than testimony from a railway security
| guard. This evidence could even be shared publicly to
| support their case.
| pmorici wrote:
| They can't be everywhere at once but they should be
| apprehending repeat offenders it sounds like they are
| arresting plenty of criminals they just aren't being
| prosecuted so they continue to rob and pillage.
| bmarquez wrote:
| > So, maybe the security is an investment in new cameras.
| Maybe it's a better lock that can't be bypassed. Maybe it's
| an investment in network security personnel or systems.
| Maybe it's a doorman at the apartment building, or a
| security guard serving as "eyes and ears" for the police.
|
| All of the things listed are simply deterrents, that would
| not stop a criminal knowing that he would not get
| prosecuted from taking the extra time to bypass them.
| Cameras can be evaded with masks, locks can be grinded down
| (see lockpickinglawyer), security is pointless if they know
| they cannot be detained.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| You're asking a great question, but at the end of the day,
| if criminals have no fear of repercussion, the "security"
| investments are almost equal to throwing money away.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| UP already has passive monitoring, and active monitoring.
|
| They are in fact arresting people.
|
| Then the DA is not doing shit to charge those arrested.
|
| What more do you want UP to do? They are literally giving
| criminals bagged and tagged to the police.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Am I missing something or is the first bullet point completely
| orthogonal to the second. They talk about train thefts on the
| rise but then cite a statistic about "over 100 arrests" for
| vandalism? How are these related? What are the stats for
| arrests for theft?
| greggman3 wrote:
| As pointed out on other comments. From the train's POV the
| train was vandalized but nothing that belongs the the train
| company was stolen. The stuff that was stolen belong to other
| entities.
|
| But yes, it would be good to know stats for both
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > From the train's POV the train was vandalized but nothing
| that belongs the the train company was stolen.
|
| Trains are inanimate and don't have a POV, and from the
| perspective of UP (which has a police force notionally
| charged with addressing crimes on railway property, not
| merely crimes against the railway), that's not correct if
| an actual theft occurred.
| mc32 wrote:
| On face value that's pretty fanning of the current
| prosecutorial office.
|
| It's a discouraging dereliction of duty to not follow up and
| prosecute these criminals. These thefts not only hurt the
| companies but also hurt each buyer who will have to pay
| indirectly for the added cost of operations.
|
| As I mentioned in the previous thread, we may yet see a
| Pinkerton service rise to meet this need.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > These thefts not only hurt the companies but also hurt each
| buyer who will have to pay indirectly for the added cost of
| operations.
|
| Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and
| punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i wonder if the cheapest option is better locks on the
| containers
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Better locks only help until the point where it's easier
| to mangle the shipping container itself, bypassing the
| lock entirely, and impenetrable containers are needlessly
| expensive.
| pempem wrote:
| Well, first they need to be caught and brought up on
| charges. Then they can be prosecuted.
|
| The bigger question is where even is the LAPD?
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Per the letter, the question is NOT, "where even is the
| LAPD." It is, "where are the Los Angeles County
| prosecutors?" And the answer Union Pacific provides is,
| "letting these people who are arrested go free with a
| plea deal for simple trespassing."
| zaroth wrote:
| They are being caught and arrested. Then the DA lets them
| go, so they go back and steal more, and spread the word
| that nothing happens even when you _do_ get caught.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| > Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and
| punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it.
|
| It's not a question of whether _this_ damage is more, it 's
| a question of whether the prosecution would reduce the
| total amount of future-damage that occurs as well. People
| who are in a jail are not stealing. People who expect
| significant risk of significant jail time are also not
| stealing, while those who expect minimal risk might be.
|
| These factors easily outweigh the cost of any single theft.
| mc32 wrote:
| Non-prosecution sends a signal "it's okay, we will not
| prosecute you". Less scrupulous people learn there is no
| prosecution and this becomes a routine drag on rail
| commerce. In Nigeria you get people who hijack petrol
| transportation --often times they lead to fiery explosions.
| It's not a path we should want to devolve to. The middle
| ages had highway men. We want to avoid going backwards.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| > Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and
| punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it.
