Before wave of train thefts, Union Pacific laid off some of its police force(lataco.com)
lataco.com
Before wave of train thefts, Union Pacific laid off some of its police force
https://www.lataco.com/union-pacific-theft-police-laid-off/
206 comments
The people who suffer most from those in charge tolerating crime are the poor and less privileged -- through direct crime, and negative effects on their communities -- as well as especially children (problems that affect families always affect kids the worst).
What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand is that the actions/policies they promote, believing that they're reducing the stigma or making it more "equitable" by reducing the penalties for crime, end up hurting most people instead of solving the problem. They get to feel better that they didn't lock up so many people of color (to use today's fad grouping), but the greater community who are poor and less privileged are actually the ones paying for the crimes now being overlooked/ignored.
The rich can/will move away and leave these places to suffer on their own. The poor, who most rely on government to protect them, watch as their concerns and safety get swept under the rug of feel-good defund-the-police policies as those in charge have no idea (or actively ignore) what they've incentivized.
What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand is that the actions/policies they promote, believing that they're reducing the stigma or making it more "equitable" by reducing the penalties for crime, end up hurting most people instead of solving the problem. They get to feel better that they didn't lock up so many people of color (to use today's fad grouping), but the greater community who are poor and less privileged are actually the ones paying for the crimes now being overlooked/ignored.
The rich can/will move away and leave these places to suffer on their own. The poor, who most rely on government to protect them, watch as their concerns and safety get swept under the rug of feel-good defund-the-police policies as those in charge have no idea (or actively ignore) what they've incentivized.
The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Why do you think more, stricter punishment is the answer?
Strict punishment is the "easy" answer. When people don't know what to do, it's the first they reach for. (From the dawn of human history, "an eye for an eye".) It seems like it should work (who would want to be in prison for the rest of their life over a $20 Amazon package), and it seems fair (if you didn't want to go to prison, you shouldn't have stolen). But, the "seems" comes from up in an ivory tower of wishful thinking.
But watch this. If I told people I was a software engineering manager and I docked my employees' pay if they didn't complete sprint goals on time, HN would be outside my door ready to murder me. "Punishment doesn't work! How can you be so stupid? I hate you!"
Ultimately, we have to treat the cause and not the symptoms. If people have a purpose and their basic needs met, very few of them are going to jump onto a derailed train and steal random Amazon orders. But in LA, people don't have their basic needs met. They don't have a place to live. They don't get to shower in the morning. They might not even know where their next meal comes from. Sadly, prison is probably an improvement, and selling your $20 Amazon item to someone on the street for $10 guarantees that next meal. So taking some packages off a train is a win/win.
As a society, we can do a lot better than this. We don't need to sacrifice a $20 Amazon item to give someone their next meal. We could just give it to them for pennies on the dollar. We don't because... I can't even think of a reason. Puritan work ethic? A desire to punish people out of unfulfilled BDSM fantasies? I don't know. But it seems pretty fucked up to me.
But watch this. If I told people I was a software engineering manager and I docked my employees' pay if they didn't complete sprint goals on time, HN would be outside my door ready to murder me. "Punishment doesn't work! How can you be so stupid? I hate you!"
Ultimately, we have to treat the cause and not the symptoms. If people have a purpose and their basic needs met, very few of them are going to jump onto a derailed train and steal random Amazon orders. But in LA, people don't have their basic needs met. They don't have a place to live. They don't get to shower in the morning. They might not even know where their next meal comes from. Sadly, prison is probably an improvement, and selling your $20 Amazon item to someone on the street for $10 guarantees that next meal. So taking some packages off a train is a win/win.
As a society, we can do a lot better than this. We don't need to sacrifice a $20 Amazon item to give someone their next meal. We could just give it to them for pennies on the dollar. We don't because... I can't even think of a reason. Puritan work ethic? A desire to punish people out of unfulfilled BDSM fantasies? I don't know. But it seems pretty fucked up to me.
I think I see a few misconceptions here. Very few people in LA are doing this crime. This is a product of "fencing". The vast majority of people in dire straights will not decide theft is the answer. Ergo, its a special person who decides, "eh, it's just theft."
Second, you may not put up with deadline punishments because you "have an out" (get another job). If we had 20% unemployment and you have 20 guys and gals in line for your job and there wasn't a social safety net, you'd be glad to have a crummy manager with crummy milestones and deadlines. So, punishment works --it doesn't work if it's subverted (i.e. options). How exactly do you think trannies and communist systems work, people volunteer?
Second, you may not put up with deadline punishments because you "have an out" (get another job). If we had 20% unemployment and you have 20 guys and gals in line for your job and there wasn't a social safety net, you'd be glad to have a crummy manager with crummy milestones and deadlines. So, punishment works --it doesn't work if it's subverted (i.e. options). How exactly do you think trannies and communist systems work, people volunteer?
Saying that criminals are the victims of the society and only have to commit crimes because their basic needs are not covered or the people think of them badly or some historic inequalities etc. is the popular answer.
But watch this. If I told that I am a hedge fund manager and steal from mom and pop shops for the thrill because my life is boring, HN would be outside my door ready to murder me. "You are a psychopath! How can you be so evil? I hate you!".
Ultimately I agree with you. We are fighting symptoms instead of the cause. We just disagree what the cause is.
But watch this. If I told that I am a hedge fund manager and steal from mom and pop shops for the thrill because my life is boring, HN would be outside my door ready to murder me. "You are a psychopath! How can you be so evil? I hate you!".
Ultimately I agree with you. We are fighting symptoms instead of the cause. We just disagree what the cause is.
I mean, why are you straw-manning their argument to be there is only a single reason a person would steal?
For a psychopathic hedgefund manager, there will be a very different cause than someone hardly able to feed their kids.
For a psychopathic hedgefund manager, there will be a very different cause than someone hardly able to feed their kids.
Why are you treating intentionally stealing as equivalent to not coding fast enough? It's easy to choose not to steal.
[deleted]
The US seems to be the most lawless of the places that have functioning rule of law. Highest murder rate, for instance.
What are you going to do with that? Fix the society? Well, yes, that would be ideal, but we haven't found a workable plan so far, despite lots of trying.
Failing that, what are you going to do? Let murderers go free? That actually can work, for those who just had a lapse of judgment. For those who are likely to try to do it again, though, that seems like a very shortsighted solution. Fewer people in prison, but more dead bodies on the street? That's not a good trade for society as a whole.
So, given the lawlessness in society, given the visible problems of not punishing crime, less punishment seems unwise.
Actually, less/more is not the correct axis. What we really need is more certain punishment. I don't care how many people that puts away, put away everybody who commits a felony.
But even that's not the whole answer, because we need to revisit things like decriminalizing certain drugs. Would society as a whole be better off, or worse?
The real answer is that we need a society where people restrain themselves, so that the law doesn't have to do the restraining. Lose that, and the only options left are anarchy and oppressive enforcement.
What are you going to do with that? Fix the society? Well, yes, that would be ideal, but we haven't found a workable plan so far, despite lots of trying.
Failing that, what are you going to do? Let murderers go free? That actually can work, for those who just had a lapse of judgment. For those who are likely to try to do it again, though, that seems like a very shortsighted solution. Fewer people in prison, but more dead bodies on the street? That's not a good trade for society as a whole.
So, given the lawlessness in society, given the visible problems of not punishing crime, less punishment seems unwise.
Actually, less/more is not the correct axis. What we really need is more certain punishment. I don't care how many people that puts away, put away everybody who commits a felony.
But even that's not the whole answer, because we need to revisit things like decriminalizing certain drugs. Would society as a whole be better off, or worse?
The real answer is that we need a society where people restrain themselves, so that the law doesn't have to do the restraining. Lose that, and the only options left are anarchy and oppressive enforcement.
> The real answer is that we need a society where people restrain themselves, so that the law doesn't have to do the restraining.
Fundamentally I agree. Once we stop relying on people’s self regulation and basic decency we have already failed. Overflowing prisons is a telling sign of that failure.
I guess one benefit of US being so large and states and municipalities having the ability to create their own laws, is that eventually we might learn what works best after observing results. How did the reforms in San Francisco or LA work? If they worked well, other states might rush to copy. If if didn’t, at least it’s isolated to a few areas.
Fundamentally I agree. Once we stop relying on people’s self regulation and basic decency we have already failed. Overflowing prisons is a telling sign of that failure.
I guess one benefit of US being so large and states and municipalities having the ability to create their own laws, is that eventually we might learn what works best after observing results. How did the reforms in San Francisco or LA work? If they worked well, other states might rush to copy. If if didn’t, at least it’s isolated to a few areas.
Bad behavior should be punished with no regard for quotas. It’s a moral thing. Fairness dictates that crime shall be punished. Why should the arbitrary number of jail cells or beds influence how many should be jailed? They must have estimated the wrong number if needed cells. But criminals should not be let off the hook for this miscalculation. The better debate should be whether certain punishments match the crimes themselves or whether certain laws should be removed. We have systems for this. But it should not be selective enforcement of laws to appease a small segment of people who oppose jails in general.
Opposing jails in general is in fact a part of the debate over whether certain punishments match the crimes.
It's not even a particularly extreme part/position in that debate.
It's not even a particularly extreme part/position in that debate.
A lot of that was due to drug consumption "crimes;" there has been a reevaluation of the outcome of that and we've gone away from that.
That said, anti-social crime should have deterrents and consequences.
That’s why some drugs are illegal. Addiction causes many people to generally destroy their lives and many of those to resort to crime.
A better option would be the ability to "cure" people of addiction --we can't. It's hard work for most people and we don't have magic cure pills.
I am for criminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but not the consumption. Criminalizing consumption is lose-lose. Recreational drugs like Alcohol and MJ and others, as long as they are regulated and not highly addictive for the majority of the population, I don't think we'd benefit from criminalizing (see Prohibition and War on Drugs results). We would benefit more from programs to treat addition as ineffectual as they are.
I am for criminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but not the consumption. Criminalizing consumption is lose-lose. Recreational drugs like Alcohol and MJ and others, as long as they are regulated and not highly addictive for the majority of the population, I don't think we'd benefit from criminalizing (see Prohibition and War on Drugs results). We would benefit more from programs to treat addition as ineffectual as they are.
This doesn't explain a lot.
Alcoholism and gambling both fit the bill. Even for those, adequate counseling and social support don't exist, practically, in the US.
This is the infrastructure of society that bleeds when pressed, and many people could do with legal variants, or safe spaces to confront addiction.
Alcoholism and gambling both fit the bill. Even for those, adequate counseling and social support don't exist, practically, in the US.
This is the infrastructure of society that bleeds when pressed, and many people could do with legal variants, or safe spaces to confront addiction.
Alcohol and gambling are both heavily regulated. Gambling was illegal in almost all of the U.S. until about 50 years ago, and it has only recently become widespread. Alcohol was entirely banned for a number of years and even today there are counties where you can’t buy alcohol. Even where you can there are many restrictions on hours of sale, licensing, etc.
I'm not following.
How are drug consumption crimes and anti social crimes not related? If someone on the streets needs their next hit, shop lifting LEGOs from the downtown Seattle Target is a fast way to get money for that hit (LEGO’s are easy to fence).
Seeing what has happened on the streets due to meth, fentanyl, and heroin, if we are compassionate we have to pay for rehabilitating all that damage that drug use has caused. So…we make it illegal so we don’t have to pay those costs.
Unfortunately, anything short of a Singaporean legal solution probably wouldn’t work, which isn’t something our society can accept. So here we are.
Seeing what has happened on the streets due to meth, fentanyl, and heroin, if we are compassionate we have to pay for rehabilitating all that damage that drug use has caused. So…we make it illegal so we don’t have to pay those costs.
