There are basically three types of inmates - (1) those who have been convicted for the first time and find the experience so awful they will try VERY hard not to come back to prison after release; (2) those who have decided they will never do honest work, they will be career criminals, and prison time is just a cost of doing business; and (3) those who could go either way. All the rehabilitation programs in the world won't make a difference to Type 2 individuals; the programs are aimed at Types 1 and 3. I don't have any figures, but would be comfortable guesstimating the state and Federal prison systems spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year providing various types of programs aimed at helping Types 1 and 2 make the attitude changes necessary to be successful living in society after release and not returning to prison.
Too many people don't understand that any prison system rehabilitating an inmate is like pushing a chain - impossible. An inmate has to have the desire to rehabilitate him/herself; all a prison can do is to make available programs that will do some good.
If this Williams character had already been locked up three times for violent crimes, sounds like he is a Type 2, so death or lifelong incarceration is the only thing that will keep him from committing more violent crimes.
So no one has to ask, I retired from one prison system and currently work for another; I've worked inside, and dealt with and seen the files of a good many inmates, so have a working knowledge of what I'm talking about.
As long as there's more money in running drugs than there is working at a burger joint, the problem will continue...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACDThe supposed idea of incarceration is to 'educate' those incarcerated so that when released they can return to society and be a productive member of that society. This is the theory, it is not reality.
That is not the idea or purpose of "incarceration" at all, but it is certainly the idea behind a "penitentiary" system. The former is just to lock people away from 'the rest of society'; it's only circumstantial that they get released at some point. It's the latter that tries to get criminals to repent, straighten up and fly right, etc. And even that doesn't go far enough...
What is necessary, in my opinion, is a much better system of education, mentoring, etc. -- and yes, separation of the young, or anyone else capable of 'reform', from career criminals or would-be Fagins -- that would cut down on recidivism after release when the helpful discipline, oversight, motivation, etc. is no longer being systematically imposed. I see alarmingly low evidence that this is actually occurring, either in sensible policy in prisons or in social prioritization of 'answers' to the growing incarceration problems.
The realities of today's legal system is that we are developing more accomplished criminals by the millions every year.
Probably. And it should stop. But the only way to do that is to put specific policies and procedures into effect that stops all the sources of the problem, and many of those need to be made effective and credible to the 'affected segments of the population' (which is much harder than making them merely sensible or effective to well-educated intellectual policy-makers!) at a much earlier age than 'first incarceration'.
Personally, I see most public high schools as having many of the deleterious characteristics of conventional prisons, and being viewed by many of the 'inmates' as something that has to be endured until they can get out and do what they want again. 'What they want' often being violent and misogynistic as exemplified in much of their "cohort's" popular culture. I would prefer 'bending the twigs' in ways that keep the boughs from bending in entirely the wrong direction. But where is the money, and where is the political will, to make the necessary changes?
RME BaltACD Are you attempting to suggest that Williams got either his love for gun crime or his use of violence from his incarceration? Or perhaps that he used connections he made in prison to get the guns he used each time? Finding excuses for how criminals behave is part of the reason they are able to commit repeat offenses like this. Sure, there are plenty of people who find criminality more 'enticing' when improperly given time; sure, there are a great many people in the criminal justice system who could be mentored or given opportunities that get them ... and perhaps keep them ... out of it thereafter. Am I appalled at the African-American incarceration rate, particularly 18-34? Yes, tremendously. But what you have here is not evidence of a good boy turned bad in stir. This is someone who likes violence and is undeterred by legal or penal consequences. And now a security guard is dead because someone again thought Williams had just 'made a mistake' and gave him another chance. Chance to hurt or kill someone, that is, not participate meaningfully in society.
BaltACD
Are you attempting to suggest that Williams got either his love for gun crime or his use of violence from his incarceration? Or perhaps that he used connections he made in prison to get the guns he used each time?
Finding excuses for how criminals behave is part of the reason they are able to commit repeat offenses like this. Sure, there are plenty of people who find criminality more 'enticing' when improperly given time; sure, there are a great many people in the criminal justice system who could be mentored or given opportunities that get them ... and perhaps keep them ... out of it thereafter. Am I appalled at the African-American incarceration rate, particularly 18-34? Yes, tremendously. But what you have here is not evidence of a good boy turned bad in stir. This is someone who likes violence and is undeterred by legal or penal consequences. And now a security guard is dead because someone again thought Williams had just 'made a mistake' and gave him another chance. Chance to hurt or kill someone, that is, not participate meaningfully in society.
Not suggesting that in this instance that a 'good boy' went bad. I will suggest that a 'bad boy' was made worse by the system and his repeated incarcerations and subsequent release.
Locking every criminal up and throwing away the key is not the answer. Locking them up and forgetting about them until they are released is also not the answer, despite it being the current practice in most cases. Most criminals ARE NOT given life sentances for their crimes.
The supposed idea of incarceration is to 'educate' those incarcerated so that when released they can return to society and be a productive member of that society. This is the theory, it is not reality.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAre we manufacturing career criminals out of individuals that made a mistake and in our 'tough on crime' mentality locking them away with the hard core so they can really learn the criminal craft.
greyhoundsApparently, at age 24, the accused was on parole from a 3rd conviction on a gun charge. They just keep letting these people back out. The Chicago chief of police keeps complaining about that. He officers catch the bad guys, then the courts just let them go. Then the offenders commit another violent crime and the police have to catch the same guy all over again. This time the offender killed a CN security guard and tried to kill another worker in the railroad yard. There was a shoot out in the yard. "Prosecutors said Williams has three prior convictions for gun crimes, including a 2014 conviction for which he received three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. He was on parole for the 2014 conviction when the carjacking and shooting happened." http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-railroad-guard-slaying-court-hearing-20161207-story.html
This time the offender killed a CN security guard and tried to kill another worker in the railroad yard. There was a shoot out in the yard.