|
| This naive first order thinking is why we can't have nice
| things. Yes, prosecuting a guy for stealing $100 headphones
| might cost more than the merchandise, but you cannot think
| about this in isolation from broader social context. By
| showing that you will not prosecute crimes under certain
| monetary value, you're sending a signal that these can now
| be done with no consequence, in effect _enabling_ more and
| more crime to happen. It's not about a pair of headphones,
| it's about the career of crime for the perp you're
| enabling, and the crime careers of the imitators.
| avalys wrote:
| What does a single prosecution and court case cost? A few
| thousand dollars, at a minimum.
|
| So you are saying any crime that causes less than a few
| thousand dollars worth of damage is not worth prosecuting?
|
| How would you like it if I were to break in to your house
| through a window (a $1,000 expense) and steal your $2,500
| MacBook Pro? The $3,500 in damages is less than the cost of
| identifying, arresting, prosecuting and punishing me. Not
| worth it - just let it go?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Pinkertons (or any private security) basically have no
| authority to use lethal force anymore (unless the criminal is
| dumb enough to attack them), so their value as a deterrent is
| minimal.
|
| They can theoretically arrest, but if the prosecutors don't
| press charges, it's meaningless.
| dilap wrote:
| gpm wrote:
| The letter doesn't support that the prosecutors are not
| following up and prosecuting these criminals, rather it says
| the exact opposite.
|
| Rather, the complaint seems to be that the government is
| granting the criminals their constitutional rights to bail
| and a presumption of innocence before trial, that the
| prosecution is accepting milder plea deals than the railroad
| company would like, and that the court system is backed up.
|
| Emphasis added to the below quote to support each of those
| statements
|
| > Criminals are caught and arrested, turned over to local
| authorities for booking, arraigned before the local courts,
| _charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense_ , and
| the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine. These
| individuals are generally caught and released back onto the
| streets in less than twenty-four hours. Even with all the
| arrests made, _the no-cash bail policy_ and _extended
| timeframe for suspects to appear in court_ is causing re-
| victimization to UP by these same criminals.
|
| This is the railroads side of the story, and even it doesn't
| support the idea that the prosecutors are just "not
| follow[ing] up and prosecut[ing] these criminals".
|
| Moreover the court system being backed up is not prosecutors
| fault, and not offering mild plea deals would just result in
| a more backed up court system...
|
| There are probably some valid criticisms of the prosecutors
| here, but let's at least consider that there are tradeoffs
| they are making, and that this isn't something that is solely
| their fault.
| avalys wrote:
| If people are being caught stealing from trains and the
| same people are walking out of court and going to rob the
| next train in the same location again the next day, then
| yes, the government, the prosecution and the court system
| are failing in their duty here.
| bsder wrote:
| Then change the funding of the law enforcement system so
| that it is supported by tax dollars rather than fines.
|
| Then you can change enforcement priority as the offenders
| change priority.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Our legal system is expensive, and much of that expense is
| baked into the constitution.
|
| Most of our justice system is designed to prioritize
| offenses that make money for the government/police/DA.
| Which means, focusing on drug offenses. Any crime
| tangentially-related to drugs can result in civil asset
| forfeiture. DUIs result in massive fines, so those get
| attention too. But theft is a cost-center crime and is
| largely ignored.
| [deleted]
| threatofrain wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963125
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29930970
| millzlane wrote:
| Think OP is correcting his post from yesterday. Where a
| commenter suggest he link to the letter instead of the opinion
| piece.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29962006
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| + photo gallery attached to the LA Times coverage of the same:
| the train tracks are just _littered_ with piles of torn-open
| shipping boxes
|
| https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-15/photos-r...
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| IANL: What is the rules for use of force for railroad police, or
| railroad authorities protecting cargo? It seems people are
| breaking into these cars without fear of force, or prosecution.
| Combined, those are like a powder keg of lawlessness.
| asdff wrote:
| It would be a bad idea to use force against train robbers. They
| would just start packing guns themselves. Often times these
| robberies are coordinated by organized crime who control
| robbery rights over certain sections of track.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| These appear to be two groups, opportunistic, and organized.
| I imagine some basic security hardening would deter the
| opportunistic ones but different strategies would be needed
| for organised groups.
| integrii wrote:
| Are you suggesting people should not defend property because
| the attackers will just escalate force and continue their
| crimes?
|
| Then by that logic, I now understand the push to reduce the
| punishment of so much crime.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Basic criminals don't like being shot. Large reason why gun
| free cities are so dangerous.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| Are gun free cities more dangerous? Could you provide a
| source for the claim?