Unfortunately, anything short of a Singaporean legal solution probably wouldn’t work, which isn’t something our society can accept. So here we are.
The US system is racist, and needs reform, let's agree on that.
However, removing all punishment for crime isn't a sane response. It quite predictably incentivized property theft that was previously at an acceptably low level, despite the broken system.
If things aren't rebalanced, vigilante justice might be seen as an acceptable answer, and it will probably bring strong racists themes along with it.
However, removing all punishment for crime isn't a sane response. It quite predictably incentivized property theft that was previously at an acceptably low level, despite the broken system.
If things aren't rebalanced, vigilante justice might be seen as an acceptable answer, and it will probably bring strong racists themes along with it.
I think this is what happened in the Philippines. Crime was out of control, people got totally fed up, elected a "strongman" and he personified the electorate's desire to rid society of those who went to far. In a psychological sense, he took on the burden of society and did the work on their behalf --they could feel good because it wasn't them, but rather the personification of their desire in the form of the "stongman".
People want some peace --they will take a hit to civil liberties in exchange.
People want some peace --they will take a hit to civil liberties in exchange.
Crime is driven by unavailability of legal opportunities - often manifested by inequality.
https://financesonline.com/how-income-inequality-affects-cri...
The contrast of what is actually available on an upward path is much more preventative of crime vs the marginal discouragement of more punishment below.
https://financesonline.com/how-income-inequality-affects-cri...
The contrast of what is actually available on an upward path is much more preventative of crime vs the marginal discouragement of more punishment below.
How do you explain shoplifting among celebrities? Winona Ryder, Amanda Bynes, Lindsay Lohan, etc.? Many had the money to pay for what they stole.
> The contrast of what is actually available on an upward path is much more preventative of crime vs the marginal discouragement of more punishment below.
Or, to put it simply, criminal intent is a cost-benefit analysis. And, despite you're implication, there isn't a particular level of income or lack thereof required to make that calculation.
> The contrast of what is actually available on an upward path is much more preventative of crime vs the marginal discouragement of more punishment below.
Or, to put it simply, criminal intent is a cost-benefit analysis. And, despite you're implication, there isn't a particular level of income or lack thereof required to make that calculation.
I see them as individual samples of mental health episodes, that are insufficient to buck a larger statistical society wide data.
I wonder why your thought process goes towards locking people up more to help poor people, rather than to help poor people not be poor. Countries with less crime tend to have less poverty. If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty.
Putting people into prison makes them (and their families) poorer. Should we put violent criminals into prison? Yes. Should we put shoplifters into prison? Probably not.
Most of the sentencing and prosecution changes that have been coming through are for crimes that are generally considered minor: shoplifting, drug possession, etc.
The reason you believe otherwise is because of police propaganda. A lot of their crime numbers are linked to these arrests, because these arrests are easy, safe, and require little to no investigation. The drug arrests tend to be associated with their profit centers too (traffic stops). They have a strong incentive to lie to you about these changes, because their jobs are tied to it.
Putting people into prison makes them (and their families) poorer. Should we put violent criminals into prison? Yes. Should we put shoplifters into prison? Probably not.
Most of the sentencing and prosecution changes that have been coming through are for crimes that are generally considered minor: shoplifting, drug possession, etc.
The reason you believe otherwise is because of police propaganda. A lot of their crime numbers are linked to these arrests, because these arrests are easy, safe, and require little to no investigation. The drug arrests tend to be associated with their profit centers too (traffic stops). They have a strong incentive to lie to you about these changes, because their jobs are tied to it.
I think your sense of reasonable argument has gone out the window, so I'm not likely to spend much more time answering here.
I support helping people out of poverty. However, it will take decades. In the meantime, no more prosecuting of minor crimes, huh? That's sure to send some great signals to people who might be tempted to commit crimes. And to the people who obey laws.
How about people who shoplift try not shoplifting, to help avoid making their families poorer by staying out of prison for those and other crimes? Who knows whether you understand this idea. It seems that you rather sympathize with someone who commits crime rather than the 100x people in the same community who obey the laws and have to pay to clean up after that crime. And you occupy some reverse-logic-world where people committing crimes are being treated to some perverse injustice by being caught for those crimes.
It's an insult to the law-abiding poor person who pays in full for their purchases that you seem to care more about the shoplifter. That you're so eager to let the person jumping the turnstile not be punished, while the elderly pensioner scrimps and saves to pay her subway fare dutifully. Watch out for the backlash against what you think your policies are doing.
And btw I don't consume propaganda or get swayed by messaging. I don't believe what people say, of either side. I believe what they do.
I support helping people out of poverty. However, it will take decades. In the meantime, no more prosecuting of minor crimes, huh? That's sure to send some great signals to people who might be tempted to commit crimes. And to the people who obey laws.
How about people who shoplift try not shoplifting, to help avoid making their families poorer by staying out of prison for those and other crimes? Who knows whether you understand this idea. It seems that you rather sympathize with someone who commits crime rather than the 100x people in the same community who obey the laws and have to pay to clean up after that crime. And you occupy some reverse-logic-world where people committing crimes are being treated to some perverse injustice by being caught for those crimes.
It's an insult to the law-abiding poor person who pays in full for their purchases that you seem to care more about the shoplifter. That you're so eager to let the person jumping the turnstile not be punished, while the elderly pensioner scrimps and saves to pay her subway fare dutifully. Watch out for the backlash against what you think your policies are doing.
And btw I don't consume propaganda or get swayed by messaging. I don't believe what people say, of either side. I believe what they do.
You don't know that you consume propaganda, but you obviously do. We all do.
You're missing the point and making this a moralistic debate, rather than one based on the best outcome. Yes, people shouldn't shoplift. They shouldn't speed either.
I'm also not suggesting that we don't punish minor crimes, only that we don't put people in prison for doing them. The punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. Prison is a life ender for most people. If you have a felony on your record, you can't get most jobs. It can make it harder to find good apartments. It makes it more likely they're commit more serious crimes later, because we're effectively forcing people into lifelong poverty.
In terms of turnstyles: get rid of them. Make public transportation free. No more turnstyle jumpers. A lot of shoplifting is due to people not having enough money to buy things: increase minimum wage and make education free so that people can get better jobs.
You're advocating for more punishment, which makes you feel better, but doesn't improve society. I'm advocating for improving society, which will reduce crime.
You're missing the point and making this a moralistic debate, rather than one based on the best outcome. Yes, people shouldn't shoplift. They shouldn't speed either.
I'm also not suggesting that we don't punish minor crimes, only that we don't put people in prison for doing them. The punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. Prison is a life ender for most people. If you have a felony on your record, you can't get most jobs. It can make it harder to find good apartments. It makes it more likely they're commit more serious crimes later, because we're effectively forcing people into lifelong poverty.
In terms of turnstyles: get rid of them. Make public transportation free. No more turnstyle jumpers. A lot of shoplifting is due to people not having enough money to buy things: increase minimum wage and make education free so that people can get better jobs.
You're advocating for more punishment, which makes you feel better, but doesn't improve society. I'm advocating for improving society, which will reduce crime.
> What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand ...
Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities.
> who think they mean well
You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities.
Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities.
> who think they mean well
You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities.
Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
People have to understand that people are conflicted. They desire things that are impossible. They want justice, they want peace, but they don't want to accept that you need force to achieve a balance. There is no utopia. Japan is "peaceful" and it's near homogenous (at least psychologically --and that's what matters) so the racism bugaboo doesn't rear its head, never the less to achieve this stasis the justice system is even worse than the beleaguered US justice system.
So after a while, people forgo their ideals and revert to the hard reality and elect someone like a Duterte who promised to clean up and he did -and but for the affected families, for the most part took the bargain. People will put up with only so much insecurity. Most tyrannies don't put up with petty crimes either because petty crimes can move people to seek change.
So after a while, people forgo their ideals and revert to the hard reality and elect someone like a Duterte who promised to clean up and he did -and but for the affected families, for the most part took the bargain. People will put up with only so much insecurity. Most tyrannies don't put up with petty crimes either because petty crimes can move people to seek change.
> They desire things that are impossible.
You say it's impossible, but do you have evidence to support that?
> elect someone like a Duterte
You're suggesting that for the United States? You think that was a success?
> People will put up with only so much insecurity.
Crime rates are low and dropping. Someone is working hard to create a sense of insecurity. Why? Isn't that the biggest threat?
You say it's impossible, but do you have evidence to support that?
> elect someone like a Duterte
You're suggesting that for the United States? You think that was a success?
> People will put up with only so much insecurity.
Crime rates are low and dropping. Someone is working hard to create a sense of insecurity. Why? Isn't that the biggest threat?
wolverine876
>>Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities.
>>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
Nope.
You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance.
Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities.
You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue.
And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people.
I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do.
The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies.
Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.
>>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
Nope.
You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance.
Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities.
You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue.
And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people.
I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do.
The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies.
Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.
More fabrications about me and my thinking, but no evidence of anything.
> Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder.
You are equating abuse by law enforcement with criminality, which is the fundamental problem - privileged people think it only happens to criminals. You are right that they are law-abiding, and yet they still suffer abuse - that is the great problem of our society for generations, they've been saying it for generations, and people like you have ignored them for generations. I actually talk to people, not watch Fox News (or any other nonsense). If you think these issues aren't widespread, you live in a priviledged bubble. Go out. Get on the bus. Talk to people who actually live the experiences.
> Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder.
You are equating abuse by law enforcement with criminality, which is the fundamental problem - privileged people think it only happens to criminals. You are right that they are law-abiding, and yet they still suffer abuse - that is the great problem of our society for generations, they've been saying it for generations, and people like you have ignored them for generations. I actually talk to people, not watch Fox News (or any other nonsense). If you think these issues aren't widespread, you live in a priviledged bubble. Go out. Get on the bus. Talk to people who actually live the experiences.
> The dismantling / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society.
The funny thing here is that your post is considerably more self-righteous, and it's also hypocritical.
You're saying that it's not conducive to society to overlook crime, while ignoring the fact that police are committing crimes with essentially no repercussions. We don't even have requirements to track the crimes the police commit.
This point is especially funny when you consider that crime rates are at historic lows, nationwide, but we still have the largest per-capita number of prisoners in the world.
The funny thing here is that your post is considerably more self-righteous, and it's also hypocritical.
You're saying that it's not conducive to society to overlook crime, while ignoring the fact that police are committing crimes with essentially no repercussions. We don't even have requirements to track the crimes the police commit.
This point is especially funny when you consider that crime rates are at historic lows, nationwide, but we still have the largest per-capita number of prisoners in the world.
Somewhat related to this, I've been in assorted supermarket/hypermarket type stores that place varying emphasis on shrinkage based on the neighborhood. In most parts of New Orleans, the shopping carts have locking wheels, flashing blue surveillance cameras in the parking lots and beeping cameras in what are likely the shrinkage prone areas such as baby formula/diapers (this is exceptionally sad more than anything), cosmetics and fishing equipment. Some have gone as far as having turnstiles at the entrance so as to corral would be grab & runs through a checkout lanes. Having lived in a variety of neighborhoods-- this is kind of like entering an entirely different world (even though the same chain store), so the same scenario as you describe plays out. Being fed the line of "we're watching you because you're probably a criminal, or at least criminal adjacent" has to lead to some type of behavioral modifications-- if you're told you're a thief frequently enough, and are treated like a thief frequently enough, why not steal? It is just kind of depressing when you think about it.
> baby formula/diapers (this is exceptionally sad more than anything)
At first blush, you're crushingly obviously right. What kind of society do we have where people have to steal baby formula?
The real answer is much stranger: there's a lot of money to be made buying stolen baby formula and selling it to stores that won't ask where you got it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/mone...
At first blush, you're crushingly obviously right. What kind of society do we have where people have to steal baby formula?
The real answer is much stranger: there's a lot of money to be made buying stolen baby formula and selling it to stores that won't ask where you got it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/mone...
Yes, this is why you get those stickers on items from CVS/Walgreens etc., that say not to be sold individually as well as intended for sale at "Store Name" because theft rigs are a thing.
> Yes, this is why you get those stickers on items from CVS/Walgreens etc., that say not to be sold individually
No, not to be sold individually is mostly from the manufacturer, and mostly about labelling requirements for sale. If the bundle meets the requirement but the contained packets do not, then the restriction is noted.
> as well as intended for sale at "Store Name"
That's mostly for advertising the stores exclusive merchandise for customer retention.
No, not to be sold individually is mostly from the manufacturer, and mostly about labelling requirements for sale. If the bundle meets the requirement but the contained packets do not, then the restriction is noted.
> as well as intended for sale at "Store Name"
That's mostly for advertising the stores exclusive merchandise for customer retention.
I mean, the reason it sounded sad at first blush is because it indicates that people can’t afford baby formula and diapers, which is obviously sad because those are vitally important items.
But all you did was introduce one layer of money exchange, and money is super fungible. So the reason it’s sad literally hasn’t changed at all.
But all you did was introduce one layer of money exchange, and money is super fungible. So the reason it’s sad literally hasn’t changed at all.
One of the reasons baby formula is in high demand is that WIC subsidies are generous but effectively set a price cap for many customers. If a business wants to make more money, they have to squeeze on the cost side. Buying stolen product can be a good way to cut costs on the supply side if you run a small and inefficient operation.
I hope that helps clarify things for you! The reason it appears sad at first blush is not true, even with any number of financial exchanges in between.
I found the article I linked previously to be highly educational on this subject.
I hope that helps clarify things for you! The reason it appears sad at first blush is not true, even with any number of financial exchanges in between.
I found the article I linked previously to be highly educational on this subject.
No, that’s still sad for the exact same reason.
How so? As far as I can tell, this does not indicate that people can’t afford baby formula and diapers, quite important items. Instead the whole system works because the people who need them do have ready access to these vitally important items to keep their children safe, healthy, and happy because the WIC and Medicaid systems successfully perform their intended functions.
I clearly have missed something.
I clearly have missed something.
> As far as I can tell, this does not indicate that people can’t afford baby formula and diapers
It says that there is a significant enough segment of the market dependent on WIC to do so that it sets a price cap that drives market behavior enough to motivate sponsored theft by retailers as a means of keeping prices at a level that allow them to stay under the price cap of the WIC-dependent population.
Which is exactly saying that a mass of people can't afford baby formula and diapers, at prices the market sets absent theft, even with existing public assistance for exactly that purpose.
It says that there is a significant enough segment of the market dependent on WIC to do so that it sets a price cap that drives market behavior enough to motivate sponsored theft by retailers as a means of keeping prices at a level that allow them to stay under the price cap of the WIC-dependent population.
Which is exactly saying that a mass of people can't afford baby formula and diapers, at prices the market sets absent theft, even with existing public assistance for exactly that purpose.
This is such a silly "gotcha". Baby food has an expiration date and goes bad (some time after the expiration date, but still), so somebody is eating them even if they change hands a few times first. Nobody is just deciding baby food has value and exchanging it as currency based on that agreed-upon value.
Only the Treasury is allowed to do that :) https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are 'backed' by all the goods and services in the economy."
Only the Treasury is allowed to do that :) https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are 'backed' by all the goods and services in the economy."
"Baby formula" is often powdered. It has a longer shelf life. How is providing the exact evidence of how organized theft rings operate and steal baby formula in Tampa a "silly gotcha." It provides evidence showing the profitability of the endeavor.
> It provides evidence showing the profitability of the endeavor.
Yes, so obviously an endeavor nobody would undertake without an eventual buyer. Nobody with a hungry kid is going to care about an obvious "FOR SALE AT CVS ONLY" sticker on their cheap food. It's called a "fence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)
Yes, so obviously an endeavor nobody would undertake without an eventual buyer. Nobody with a hungry kid is going to care about an obvious "FOR SALE AT CVS ONLY" sticker on their cheap food. It's called a "fence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)
But that's the whole point. These thefts aren't people going hungry feeding hungry needy starving mouths. You have some people wanting to believe it's only people who have no other recourse to dying --they have to steal. No, most destitute poor people do not steal. They do without, go live with relatives, friends, beg, sell blood, dumpster dive, etc., but they're not gravitating toward UP boxcars. Those are run of the mill opportunist criminals.
The threat of the law and their own shame is enough of a theft deterrent for "most people" even when the law is visibly ineffective, but the thieves could not exist without buyers. Since we're picking on SF as the example, honestly lol if you think anybody buys the stuff off the street around 16th–24th/Mission without knowing exactly how it got there https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/New-S-F-proposal-woul...
Like a lot of instances of food theft or counterfeiting, the fence sells the goods into the legitimate supply chain. The buyer winds up being a regular person who has no idea that this particular baby formula is stolen.
Right it's Tide laundry detergent, not baby food, that pretty criminals use as currency.
https://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/
https://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/
Something that's even more shelf-stable, yeah, but it obviously still gets used unless you think people like the idea of their money turning to suds when it gets a little wet.
geoduck14(1)
Happy to meet another Clear Lake veteran on HN!
Ditto! How long did you live there for? I was only there for a year and a half, and then I moved to Seabrook for another two years.
I was born and raised there, so for 18-ish years of my life. My parents still live there, so I always go back. I am trying to think of the gas station you are talking about, but the tennis stuff isn't computing for me.
That was a heartbreaking story and all, but the victims of these crimes are the world's richest man who is shipping his belongings on a railroad that pays a billion dollars per quarter in dividends. If I am stack-ranking petty crime then yes I agree that the cops should go stand post down at the corner grocer and the UPRR can patrol their own property, since they are uniquely empowered under the law to do so.
But this logic propagates all the way down.
What if the second richest man in the US is robbed? Should we care? What about the third? What about your rich neighbor? What about that other neighbor that has 2 cars? What about that guy who has a job?
What if the second richest man in the US is robbed? Should we care? What about the third? What about your rich neighbor? What about that other neighbor that has 2 cars? What about that guy who has a job?
All my logic requires is that UPRR, instead of laying off their security patrol in the same quarter they paid a record-high shareholder dividend, simply maintains their patrol levels. Instead, they have chosen to pad their profits and then whine that the government, an external subsidy from their perspective, isn't doing enough!
The problem is that these containers are undifferentiated from the outside and might be carrying material necessary to essentials in our society. And thus, in their quest for robbing consumer goods, the thieves will discard anything else.
Railway, especially freight railway, provide such a huge backbone to the US’s logistical network that this can have some repercussions on things that may be needed to provide for the very impoverished communities that soft on crime stances purport to help.
I fear that LA might snap and elect a right-wing strongman who campaigns on law and order and subsequently brings on other rather terrible policies in exchange for the city saying “enough” to the rising crime rates.
Railway, especially freight railway, provide such a huge backbone to the US’s logistical network that this can have some repercussions on things that may be needed to provide for the very impoverished communities that soft on crime stances purport to help.
I fear that LA might snap and elect a right-wing strongman who campaigns on law and order and subsequently brings on other rather terrible policies in exchange for the city saying “enough” to the rising crime rates.
I nominate this for best comment so far of 2022.
Weren't the robbers simply hungry, and using guns to rob is not a violent crime? This may sound sarcastic, but this is exactly politicians in cities kept telling us, no?
Thanks for sharing your story.
> Poverty may encourage crime, but crime always creates poverty.
It seems like you're using two different meanings for the word 'poverty'. In "poverty may encourage crime", the word 'poverty' means a lot of people not earning enough money to live comfortably. And in "crime always creates poverty", it seems like the word 'poverty' means places being less welcoming, businesses spending extra resources, and public processes being less efficient. By using different meanings of the word in the same sentence, the sentence becomes difficult to understand correctly, easy to misunderstand.
Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
> Poverty may encourage crime, but crime always creates poverty.
It seems like you're using two different meanings for the word 'poverty'. In "poverty may encourage crime", the word 'poverty' means a lot of people not earning enough money to live comfortably. And in "crime always creates poverty", it seems like the word 'poverty' means places being less welcoming, businesses spending extra resources, and public processes being less efficient. By using different meanings of the word in the same sentence, the sentence becomes difficult to understand correctly, easy to misunderstand.
Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
> Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
Yes, if you move into a nice neighborhood and start sticking up the local residents and stores for material resources, you will increase your own material wealth and thus reduce your own poverty. Two decades from the start of you and your friends raiding the other town residents, you and your children will live in an economic dead zone. Smart and enteprising people will leave as soon as they can, and the peaceful majority that used to inhabit the area will never enter if they can help it.
This exact pattern has happened in every major American city, in Eastern Europe, in Russia, in China, in Central and South America, and in many African countries. Prosperity comes from people, and if people are threatened by crime, they will leave and create prosperity elsewhere.
> Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
This is not true in the slightest. Don't rich people commit crime up one wall and down the other? Instead of sticking up gas stations, they're sticking up markets and foreign countries. Did having enough money to live comfortably stop them from committing crime? Of course it didn't. Transfer six hundred thousand US dollars to every member of a drug cartel. Will they become peaceful, moral, upstanding, and desirous of participantion in a pleasant middle-class lifestyle? Of course not.
Yes, if you move into a nice neighborhood and start sticking up the local residents and stores for material resources, you will increase your own material wealth and thus reduce your own poverty. Two decades from the start of you and your friends raiding the other town residents, you and your children will live in an economic dead zone. Smart and enteprising people will leave as soon as they can, and the peaceful majority that used to inhabit the area will never enter if they can help it.
This exact pattern has happened in every major American city, in Eastern Europe, in Russia, in China, in Central and South America, and in many African countries. Prosperity comes from people, and if people are threatened by crime, they will leave and create prosperity elsewhere.
> Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
This is not true in the slightest. Don't rich people commit crime up one wall and down the other? Instead of sticking up gas stations, they're sticking up markets and foreign countries. Did having enough money to live comfortably stop them from committing crime? Of course it didn't. Transfer six hundred thousand US dollars to every member of a drug cartel. Will they become peaceful, moral, upstanding, and desirous of participantion in a pleasant middle-class lifestyle? Of course not.
> Prosperity comes from people, and if people are threatened by crime, they will leave and create prosperity elsewhere.
This is true. Local economics are a large factor in poverty. It's a difficult issue with no simple solutions. The popular strategy of "punish crime more" has not been effective in solving crime or poverty in most places.
> > Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
> This is not true in the slightest.
When someone gets a criminal conviction, their future job options get reduced, lowering their income and increasing poverty. When a person is arrested, they sit in jail waiting for arraignment, cannot go to work, and often lose their job. Later, they must take time off work to go to court. Many employers will just fire an unskilled worker rather than give them time off. When a person is in prison, they cannot work and cannot gain work experience. Many people get assaulted in prison and struggle with debilitating PTSD after they get out. This is how convictions and imprisonment increase poverty.
> Don't rich people commit crime up one wall and down the other? Instead of sticking up gas stations, they're sticking up markets and foreign countries.
So far, this discussion has been about theft, robbery, and poverty. White-collar crime is very different. Please don't pretend that they are the same. Please discuss with intellectual honesty.
> Transfer six hundred thousand US dollars to every member of a drug cartel. Will they become peaceful, moral, upstanding, and desirous of participantion in a pleasant middle-class lifestyle? Of course not.
This is a straw man argument. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
This is true. Local economics are a large factor in poverty. It's a difficult issue with no simple solutions. The popular strategy of "punish crime more" has not been effective in solving crime or poverty in most places.
> > Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty. Convicting and imprisoning criminals increases poverty.
> This is not true in the slightest.
When someone gets a criminal conviction, their future job options get reduced, lowering their income and increasing poverty. When a person is arrested, they sit in jail waiting for arraignment, cannot go to work, and often lose their job. Later, they must take time off work to go to court. Many employers will just fire an unskilled worker rather than give them time off. When a person is in prison, they cannot work and cannot gain work experience. Many people get assaulted in prison and struggle with debilitating PTSD after they get out. This is how convictions and imprisonment increase poverty.
> Don't rich people commit crime up one wall and down the other? Instead of sticking up gas stations, they're sticking up markets and foreign countries.
So far, this discussion has been about theft, robbery, and poverty. White-collar crime is very different. Please don't pretend that they are the same. Please discuss with intellectual honesty.
> Transfer six hundred thousand US dollars to every member of a drug cartel. Will they become peaceful, moral, upstanding, and desirous of participantion in a pleasant middle-class lifestyle? Of course not.
This is a straw man argument. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
I should have been more specific:
> Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty.
This is the part that I think is unequivocally false. If you live in poverty and you steal property, you do not then become "less poor" unless you subsequently use the property you stole to better yourself in other ways unrelated to the crime. It is not the transfer of wealth that made you less poor, it is your use of the wealth that you took, be it material or financial.
As an example, street gangs often "own" enough asset value in weapons, drugs, cash, and real estate to live in a better, less violent, and less poor life, but they and their families still suffer all of the symptoms of "poverty", because they do not use the assets they take to reduce their own "poverty" but rather to perpetuate the methods by which they acquired their property. There are some edge cases, but for the most part, property crime does not reduce "poverty" any more than caffeine pills reduce "chronic sleepiness".
I do not disagree that convicting and imprisonment increase poverty; I am openly in favor of prison reform and am aware that any criminal charges can seriousy impact lifetime earning potential.
> So far, this discussion has been about theft, robbery, and poverty. White-collar crime is very different.
No, it is not. Rich criminals have the same instincts to win, dominate, hurt, steal, lie, and otherwise oppress other people that poor criminals do. "White-collar" crime is blue-collar crime committed by more intelligent, well-connected people. Blue-collar crime in the case of theft and robbery uses the threat of personal violence to extract wealth from a person or a person's business; the white-collar crime in the way I mentioned it uses the threat of state violence to extract cash from an institution. Both are lawless--one is below the law, the other above the law. Your and other people's inability to understand this principle is the source of a massive road block in societal reform.
> This is a straw man argument. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
This I concede; you did not say this. However, your belief that white-collar crime and blue-collar crime are fundamentally different and your statement that "property crime...makes them less poor and reduces poverty" make me suspicious that you actually do think that a simple transfer of wealth from rich to poor is enough to reduce both poverty and crime to a degree where it does not bother the rest of society.
> Most property crime transfers wealth to poorer people, making them less poor and reducing poverty.
This is the part that I think is unequivocally false. If you live in poverty and you steal property, you do not then become "less poor" unless you subsequently use the property you stole to better yourself in other ways unrelated to the crime. It is not the transfer of wealth that made you less poor, it is your use of the wealth that you took, be it material or financial.
As an example, street gangs often "own" enough asset value in weapons, drugs, cash, and real estate to live in a better, less violent, and less poor life, but they and their families still suffer all of the symptoms of "poverty", because they do not use the assets they take to reduce their own "poverty" but rather to perpetuate the methods by which they acquired their property. There are some edge cases, but for the most part, property crime does not reduce "poverty" any more than caffeine pills reduce "chronic sleepiness".
I do not disagree that convicting and imprisonment increase poverty; I am openly in favor of prison reform and am aware that any criminal charges can seriousy impact lifetime earning potential.
> So far, this discussion has been about theft, robbery, and poverty. White-collar crime is very different.
No, it is not. Rich criminals have the same instincts to win, dominate, hurt, steal, lie, and otherwise oppress other people that poor criminals do. "White-collar" crime is blue-collar crime committed by more intelligent, well-connected people. Blue-collar crime in the case of theft and robbery uses the threat of personal violence to extract wealth from a person or a person's business; the white-collar crime in the way I mentioned it uses the threat of state violence to extract cash from an institution. Both are lawless--one is below the law, the other above the law. Your and other people's inability to understand this principle is the source of a massive road block in societal reform.
> This is a straw man argument. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
This I concede; you did not say this. However, your belief that white-collar crime and blue-collar crime are fundamentally different and your statement that "property crime...makes them less poor and reduces poverty" make me suspicious that you actually do think that a simple transfer of wealth from rich to poor is enough to reduce both poverty and crime to a degree where it does not bother the rest of society.
You seem to define poverty as lacking the ability or willingness to earn enough money to meet ones' needs. That is actually "some causes of poverty", not 'poverty'.
"Poverty is a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living." [0]
Your non-apology and speculation about my beliefs are boring reading. Also, you listed some reasons why white-collar and blue-collar crime may be similar, but you ignored the many ways that they are different. You can do better. It might be a good time to review [1].
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/poverty.asp
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Poverty is a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living." [0]
Your non-apology and speculation about my beliefs are boring reading. Also, you listed some reasons why white-collar and blue-collar crime may be similar, but you ignored the many ways that they are different. You can do better. It might be a good time to review [1].
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/poverty.asp
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I agree, and it's up to us consciously build trust, just as many are working hard to consciously destroy it.
One important method is to not get swept up on in the mass paranoia and reactionary politics, but to actively demonstrate and spread trust.
Another is to assess risks realistically: One crime represents very little risk. It's like crime in large cities: It is low generally, and even the rash of homicides, while terrible for the victims and their families, are very rare and unlikely to affect you (especially people reading HN). There's actually little crime for people reading this, despite the hype.
One important method is to not get swept up on in the mass paranoia and reactionary politics, but to actively demonstrate and spread trust.
Another is to assess risks realistically: One crime represents very little risk. It's like crime in large cities: It is low generally, and even the rash of homicides, while terrible for the victims and their families, are very rare and unlikely to affect you (especially people reading HN). There's actually little crime for people reading this, despite the hype.
I should be okay with terrible things happening just because they're unlikely to directly affect me personally? Isn't that a rather selfish position to take?
That's nothing I said. I said we should work to increase trust and against the paranoia. Odd that it's objectionable to some!
I was responding to the part of your comment where you said "even the rash of homicides, while terrible for the victims and their families, are very rare and unlikely to affect you (especially people reading HN)", not the part where you said to increase trust.
So which is the better solution? Throwing those 6-10 young men in jail or trying to ensure that those 6-10 young men are never motivated to commit armed robbery?
I think a lot of this discussion that is happening nationally about these specific crimes is happening outside the context of the specific neighborhood in which they are occurring. The few miles around Union Station are probably the densest population of homeless people in the country. People who have nothing to lose are much more likely to commit property crime. Maybe the problem here isn't that people are stealing property off trains. Maybe the problem is that there are thousands of people in that area in which stealing something off a train now seems like the best way to improve their life?
I think a lot of this discussion that is happening nationally about these specific crimes is happening outside the context of the specific neighborhood in which they are occurring. The few miles around Union Station are probably the densest population of homeless people in the country. People who have nothing to lose are much more likely to commit property crime. Maybe the problem here isn't that people are stealing property off trains. Maybe the problem is that there are thousands of people in that area in which stealing something off a train now seems like the best way to improve their life?
> the densest population of homeless people in the country
Do you have some data showing that homeless people commit more crime? That they are committing these crimes? What are the demographics of the criminals?
For example, maybe it's organized crime, in which case the perpetrators probably aren't homeless.
It's dangerous to stereotype and blame the 'other', people who happen to be homeless. IMHO, it's just raw prejudice. That's why we need data and facts, not assumptions that people unfamiliar (homeless, people with different skin colors, people of different economic situations) are a threat.
Do you have some data showing that homeless people commit more crime? That they are committing these crimes? What are the demographics of the criminals?
For example, maybe it's organized crime, in which case the perpetrators probably aren't homeless.
It's dangerous to stereotype and blame the 'other', people who happen to be homeless. IMHO, it's just raw prejudice. That's why we need data and facts, not assumptions that people unfamiliar (homeless, people with different skin colors, people of different economic situations) are a threat.
I never said homeless people are committing these crimes. Countless studies show the link between a lack of economic opportunity and property crime. Homelessness is a proxy for lack of economic opportunity in these communities.
If you don't like homeless as that proxy, here[1] is a list of the median income of various LA county neighborhoods. Union Station is situated where Lincoln Heights, Chinatown, and Downtown meet. Those are ranked 250th, 263rd, and 265th out of the 265 neighborhoods that were ranked. These are incredibly poor neighborhoods, especially in terms of income inequality compared to the rest of LA.
Either way, I thought it was clear I was not "blaming" the homeless or the poor for these crimes. I am trying to highlight that these crimes are a symptom of a larger problem in which the people in these neighborhoods are the victim.
And if this were part of organized crime, that invalidates Union Pacific's entire point of blaming the lack of prosecution. The government is perfectly willing to go after organized crime. It is the lower level property crime that they are pushing back on prosecuting.
[1] - https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/income/median/neighbo...
If you don't like homeless as that proxy, here[1] is a list of the median income of various LA county neighborhoods. Union Station is situated where Lincoln Heights, Chinatown, and Downtown meet. Those are ranked 250th, 263rd, and 265th out of the 265 neighborhoods that were ranked. These are incredibly poor neighborhoods, especially in terms of income inequality compared to the rest of LA.
Either way, I thought it was clear I was not "blaming" the homeless or the poor for these crimes. I am trying to highlight that these crimes are a symptom of a larger problem in which the people in these neighborhoods are the victim.
And if this were part of organized crime, that invalidates Union Pacific's entire point of blaming the lack of prosecution. The government is perfectly willing to go after organized crime. It is the lower level property crime that they are pushing back on prosecuting.
[1] - https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/income/median/neighbo...
This article is heavy on the victim-blaming. Are we really supposed to shift some of our blame to the company suffering the thefts?
When the LA Prosecutor has made it clear that they aren't prosecuting the thieves, it almost doesn't matter how many or how few patrol officers Union Pacific has. If there are no consequences, catching someone in the middle of a theft is only a minor delay and inconvenience.
When the LA Prosecutor has made it clear that they aren't prosecuting the thieves, it almost doesn't matter how many or how few patrol officers Union Pacific has. If there are no consequences, catching someone in the middle of a theft is only a minor delay and inconvenience.
To add to that UP and LAPD have arrested perps and re-arrested the same perps, but the DA/Prosecutor aren't holding water. They aren't following through.
In any event, this outlet was likely on the "defund the police" bandwagon, and now, they have the gall to say, oh, it's because you reduced policing (despite the fact that the DA is not doing their job making the argument moot.)
In any event, this outlet was likely on the "defund the police" bandwagon, and now, they have the gall to say, oh, it's because you reduced policing (despite the fact that the DA is not doing their job making the argument moot.)
> This article is heavy on the victim-blaming.
Victim-blaming is about blaming the vulnerable and powerless. Union Pacific might be 'victims' of crime, but they are not vulnerable and powerless. As one dramatic example, we wouldn't be talking about this issue if it was a vulnerable, powerless individual; they have the power to get their point of view into the public eye.
Victim-blaming is about blaming the vulnerable and powerless. Union Pacific might be 'victims' of crime, but they are not vulnerable and powerless. As one dramatic example, we wouldn't be talking about this issue if it was a vulnerable, powerless individual; they have the power to get their point of view into the public eye.
Victim-blaming is about blaming the victim. It has no other qualifiers attached. Having it mean anything else runs counter to the composition of this composite term.