| [deleted]
| treeman79 wrote:
| Look at Chicago.
|
| Google suppresses nearly all pro gun or right wing
| content, so searching on mobile is difficult.
| [deleted]
| djrogers wrote:
| > Often times these robberies are coordinated by organized
| crime who control robbery rights over certain sections of
| track
|
| That doesn't appear to be the case here from all accounts
| I've read - do you have any citations for that?
|
| Everything I'm reading is pointing the finger addicts, the
| homeless, and homeless addicts...
| thinkingemote wrote:
| The letter mentions they are opportunists and organised.
| I'm reading that as 2 classifications of criminals.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > What is the rules for use of force for railroad police, or
| railroad authorities protecting cargo? It seems people are
| breaking into these cars without fear of force, or prosecution.
|
| You can use whatever force you want to respond to piracy on the
| open sea, including killing the pirates. But that hasn't been
| done even when we had a lot of complaints about active piracy.
|
| It seems possible that Union Pacific worries that municipal
| authorities wouldn't be any happier with the idea of UP
| defending itself than they are with the idea of prosecuting the
| people UP hands over to them.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i could see a market for remote operated, boxcar mountable,
| high volume pepper spray devices. You'd have to staff
| operators but at least they'd be sitting in an office instead
| of wandering up and down the tracks.
|
| maybe even a boxcar escort service via drone with pepper
| spray paintball guns.
| fakethenews2022 wrote:
| Killing pirates has been done relatively recently. There was
| even a movie starring Tom Hanks based on one such incident
| entitled "Captain Phillips". Also, that was not the only nor
| last incident when pirates were killed.
| liversage wrote:
| Denmark recently killed four suspected pirates in Bay of
| Guinea (actually five as it was later discovered). The Danish
| forces were fired at while trying to apprehend the suspected
| pirates so you can argue it was self defense and the intent
| was not to kill.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/danish-frigate-kills-four-
| susp...
| avidiax wrote:
| > IANL: What is the rules for use of force for railroad police,
| or railroad authorities protecting cargo?
|
| Also NAL. Force has to be proportional. That means that an
| unarmed trespasser stealing property can't be shot, only
| detained.
|
| > It seems people are breaking into these cars without fear of
| force, or prosecution.
|
| I'm sure they have some fear. I doubt that they want to get
| caught, since it's at least a few hours or a weekend in jail to
| get processed. As far as prosecution goes, if I were a
| criminal, I'd either naively think that I'll never get
| caught/prosecuted, or just accept that it might happen at any
| time, but I prefer theft now over avoiding maybe-prosecution in
| the future.
|
| > Combined, those are like a powder keg of lawlessness.
|
| There's no powderkeg here, so long as we don't escalate. If
| prosecutions don't start, the likely thing to happen is that
| the railyards will improve physical security (e.g. razorwire
| fencing everywhere, reduce trains at rest), improve their
| security forces and response times, and pass any remaining
| expense onto the customers.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > It seems people are breaking into these cars without fear of
| force, or prosecution.
|
| What is that based on? I am aware that's a trendy thing to say
| about crime, but many trendy things have no basis in reality.
| What is the factual basis for the criminals' motives and
| perspectives?
| newbamboo wrote:
| "all those arrests, however, UP has not been contacted for any
| court proceedings."
|
| They've tried to recall gascon already for this, but the voters
| want him and his policies. If UP doesn't like it they should
| bypass LA. It's a sinking ship anyway, politely asking for
| "leadership" is laughably naive. California has one party for all
| intents and purposes and voters are too afraid because the elite
| tell them it's too dangerous to vote outside The Party.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| Related discussion:
|
| Train burglaries in LA -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29930970
| [deleted]
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I've had 3 of 3 packages go missing in the last two months, all
| traveling via train through L.A. Either I'm rather unlucky or the
| thefts are rather thorough. I see some people complaining about
| their packages being stolen, but if the thefts are that thorough
| I would expect to see many more. My conspiracy brain can't help
| but imagine the possibility that discussion of this is being
| gently suppressed because business don't want people to stop
| buying things. I've had to stop buying things for now. I hope
| this is properly resolved soon.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-18 23:00 UTC)