> Victim-blaming is about blaming the vulnerable and powerless.
Oh please. We're attempting to redefine victims based on power theory just like we tried to redefine racism based on power theory? Please don't do this.
It entirely isn't a factor whether you have power or not when determining a victim. (Or are we going to say men can't be raped because they could have resisted?)
Oh please. We're attempting to redefine victims based on power theory just like we tried to redefine racism based on power theory? Please don't do this.
It entirely isn't a factor whether you have power or not when determining a victim. (Or are we going to say men can't be raped because they could have resisted?)
It's not redefining it, and I don't know what "power theory" is nor have I heard of it. Those are the definitions. Discrimination means nothing without the power to make it consequential. Protected classes in law have always been defined around power, as have been laws protecting minorities and women.
There's no reason to think a sexually assaulted male is in a position of power.
There's no reason to think a sexually assaulted male is in a position of power.
Protected classes being defined around power is a brand new concept and not something that is used in law. We are equal under the law.
Some of the stuff that was stolen was paid for by hard working law abiding Americans. This wasn't Robin Hood mugging the sheriff.
Insurance premiums will go up and guess who's footing the bill...
> Some of the stuff that was stolen was paid for by hard working law abiding Americans.
A stirring description of this mythical group. If you pay Amazon for something and it's stolen in transit, Amazon still owes it to you. You don't lose anything.
> Insurance premiums will go up and guess who's footing the bill...
UP will foot the bill.
Regardless, we should work to reduce crime, including against UP. But jailing innocent people because they are poor or minorities is not a solution, and hasn't worked in the past. Do you want to return to that?
A stirring description of this mythical group. If you pay Amazon for something and it's stolen in transit, Amazon still owes it to you. You don't lose anything.
> Insurance premiums will go up and guess who's footing the bill...
UP will foot the bill.
Regardless, we should work to reduce crime, including against UP. But jailing innocent people because they are poor or minorities is not a solution, and hasn't worked in the past. Do you want to return to that?
[deleted]
Depends on whether it took reasonable precautions. If you left a pile of gold bars in an unlocked shed at your vacation property, that you visit three times a year, I can be sympathetic to you if someone steals them, but I'm not quite so sympathetic that I'm ready to volunteer my taxes to fund 24/7 security for your shed.
I'm not an expert on what's reasonable when it comes to railway security (and neither are you), but from my layman's take on it, firing 85% of their security, and observing a 160% increase in theft seems like a "Union Pacific problem", not a "me problem".
They do seem to have a financial incentive, to the tune of 52 salaries to try to turn it into a "me problem."
I'm not an expert on what's reasonable when it comes to railway security (and neither are you), but from my layman's take on it, firing 85% of their security, and observing a 160% increase in theft seems like a "Union Pacific problem", not a "me problem".
They do seem to have a financial incentive, to the tune of 52 salaries to try to turn it into a "me problem."
You do realize that the thieves are using bolt cutters and breaking into a containers. Some container owners are now welding their containers closed to prevent contents from being stolen.
Union Pacific is also turning information over and helping get people arrested, but they're back on the street within 24 hours.
Union Pacific is also turning information over and helping get people arrested, but they're back on the street within 24 hours.
Yes I agree. This sets a dangerous precedent saying basically the police won't enforce laws.
Yes, capital is complicit in building a society that allows people to suffer to the point that they need to steal to survive. Artificial scarcity is artificial: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/economic-education/wi...
People kept making that point in SF about the sub-$900 CVS shoplifting rampage until they found out that the whole thing was run by organized large-scale crime rings. Those fine folks in charge of operations are not very likely to be suffering of much of anything, but you could argue that they are taking advantage of the homeless crisis to recruit foot soldiers for their enterprise.
> but you could argue that they are taking advantage of the homeless crisis to recruit foot soldiers for their enterprise.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... "Over the course of the investigation, $1,874,633.65 was seized from the defendants’ various bank accounts."
Yeah, if a two-million-dollar crime organization is supposed to be some "gotcha" then let's compare their possible ratio of crime-boss versus street-thug pay to the ratio of Silicon-Valley-engineer TC versus Tech-CEO TC. Do yours first :D
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... "Over the course of the investigation, $1,874,633.65 was seized from the defendants’ various bank accounts."
Yeah, if a two-million-dollar crime organization is supposed to be some "gotcha" then let's compare their possible ratio of crime-boss versus street-thug pay to the ratio of Silicon-Valley-engineer TC versus Tech-CEO TC. Do yours first :D
Not really sure in this case, but it’s worth remembering that just as people organise into groups and hierarchies for other things like business and politics, so too do they organise for crime.
While organised crime is demonstrably capable of engineering situations beneficial to their ongoing criminal endeavours… it’s important to remember that the organised crime rings involvement may just be an emergent property of crime being allowed to happen enough that the people involved in it begin to organise.
Of course the situation may devolve from that point but the organising force coming from within before being co-opted is still reflecting a different situation than one where the whole endeavour was started and run by some kind of gang/kingpin/mafia to begin with.
While organised crime is demonstrably capable of engineering situations beneficial to their ongoing criminal endeavours… it’s important to remember that the organised crime rings involvement may just be an emergent property of crime being allowed to happen enough that the people involved in it begin to organise.
Of course the situation may devolve from that point but the organising force coming from within before being co-opted is still reflecting a different situation than one where the whole endeavour was started and run by some kind of gang/kingpin/mafia to begin with.
There's plenty of shortages caused not by capital, but by government. Like restrictive zoning and price controls suppressing housing construction. I fail to see how UP railroad is complicit in the scarcity that may be driving some to steal from trains.
> not by capital, but by government
These are the same thing though. The former is the incentive mechanism to achieve the designs of the latter. It's just filtered through enough layers like Vanguard and Berkshire and friends that people don't notice. Hands up if you've worked somewhere funded by In-Q-Tel, for example (I have!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
These are the same thing though. The former is the incentive mechanism to achieve the designs of the latter. It's just filtered through enough layers like Vanguard and Berkshire and friends that people don't notice. Hands up if you've worked somewhere funded by In-Q-Tel, for example (I have!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
there's a large class of people who have checked out of society and live in encampments while stealing to get by. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that this is because of capital misallocation; after all, in SF they allocate ridiculous sums to housing transients (far more than I spend on my own housing on a per capita basis) and the problem persists. In LA the budget is $1B annually.
If you haven't noticed, the median transient is a drug addict (mostly meth/opiates) and the typical drug addict chooses not to participate in society, inasmuch as you can accept that they have any agency at all. Some may think they are being compassionate with this victim-coddling but this only makes sense if you take the view that the victim-criminals enjoy their situation, since the coddling isn't elevating any of them out of poverty.
If you haven't noticed, the median transient is a drug addict (mostly meth/opiates) and the typical drug addict chooses not to participate in society, inasmuch as you can accept that they have any agency at all. Some may think they are being compassionate with this victim-coddling but this only makes sense if you take the view that the victim-criminals enjoy their situation, since the coddling isn't elevating any of them out of poverty.
I just straight-up don't believe anybody would willingly be a homeless addict if they felt they had any achievable path toward a fulfilling life. Drugs are a coping method (Source: have done drugs). Of course some people will choose not to participate in a society they feel has abandoned them. Everyone has a different breaking point and the world shouldn't be set up so people fail and suffer by default unless they "'earn' a living". That's such a fucked-up concept and we even have a normalized phrase for it.
Even CDC readily admits this: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11778/cdc_11778_DS1.pdf
"Males and females have reported using methamphetamine for increased energy and productivity, its low cost, self-medication for depression or attention deficits, and the euphoric high"
"Males have reported using methamphetamine […] increased energy to work multiple jobs"
To me it feels like your comment is the one taking "the view that the victim-criminals enjoy their situation" if you think people choose to drop out of society even when there are bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up v(._. )v
Even CDC readily admits this: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11778/cdc_11778_DS1.pdf
"Males and females have reported using methamphetamine for increased energy and productivity, its low cost, self-medication for depression or attention deficits, and the euphoric high"
"Males have reported using methamphetamine […] increased energy to work multiple jobs"
To me it feels like your comment is the one taking "the view that the victim-criminals enjoy their situation" if you think people choose to drop out of society even when there are bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up v(._. )v
Reading HN comments on stories like this can be so disheartening. So many people seem to buy into the lies about criminality that created the situation we’re in now. Just wanted to say I agree with everything you’re saying in this thread, and thanks for saying it.
Of course there are bootstraps available. Look around you on this forum; it's full of hard working, self taught, highly motivated and successful individuals working in an industry that has some of the lowest barriers to entry imaginable.
I think when choosing between "unhoused, with access to drugs" and "housed but no access to drugs", many (not most, and not you!) choose the former. It's empirically true: most shelters don't allow drug use and so addicts turn them down in favor of camping.
You are projecting your own relative values if you think no one would ever make this choice. You are also over-weighting your own experience when you say that all drugs are a coping mechanism for all people all the time. Different drugs affect the same person differently; the same drug affects different people differently. Caffeine, Adderall, LSD, coke can all be productivity enhancers and are on average less destructive than meth. With all these tools at one's disposal, and plenty of precedent for successful straightedge approaches to life, suggesting that the meth problem is a result of people earnestly trying to survive the rat race is poorly supported by logic.
I can't even guess what you think the alternative to "earning a living" should be. The default should be to provide unlimited benefits for those who have no interest in contributing to society? Great, that's what we effectively are doing, so you must believe the status quo is ideal. But if you believe these people aren't living their best lives, then maybe consider that the current approach (extreme coddling) isn't helping them.
I think when choosing between "unhoused, with access to drugs" and "housed but no access to drugs", many (not most, and not you!) choose the former. It's empirically true: most shelters don't allow drug use and so addicts turn them down in favor of camping.
You are projecting your own relative values if you think no one would ever make this choice. You are also over-weighting your own experience when you say that all drugs are a coping mechanism for all people all the time. Different drugs affect the same person differently; the same drug affects different people differently. Caffeine, Adderall, LSD, coke can all be productivity enhancers and are on average less destructive than meth. With all these tools at one's disposal, and plenty of precedent for successful straightedge approaches to life, suggesting that the meth problem is a result of people earnestly trying to survive the rat race is poorly supported by logic.
I can't even guess what you think the alternative to "earning a living" should be. The default should be to provide unlimited benefits for those who have no interest in contributing to society? Great, that's what we effectively are doing, so you must believe the status quo is ideal. But if you believe these people aren't living their best lives, then maybe consider that the current approach (extreme coddling) isn't helping them.
The scarcity is real right now because of supply chain issues and people robbing trains doesn't help. And no, these people aren't "stealing to survive" they're stealing because they can. Crime rates shot up all over the country wherever laws were slackened or police forces torn down.
> The scarcity is real right now because of supply chain issues
IMO regulations that allow such a fragile system still make it artificial, just minus all accountability. Supply chains can't be an "act of god" (in a tort sense) when it's a concept humans made up.
IMO regulations that allow such a fragile system still make it artificial, just minus all accountability. Supply chains can't be an "act of god" (in a tort sense) when it's a concept humans made up.
UP is making arrests though, even with fewer officers. The problem seems to be the LA Prosecutor not... prosecuting. So would it really matter if UP sent more people to the prosecutor? Were the layoffs a response to the lack of effectiveness in the prosecutors office?
Article seems to indicate it's not arrests but patrols that are correlated with theft. Patrols dissuade potential thefts
The article also says they're in charge of 36,000 miles of track. Presumably the trains are only in smaller segments, but that's still impossible to patrol it all. There is no reasonable amount of officers that could cover all of the parked trains 24/7 anyway.
Without any actual consequences for getting caught, it's basically a minor inconvenience for the thieves. More officers just means slightly more inconvenience.
Without any actual consequences for getting caught, it's basically a minor inconvenience for the thieves. More officers just means slightly more inconvenience.
> Presumably the trains are only in smaller segments
The trains are in longer segments than ever before with the move to "precision scheduled railroading":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqdsQ8pFM2s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading
Sixty-eight thousand American railroad jobs were lost between 2015 and today due to PSR, from a local-maximum* of ~210k in April 2015 to ~142k in December 2021:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES4348200001?amp%25253bdata...
[*] Down from 2.2 million railroad jobs in 1920, but BLS data only goes back as far as 1947.
The trains are in longer segments than ever before with the move to "precision scheduled railroading":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqdsQ8pFM2s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading
Sixty-eight thousand American railroad jobs were lost between 2015 and today due to PSR, from a local-maximum* of ~210k in April 2015 to ~142k in December 2021:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES4348200001?amp%25253bdata...
[*] Down from 2.2 million railroad jobs in 1920, but BLS data only goes back as far as 1947.
Seems like a job for a fleet of drones.
Drones that do what? Send video to the prosecutor who doesn't care? Shoot the thieves? I'm not sure the state of California would be down with that.
- Play classical music to annoy robbers
- Take pictures to post to twitter
- Follow suspects and personally sue
- Shooting blinding light or less deadly bullets
- Record footage,sell rights to clip brokers
hotpotamus(1)
Getting caught means being charged federally and the statue carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Half the people commenting on this post don't understand that railway theft is a federal crime which is handled by federal prosecutors in federal court, and has nothing to do with the "liberal governor" or "lazy California prosecutors".
On nearly anything related to societal matters not of a technological sort, HN commenters tend to demonstrate quite a bit of ignorance of the basic facts of the matter at hand.
Also: obviously you don't just patrol 36,000 miles of track: you patrol where the thefts happen (piles of packaging by the tracks), and on the trains. Since you know the schedule of the trains, you even know when people will be trying to do the robberies...
Half the people commenting on this post don't understand that railway theft is a federal crime which is handled by federal prosecutors in federal court, and has nothing to do with the "liberal governor" or "lazy California prosecutors".
On nearly anything related to societal matters not of a technological sort, HN commenters tend to demonstrate quite a bit of ignorance of the basic facts of the matter at hand.
Also: obviously you don't just patrol 36,000 miles of track: you patrol where the thefts happen (piles of packaging by the tracks), and on the trains. Since you know the schedule of the trains, you even know when people will be trying to do the robberies...
>Getting caught means being charged federally and the statue carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Very few people (you plus one other) have mentioned that messing with interstate transportation is a federal crime. Which makes me think there is more to this that meets the eye.
Why have the news been focusing on local prosecutors if this is a federal matter? Why haven't federal prosecutors pressing charges?
Very few people (you plus one other) have mentioned that messing with interstate transportation is a federal crime. Which makes me think there is more to this that meets the eye.
Why have the news been focusing on local prosecutors if this is a federal matter? Why haven't federal prosecutors pressing charges?
I noticed in one article that the railroad referred to the crime as "vandalism." It could be that they are using charges such as trespassing and vandalism, rather than outright theft, to bring it under the purview of local authorities.
Then why did UP bring up the LA prosecutor?
Consider you may be misinformed.
Consider you may be misinformed.
Easy way to shift the blame, especially given public opinion at the current moment
Good point, I can understand that. I wonder what reasons were given for the layoffs.
well yes, that would be the outcome if arrests don't lead to charges --- they accomplish nothing
It says a lot about your citizens when they regularly steal.
Totes, people should starve to death before resorting to stealing. /s
You are saying the people who steal from trains would be starving otherwise? That's a ridiculous take, imo. As much as some Americans like to pretend that they are actually living in a 3rd world country & deny how privileged it is to even live there, the reality is that they are absolutely not. Even a minimum wage job in the US can get you above "starving" or even close to that point. Being poor in LA doesn't mean you're starving, and it's weird to assume that poor people just have to commit crimes and steal because they are poor.
Regardless, let's assume Los Angeles was such an economically desolate place for the poor. Well, it turns out that train robberies still aren't a common occurrence in even much poorer places so there must be something else going on too.
Regardless, let's assume Los Angeles was such an economically desolate place for the poor. Well, it turns out that train robberies still aren't a common occurrence in even much poorer places so there must be something else going on too.
Because the only people who commit crime are desperate people struggling to survive? That's the level of argument you're on right now
> According to the source, the number of patrolling officers has been cut from 50 to 60 agents to eight, which the worker thinks has led to an increase in train robberies.
And they deterred several times more than arrested, imagine how much more effective deterring would be with ~10x more officers.
And they deterred several times more than arrested, imagine how much more effective deterring would be with ~10x more officers.
Isn’t messing with rail a federal crime? Where is the U.S. Attorney?
> UP is making arrests though, even with fewer officers. The problem seems to be the LA Prosecutor not... prosecuting.
That's not what their letter actually said, IIRC?
That's not what their letter actually said, IIRC?
The letter said they made ~100 arrests for vandalism and didn't break out a number for thefts IIRC.
This increasingly smells like a company trying to save money by firing their security force and passing sole responsibility for thefts off on publicly funded law enforcement.
This increasingly smells like a company trying to save money by firing their security force and passing sole responsibility for thefts off on publicly funded law enforcement.
This actually raises all sorts of questions for me about how a private police force with presumably a federal jurisdiction would prosecute criminals in a state court. I'm sure there's a system in place, though part of me is imagining the railroads creating their own private prisons that force inmates to work on the lines. Probably best not to give them any ideas.
As it exists, they arrest and charge based on state law, unless they have something federal to charge.
Hypothetically, you could model it off of migratory wildlife enforcement, with dual jurisdiction, where a violation of a relevant state law automatically becomes a federal offense, and vice versa, and agents are typically officers of both the state and federal government.
Then the federal judiciary could fulfill the need where locals fall short. No private prison or judicial system needed.
But it would be much more ideal if the prosecutors would just do their jobs.
Hypothetically, you could model it off of migratory wildlife enforcement, with dual jurisdiction, where a violation of a relevant state law automatically becomes a federal offense, and vice versa, and agents are typically officers of both the state and federal government.
Then the federal judiciary could fulfill the need where locals fall short. No private prison or judicial system needed.
But it would be much more ideal if the prosecutors would just do their jobs.
Private security forces with police powers are a thing in many states. I had some equipment in a data center where the security people were certified officers with automatic weapons.
Gated communities in some places also have sworn private security.
Gated communities in some places also have sworn private security.
That might be true, or it might be cop propaganda. I mean, a press release from the cops is literally cop propaganda. We know from recent reports in New York that the NYPD is just going around refusing to investigate crimes or make arrests, and telling everyone who will listen it is the DA's fault. Their propaganda campaign is organized by the police union, which is nationally coordinated and not politically neutral. So when you read reports, written by cops, about these issues, unless they come with substantial documented evidence, I think you should treat those claims as skeptically as you treat press releases from the CIA, or Putin, or whoever. These claims have no inherent credibility.
I find it reasonable for the cops not to make arrests if nobody is going to prosecute. I don’t consider that propaganda for the police to say as such. If the DA openly says they won’t prosecute a certain crime why would I expect the police to arrest for it?
And of course the cops would have a cop bias, and teachers have a teacher bias, and service works have a service worker bias and on and on. Everyone looks out for their own across all cross sections of their identity.
What’s different is it seems cops get no additional cross sections anymore. Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.
And of course the cops would have a cop bias, and teachers have a teacher bias, and service works have a service worker bias and on and on. Everyone looks out for their own across all cross sections of their identity.
What’s different is it seems cops get no additional cross sections anymore. Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.
> I find it reasonable for the cops not to make arrests if nobody is going to prosecute.
You find it reasonable for people to be paid and not do their jobs? They're not paid to administer justice, they're paid to do what they're told.
You find it reasonable for people to be paid and not do their jobs? They're not paid to administer justice, they're paid to do what they're told.
I never said they are paid to “administer justice” but I do expect them to prioritize their activities. Making arrests for things that won’t be prosecuted is a waste of time.
I’m honestly not even sure what you are advocating for. J walking is a good example of something I expect them not to bother with 99% of the time but it is a law nearly everywhere. To enforce that in a major metro could use all the cops every day. Huge waste of time.
I’m honestly not even sure what you are advocating for. J walking is a good example of something I expect them not to bother with 99% of the time but it is a law nearly everywhere. To enforce that in a major metro could use all the cops every day. Huge waste of time.
I'm advocating for police to accept the priorities we give them. I don't get to set the priorities at my job; I don't get to favor working on features I think are good and to ignore features I don't. I'm given priorities.
What happens after people are arrested is not relevant to the police, and they have no training or authority to make decisions about it. We elected different people for that.
What happens after people are arrested is not relevant to the police, and they have no training or authority to make decisions about it. We elected different people for that.
Isn’t the DA telling, both them and us, what the priority is if they say they won’t prosecute a specific crime?
Along that same line of thought is that it is not relevant what the DA thinks about the law. The powers that be created the law and the DA should prosecute it every time there is an arrest and let the courts figure it out.
Also in your job you are given priorities and you work on the lowest ones last. And if you always have more priorities than hours in the day then the lower priority ones don’t get done. Based on the laws that are actually on the books there are more law breakers than police officers so they have to pick and choose their priorities. That’s still a reasonable thing to do.
Along that same line of thought is that it is not relevant what the DA thinks about the law. The powers that be created the law and the DA should prosecute it every time there is an arrest and let the courts figure it out.
Also in your job you are given priorities and you work on the lowest ones last. And if you always have more priorities than hours in the day then the lower priority ones don’t get done. Based on the laws that are actually on the books there are more law breakers than police officers so they have to pick and choose their priorities. That’s still a reasonable thing to do.
[deleted]
If the police fail to arrest someone, that is on them. No passing the buck.
> If the DA openly says they won’t prosecute a certain crime why would I expect the police to arrest for it?
Can you cite which DA said that about what crime, other than marijuana possession?
> Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.
Let's not turn them into powerless victims, act like that is the only response police get, that they are such vulnerable people, or that it is not partly a consequence of their actions. They get all sorts of responses from lots of people, and as public officials, criticism is a part of the job. Arguably, if they did their jobs better, they wouldn't be criticized as much.
But rather than changing the subject, a far more important issue is police abusing civilians: The police have a lot of power, well beyond criticism, which ruins lives. Far more important than protecting the suddenly fragile police officers' self-esteem are justice and freedom.
> If the DA openly says they won’t prosecute a certain crime why would I expect the police to arrest for it?
Can you cite which DA said that about what crime, other than marijuana possession?
> Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.
Let's not turn them into powerless victims, act like that is the only response police get, that they are such vulnerable people, or that it is not partly a consequence of their actions. They get all sorts of responses from lots of people, and as public officials, criticism is a part of the job. Arguably, if they did their jobs better, they wouldn't be criticized as much.
But rather than changing the subject, a far more important issue is police abusing civilians: The police have a lot of power, well beyond criticism, which ruins lives. Far more important than protecting the suddenly fragile police officers' self-esteem are justice and freedom.
The Los Angeles district attorney's office, under the leadership of George Gascon, has circulated a list of crimes it will not prosecute. You can read about it in the Grey Lady, if you are picky with your news sources like that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...
Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...
Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe!
> The Los Angeles district attorney's office, under the leadership of George Gascon, has circulated a list of crimes it will not prosecute. ...
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...
That isn't in the article. Have you ever seen evidence supporting your claim, or are you repeating what others have said (perilous, esp. on the Internet!). Here's what the article says:
He mandated an end to seeking cash bail, the death penalty, the sentence of life without parole and the prosecution of anyone younger than 18 as an adult. And in a rare, if not unprecedented, move by an American prosecutor, Gascón declared his intent to effectively end very long sentences ...
The article also links to a memo from Gascon regarding sentencing enhancements.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...
That isn't in the article. Have you ever seen evidence supporting your claim, or are you repeating what others have said (perilous, esp. on the Internet!). Here's what the article says:
He mandated an end to seeking cash bail, the death penalty, the sentence of life without parole and the prosecution of anyone younger than 18 as an adult. And in a rare, if not unprecedented, move by an American prosecutor, Gascón declared his intent to effectively end very long sentences ...
The article also links to a memo from Gascon regarding sentencing enhancements.
The DA of that county is currently pretty busy trying to undo all the damage that yet another gang of openly racist cops in Torrance has done to thousands of his cases. I find it understandable that property theft has fallen down this list.
I think you can say they are vilified as a group without saying they are powerless victims. I think they have a crappy job that is high risk high impact and regardless of if they are good or bad they get lumped in with the bad every time. I think they are people and I think sometimes we all backseat drive judging them. I think it’s fair to criticize them I don’t think it’s fair to call their viewpoint blanket propaganda.
Among the crimes Bragg said his office would not prosecute: marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution.
With that said, as you did change the subject, I do think there should be more accountability and reform and I’m not a fan of immunity. Not because they are all bad and we need to “put them in check,” but because most are good and we should have a system in place we all feel safe having, both “us” and “them.” Why can’t you be pro reform and pro police?
Among the crimes Bragg said his office would not prosecute: marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution.
With that said, as you did change the subject, I do think there should be more accountability and reform and I’m not a fan of immunity. Not because they are all bad and we need to “put them in check,” but because most are good and we should have a system in place we all feel safe having, both “us” and “them.” Why can’t you be pro reform and pro police?
> Why can’t you be pro reform and pro police?
Did someone say you couldn't? I can understand some people, having experienced generations of life-altering brutality and oppression, might distrust police; I'm not going to tell them what they should think.
Also, what exactly does "pro police" mean? Supporting their long-standing practices? Supporting people who abuse civilians, others who cover it up, and yet more who protect the system that enables them? That might be hard to reconcile with reform - you have to recognize the problems to reform them. Not hating all individual police? Sure. Personally, I think any hate is a flaw of humanity.
Did someone say you couldn't? I can understand some people, having experienced generations of life-altering brutality and oppression, might distrust police; I'm not going to tell them what they should think.
Also, what exactly does "pro police" mean? Supporting their long-standing practices? Supporting people who abuse civilians, others who cover it up, and yet more who protect the system that enables them? That might be hard to reconcile with reform - you have to recognize the problems to reform them. Not hating all individual police? Sure. Personally, I think any hate is a flaw of humanity.
Presumably arresting someone for robbing a morning train would at least allow you to hold them and prevent them from robbing an afternoon train.
But then you won’t be able to respond to that guy shooting up the mall.
These are Union Pacific police. They don't respond to mall shootings.
Police officers often lie about what can or will be charged for political reasons (or laziness reasons, or some other reason unrelated to what the DA supposedly will or won't do). That is why the parent said it might be propaganda.
If the parent wants to assert that they should provide proof as such. They didn’t do that and instead sited an example that is exactly something I would consider well reasoned for the police force. I also expect some level of grey area of truthiness because like I said earlier all groups are like that. I doubt parent jumps into every statement made by a group to remind us that sometimes people lie to serve their own interests.
I do not think cops are more or less corrupt than the average, but I do believe a corrupt cop has more impact than average. And because of that I do think they need higher standards and more accountability. I do not think they as a group need to be the “them” in the “us vs them” mentality.
I do not think cops are more or less corrupt than the average, but I do believe a corrupt cop has more impact than average. And because of that I do think they need higher standards and more accountability. I do not think they as a group need to be the “them” in the “us vs them” mentality.
Police will often overcharge, with the intent that the DA can use the more severe charges to secure a plea deal for lesser charges. It makes for less paperwork and fewer cases to process through jury trials.
I was downvoted in other threads for suggesting (perhaps in a ham handed fashion) that we shouldn’t rush to trust these one-sided articles about the rail theft in LA and shoplifting in SF. People are surprisingly quick to suggest we throw more tax dollars at these “problems” without questioning that perhaps an alternate explanation for the increased theft is due to years and years exploiting every efficiency possible in the supply and retail chains.
A store containing tens of millions of dollars of merchandise and “guarded” by a fewer and fewer underpaid employees eventually becomes a sitting duck.
It’s the same explanation for why our supply chains were so brittle in the face of the pandemic: years and years of streamlining.
Could there be societal or enforcement issues? Sure! But let’s be at least slightly skeptical when images of a few hundred yards of junk-strewn railway are plastered across every headline and trending list out there. The reality is often much more complicated.
A store containing tens of millions of dollars of merchandise and “guarded” by a fewer and fewer underpaid employees eventually becomes a sitting duck.
It’s the same explanation for why our supply chains were so brittle in the face of the pandemic: years and years of streamlining.
Could there be societal or enforcement issues? Sure! But let’s be at least slightly skeptical when images of a few hundred yards of junk-strewn railway are plastered across every headline and trending list out there. The reality is often much more complicated.
Imagine getting paid to not even try, then have the audacity to blame someone else. I would presume that even a police presence would deter many of the thieves, but that wouldn't help push the "we need more funding, we're the only thing preventing outright chaos" narrative when they're already derelict of their duties of protecting capital's interests. Police unions should be reformed. Maybe they're useful for helping with compensation (which is probably ludicrously high given their skillsets-- most cops would likely be truck drivers if not law enforcement, showing how well unions can work for labor) and benefits, but they're too big of a liability in keeping around too many degenerates.
Maybe unions should stick to the private sector, or at least jobs where there aren't so many highly visible bad actors with obvious political motives.
Maybe unions should stick to the private sector, or at least jobs where there aren't so many highly visible bad actors with obvious political motives.
> "we need more funding, we're the only thing preventing outright chaos"
We are in the midst of a transportation crisis. Any available vehicle should be rolling. Otherwise, inventories run low, prices creep up, and people have to do with less.
We are in the midst of a transportation crisis. Any available vehicle should be rolling. Otherwise, inventories run low, prices creep up, and people have to do with less.
I was personally the victim of a minor crime which wasn’t investigated properly or prosecuted at all. (License plate, photo of perpetrator, traffic camera, witness, all in hand)
Locally politicians run on not prosecuting certain things and there are many news stories about repeat offenders not being prosecuted or getting comically gentle sentences. For example a young man with a history stole a car and then crashed it into a police car before they apprehended him and he got two weeks house arrest. A teenager getting caught smoking a cigarette wouldn’t be surprised to get a worse punishment from their parents.
Locally politicians run on not prosecuting certain things and there are many news stories about repeat offenders not being prosecuted or getting comically gentle sentences. For example a young man with a history stole a car and then crashed it into a police car before they apprehended him and he got two weeks house arrest. A teenager getting caught smoking a cigarette wouldn’t be surprised to get a worse punishment from their parents.
People don't have to be thrown in jail for there to be a deterrent. That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras that don't record anything. Simply placing guards in the area will reduce theft.
This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Union Pacific has responsibility to do at least the bare minimum to secure their own property and news of these layoffs seams to indicate they abdicated that responsibility in the hopes they could put political pressure on the government to do that work for them for free.
This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Union Pacific has responsibility to do at least the bare minimum to secure their own property and news of these layoffs seams to indicate they abdicated that responsibility in the hopes they could put political pressure on the government to do that work for them for free.
> That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras that don't record anything.
Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows?
Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences.
> This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen.
Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.
Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows?
Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences.
> This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen.
Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.
>Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows?
>Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences.
As I said elsewhere, jail isn't the only deterrent. Being arrested is also deterrent. Plus not getting the stolen goods is a deterrent. If a guard comes and chases these people off before they can grab the property, there is no reason to try to steal anything.
>Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.
These aren't old west style train robberies where people on horseback are chasing down moving trains and holding people up at gunpoint. These are trains sitting on the track for sometimes hours unattended, someone walks onto the tracks, pops the lock, and has the time to sift through all the property looking for something valuable. The trash in the area should be an obvious indicator that there is no time pressure to these crimes. It isn't a smash a grab. People are taking their time looking for the best stuff to steal and discarding what they don't want.
>Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences.
As I said elsewhere, jail isn't the only deterrent. Being arrested is also deterrent. Plus not getting the stolen goods is a deterrent. If a guard comes and chases these people off before they can grab the property, there is no reason to try to steal anything.
>Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.
These aren't old west style train robberies where people on horseback are chasing down moving trains and holding people up at gunpoint. These are trains sitting on the track for sometimes hours unattended, someone walks onto the tracks, pops the lock, and has the time to sift through all the property looking for something valuable. The trash in the area should be an obvious indicator that there is no time pressure to these crimes. It isn't a smash a grab. People are taking their time looking for the best stuff to steal and discarding what they don't want.
>This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen
To some degree, that's reasonable, but it also illustrates how low a bar Americans set for their society. Everyone is so numb to the existence of petty theft that we immediately blame the victim for leaving something in their car, or locking their bike up outside instead of bringing it inside.
But I live in a major city where I routinely leave my laptop sitting on a table at coffee shops unattended while I run to the restroom, or lean my bike against the wall outside a restaurant while I go in and have lunch. School kids walk or ride the metro home by themselves after dark. People turn in lost and found wallets and cell phones. If you lose something on the metro, there's actually a good chance you'll get it back.
Why do we act like ubiquitous violence and theft is just part and parcel to living in a modern city?
To some degree, that's reasonable, but it also illustrates how low a bar Americans set for their society. Everyone is so numb to the existence of petty theft that we immediately blame the victim for leaving something in their car, or locking their bike up outside instead of bringing it inside.
But I live in a major city where I routinely leave my laptop sitting on a table at coffee shops unattended while I run to the restroom, or lean my bike against the wall outside a restaurant while I go in and have lunch. School kids walk or ride the metro home by themselves after dark. People turn in lost and found wallets and cell phones. If you lose something on the metro, there's actually a good chance you'll get it back.
Why do we act like ubiquitous violence and theft is just part and parcel to living in a modern city?
Context matters. People might not be aware but the few miles around Union Station are probably the densest population of homeless people in the country. People who have nothing to lose are going to be more likely to commit crime. The societal breakdown in that area is not caused by the increase in crime. The increase in crime is caused by a societal breakdown that has forced over 10,000 people onto the streets surrounding these train tracks.
I realize this rail yard is an atypical scenario. I was responding to the analogy about leaving a laptop in your car. I know it’s unthinkable to do that in almost any populated area of the US, but the expectation of rampant theft isn’t a necessary part of life. I live somewhere that proves it.
> This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen.
Many of us do want to leave in a society were you can indeed leave your laptop unattended on the back seat of your car. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
Many of us do want to leave in a society were you can indeed leave your laptop unattended on the back seat of your car. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute.
We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not.
Theft is a violation of property rights.
If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not.
Theft is a violation of property rights.
If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
>What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute.
Prosecution is not the only punishment. Getting arrested or getting in a confrontation with security are still negative outcomes that still occur and people will want to avoid. If you allow people to just walk into the area and walk out with the stolen property more people are going to do it. Making the act of stealing more difficult (or even just appear more difficult) will reduce theft regardless of the punishment.
>We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not.
>Theft is a violation of property rights.
What did I say that makes you think I would disagree with this.
>If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
My point is that Union Pacific has a responsibility to lock their house. If I leave my door unlocked and my house gets burgled, I have some responsibility in contributing to that outcome.
Prosecution is not the only punishment. Getting arrested or getting in a confrontation with security are still negative outcomes that still occur and people will want to avoid. If you allow people to just walk into the area and walk out with the stolen property more people are going to do it. Making the act of stealing more difficult (or even just appear more difficult) will reduce theft regardless of the punishment.
>We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not.
>Theft is a violation of property rights.
What did I say that makes you think I would disagree with this.
>If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
My point is that Union Pacific has a responsibility to lock their house. If I leave my door unlocked and my house gets burgled, I have some responsibility in contributing to that outcome.
filed(1)
> The Union Pacific Police department has jurisdiction over the 32,000 miles of track Union Pacific owns. Many of these “special agents” used to patrol this now infamous stretch of track. According to the source, the number of patrolling officers has been cut from 50 to 60 agents to eight[...]
Same state where the governor had the wisdom to make shoplifting below $1000 a misdemeanor and the prosecutor can't be bothered to do their job.
But yeah, blame the rail company, I guess?
But yeah, blame the rail company, I guess?
a) that wasn't the governor
b) California's felony theft threshold of $950 is still the 12th lowest among the states
$950 being a misdemeanor isn't unreasonable on its own. It becomes unreasonable when you combine it with misdemeanors not being prosecuted, so it's not fair to compare the threshold in places that do prosecute them with places that don't.
Sure, but the problem there isn't the law, it's the cops and prosecutors.
I'm saying that if you know you have a bad prosecutor, you should hold off on passing that law.
Lowering the penalty for shoplifting to a misdemeanor would make it more appealing than the potential 20 year federal sentence that would come from federal prosecution) that robbing a train carries...not encourage robbing trains.
But yeah, blame the state, I guess?
But yeah, blame the state, I guess?
It's not like blame is binary ...
Whatever you believe the causes of society’s problems are “just let people steal stuff” is not going to bring about a solution.
Can you give evidence of anyone saying that? The only people who say it are reactionaries spreading disinformation.
Well, my first clue is that there's all these people stealing stuff. Then the authorities decline to prosecute, in other words, they let them steal stuff.
I admit I am making an assumption that they are doing this with the belief that it will solve some of society's problems. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not actively trying to make things worse.
I admit I am making an assumption that they are doing this with the belief that it will solve some of society's problems. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not actively trying to make things worse.
You are making quite a few assumptions. So what will you do when you booked a thief but the jail is at staff capacity?
Sounds like you’re making an assumption that the jail is at capacity. Nobody said anything about the jail being full.
What’s your plan if the jail is at capacity ? Stop enforcing the law? Anarchy?
What’s your plan if the jail is at capacity ? Stop enforcing the law? Anarchy?
So that is your belief, your words, not theirs. What are they actually saying?
It’s a pretty typical cycle where security or law enforcement is concerned. Everything is great, crime is down, someone comes up with the idea that since there’s less crime we need fewer officers, then crime goes up because there’s fewer officers.
[deleted]
The real theft is the cost to build more rail today.
The article was good in the first half, but then steadily goes downhill in the second half.
>The letter also attempted further to politicize L.A.’s no-cash bail policy / Special Directive 20-07
Is this supposed to be bad? It seems to be bad faith to accuse someone of "politicizing" something when it's plausibly related to the topic being discussed.
>(“Studies show that prosecution of the offenses driving the bulk of misdemeanor cases have minimal, or even negative, long-term impacts on public safety.”)
...with no sources provided.
>Even though, according to LAPD data, property crime is down.
That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down.
>“These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than 24 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 Union Pacific by these same criminals.” Community activists think otherwise, supporting the DA’s no-cash bail policy
this... doesn't say much. I'm sure for any topic you can find "community activists" for your preferred side.
>stressing that further criminalizing people of lower socioeconomic status for non-violent crimes isn’t a real solution.
The criminals criminalized themselves when they committed the crime, not when the law decided to prosecute them.
>A connection worth questioning can be found with the controversy surrounding Emanuel Padilla.
No, I actually don't see the connection here. Are they accusing UP of falsely accusing/prosecuting people? Are they just saying the previous DA sucks and the current DA is good? Are they just bringing it up because the case has something to do with trains?
>The letter also attempted further to politicize L.A.’s no-cash bail policy / Special Directive 20-07
Is this supposed to be bad? It seems to be bad faith to accuse someone of "politicizing" something when it's plausibly related to the topic being discussed.
>(“Studies show that prosecution of the offenses driving the bulk of misdemeanor cases have minimal, or even negative, long-term impacts on public safety.”)
...with no sources provided.
>Even though, according to LAPD data, property crime is down.
That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down.
>“These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than 24 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 Union Pacific by these same criminals.” Community activists think otherwise, supporting the DA’s no-cash bail policy
this... doesn't say much. I'm sure for any topic you can find "community activists" for your preferred side.
>stressing that further criminalizing people of lower socioeconomic status for non-violent crimes isn’t a real solution.
The criminals criminalized themselves when they committed the crime, not when the law decided to prosecute them.
>A connection worth questioning can be found with the controversy surrounding Emanuel Padilla.
No, I actually don't see the connection here. Are they accusing UP of falsely accusing/prosecuting people? Are they just saying the previous DA sucks and the current DA is good? Are they just bringing it up because the case has something to do with trains?
>>(“Studies show that prosecution of the offenses driving the bulk of misdemeanor cases have minimal, or even negative, long-term impacts on public safety.”)
>...with no sources provided.
In the original directive, "the offenses" in this quoted sentence refers to a basket of crimes including "unlicensed driving, sex work, drug possession, drinking in public, and trespassing" -- it does not mention theft explicitly:
https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE...
Considering that it is questionable whether sex work, drug possession, and drinking in public should even be criminalized at all, this seems like a fallacy of composition.
>>Even though, according to LAPD data, property crime is down.
>That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down.
Special Directive 20-07 went into effect on December 8, about six weeks ago. I'd be surprised if there are even reliable data available, especially since the on/off lockdowns act as a large confounder.
>...with no sources provided.
In the original directive, "the offenses" in this quoted sentence refers to a basket of crimes including "unlicensed driving, sex work, drug possession, drinking in public, and trespassing" -- it does not mention theft explicitly:
https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE...
Considering that it is questionable whether sex work, drug possession, and drinking in public should even be criminalized at all, this seems like a fallacy of composition.
>>Even though, according to LAPD data, property crime is down.
>That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down.
Special Directive 20-07 went into effect on December 8, about six weeks ago. I'd be surprised if there are even reliable data available, especially since the on/off lockdowns act as a large confounder.
>
That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down.
The main reason people report property crime is because insurance requires a police report. If you were a victim of property crime, your odds of ever seeing your stuff back a decade ago, and today aren't meaningfully different.
The main reason people report property crime is because insurance requires a police report. If you were a victim of property crime, your odds of ever seeing your stuff back a decade ago, and today aren't meaningfully different.
I'm not a home insurance expert but I suspect most peoples' deductibles for theft is around or above $950. Therefore from an insurance point of view it doesn't really make sense to make a claim, at least for the amounts that we're talking about.
It's unlikely that if your house is broken into that you have less than $950 worth of loss, because usually you'll have broken doors and windows, along with a large amount of missing stuff.
Also, you realize that in general police rarely investigated burglaries, and even in the case of serial burglaries, few are solved. Arrests are rare. It has absolutely nothing to do with lack of prosecution.
I've been a victim of burglary in the past, and when the cops came, they walked around, and took some pictures. They questioned us, because we were young and our place didn't have a lot of valuables, and they suspected us to be drug dealers. I asked them when we could expect any followup, and they literally laughed, then said "we're probably not going to bother investigating because the investigations rarely find the perpetrators. we're here so that you can file an insurance claim."
We had more quite a bit more than $1000 of stolen goods and damage, and we were poor at the time.
Also, you realize that in general police rarely investigated burglaries, and even in the case of serial burglaries, few are solved. Arrests are rare. It has absolutely nothing to do with lack of prosecution.
I've been a victim of burglary in the past, and when the cops came, they walked around, and took some pictures. They questioned us, because we were young and our place didn't have a lot of valuables, and they suspected us to be drug dealers. I asked them when we could expect any followup, and they literally laughed, then said "we're probably not going to bother investigating because the investigations rarely find the perpetrators. we're here so that you can file an insurance claim."
We had more quite a bit more than $1000 of stolen goods and damage, and we were poor at the time.
Goes to show it's not just S.F. and Bay Area law enforcement that's not prosecuting certain crimes, despite popular portrayal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gasc%C3%B3n - the DA of LA was the DA of SF for 8 years before his current role. Seems like he wanted to give his new town a little taste of Frisco.
I"d quite like my own police force as well. Do i just hire some people and give them uniforms, or is there some red tape involvex?
I met a guy that was in the "security business" he said he shot someone and had to move 10 states over because the guy he shot has family that finds him occasionally and does drive by shootings every now and then. Be careful about getting into that business.
So for the pictures that have been all over the news this week... did the train derail before people started stealing stuff from it? Could Union Pacific have just maintained their infrastructure better and avoided this whole thing?
Didn't the derailment happen after the thefts?
How does this posting abide by HN rules that says off-topic as "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
I hope this situation is a new phenomenon, granted I don't really know whether this exact thing was prevalent before the whole defund the police/decriminalize crime movement
The pearl-clutching panics from earlier this week got over 1000 comments and were on the front page for hours. It would not have seemed like the right venue, but apparently it is.
This company has done layoffs, which make their patrols less effective. Due to less patrols they have higher thefts. The crimes are federal, but the company is classifying them in a way that puts them under local jurisdiction.
This is a PR story, meant to distract you from the fact that the company has opened themselves up to these thefts, and is using cop propaganda to do so.
This is a PR story, meant to distract you from the fact that the company has opened themselves up to these thefts, and is using cop propaganda to do so.
The railroads have a long and notorious history of power-abusing police forces.
Lots of folks here blaming lack of jail time / LA DA's actions.
If we look at the history of the railroad, they are more than capable of protecting their interests - and it hasn't historically been via fear of jail time. They deserve zero sympathy thanks to past abuses and can stop this in an instant if they wanted.
Lots of folks here blaming lack of jail time / LA DA's actions.
If we look at the history of the railroad, they are more than capable of protecting their interests - and it hasn't historically been via fear of jail time. They deserve zero sympathy thanks to past abuses and can stop this in an instant if they wanted.
Eventually I inquired why the gas station had changed, and the man at the register explained that there were several armed robberies during the time period that I'd been living there. I was surprised; this gas station was in a fairly decent part of town near NASA, and there was a tennis club right next to the apartment complex. I used to walk barefoot from my apartment to the courts. I'd never heard sirens or ever noticed that anyone had been robbed.
It must have taken 6-10 young men fewer than a combined 60 minutes across several robberies to completely alter the dynamic of the gas station. Their hour's worth of work caused hundreds of hours in transfers, equipment moving, inspections, storage, and installation. The experience of shopping at that gas station became unpleasant, and I avoided the station when I could. Soon after, I moved to a richer, nicer, quieter neighborhood down the road (for unrelated reasons--the apartment complex had a pest problem.) But I often think about that shop; there are now children growing up in that apartment complex who think that "gas stations" include bulletproof glass and wary stares, instead of warm lighting and friendly greetings. That's their vision of society; even if those children are not criminals themselves, they expect to be treated like them. They're like children who don't remember plane travel before 9/11, except instead of the hold-up at the TSA, it's a hold-up in a gas station.
This is what I think about when I hear about large-scale property crime like these train thefts. Sure, it's just property. But it is the docile, rule-following, peaceful majority (to which I and the rest of HN belong) that creates and finances all the property that ends up stolen and destroyed; allow this stability of commerce to be interrupted by wanton theft or violence and they will flee, retreat into themselves, hire private security forces, and produce less. Poverty may encourage crime, but crime always creates poverty.