"Prosecutors said Williams has three prior convictions for gun crimes, including a 2014 conviction for which he received three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. He was on parole for the 2014 conviction when the carjacking and shooting happened."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-railroad-guard-slaying-court-hearing-20161207-story.html
And the US has more people incarcerated than any other country in the world. The question then becomes, do we have the right people behind bars. Are we manufacturing career criminals out of individuals that made a mistake and in our 'tough on crime' mentality locking them away with the hard core so they can really learn the criminal craft.
Apparently, at age 24, the accused was on parole from a 3rd conviction on a gun charge. They just keep letting these people back out. The Chicago chief of police keeps complaining about that. He officers catch the bad guys, then the courts just let them go. Then the offenders commit another violent crime and the police have to catch the same guy all over again.
blue streak 1Got him!!!!!!!!!!!!======== On parole for weapons charge
I think the police did an excelent job with this one. Now we'll see how the Cook County Illinois court system performs.
Got him!!!!!!!!!!!!======== On parole for weapons charge
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-1-arrested-in-suburban-slaying-of-security-guard-20161205-story.html
Suspect just arrested.
dakotafred PNWRMNM Despite my affinity for the railroad, I would be leaning toward a big award to the plaintiff if I were on the jury. You'd sue the railroad, because a criminal trespassing on its property shot a contract worker? You'd make a good lawyer, all right.
PNWRMNM Despite my affinity for the railroad, I would be leaning toward a big award to the plaintiff if I were on the jury.
Despite my affinity for the railroad, I would be leaning toward a big award to the plaintiff if I were on the jury.
You'd sue the railroad, because a criminal trespassing on its property shot a contract worker? You'd make a good lawyer, all right.
I did not say I would sue the railroad. You are misreading or making things up.
Mac
PNWRMNM BaltACD, Let my try to state more clearly why I believe the oficer/guard should have had the capability to monitor the local PD channel. In many states in the West I know, and believe is true in many states in the East, Railroad Police officers have full arrest powers as to crimes committed on railroad property. I worked for a short line in Washington State with one company cop, and he had a dog. The locals called him with some frequency since they did not have a dog. One could argue that chasing Yakima's bad guys was a waste of railroad resources, but it certainly bought the company a lot of good will among the working cops all along the line. This situation is a bit different in that the security guard was NOT a railroad police officer. He certainly did not have a dog to trade for good will. Since he was a security guard I do not know if he was armed or not. If not, he served little purpose except to absorb bullets. I think we would agree that his job was to protect the CN's property, equipment and employees within the limits of the IM terminal. Assuming he was armed, if he had the ability to monitor the local PD, he could have heard about the bad guy trying to esacpe in a motor vehicle. That is relevant to CN and the guard in two ways. First, the bad guy may be a threat to CN assets. Second the bad guy may be a threat to the guard. To my mind either of these threats are sufficient that management should have enabled and required him to monitor the local police channel. If he had that capability would it have made a difference? I do not know. He could have missed the relevant transmissions for any of a dozen reasons. He could have heard them but failed to recognize their import in the moment. He could have heard them and taken evasive action if unarmed, or been on alert, perhaps with gun drawn if he was armed. Even armed and on alert he could have lost the fight, but he would have had a much better chance than he did in fact. Despite my affinity for the railroad, I would be leaning toward a big award to the plaintiff if I were on the jury. Mac McCulloch
BaltACD,
Let my try to state more clearly why I believe the oficer/guard should have had the capability to monitor the local PD channel.
In many states in the West I know, and believe is true in many states in the East, Railroad Police officers have full arrest powers as to crimes committed on railroad property. I worked for a short line in Washington State with one company cop, and he had a dog. The locals called him with some frequency since they did not have a dog. One could argue that chasing Yakima's bad guys was a waste of railroad resources, but it certainly bought the company a lot of good will among the working cops all along the line.
This situation is a bit different in that the security guard was NOT a railroad police officer. He certainly did not have a dog to trade for good will. Since he was a security guard I do not know if he was armed or not. If not, he served little purpose except to absorb bullets.
I think we would agree that his job was to protect the CN's property, equipment and employees within the limits of the IM terminal. Assuming he was armed, if he had the ability to monitor the local PD, he could have heard about the bad guy trying to esacpe in a motor vehicle. That is relevant to CN and the guard in two ways. First, the bad guy may be a threat to CN assets. Second the bad guy may be a threat to the guard. To my mind either of these threats are sufficient that management should have enabled and required him to monitor the local police channel.
If he had that capability would it have made a difference? I do not know. He could have missed the relevant transmissions for any of a dozen reasons. He could have heard them but failed to recognize their import in the moment. He could have heard them and taken evasive action if unarmed, or been on alert, perhaps with gun drawn if he was armed. Even armed and on alert he could have lost the fight, but he would have had a much better chance than he did in fact.
Mac McCulloch
Well stated!! Juror #12 votes for the plaintiff.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Speaking of radio,
Excerpt from Amateur Radio Newsline, Dec. 2
Tyrone Hardin KD9ERC, who worked as a railroad security guard, was fatally shot after his vehicle was stolen by a man being pursued by police for an earlier car theft…
Tyrone got his license after testing with the 220 MHz Guys Amateur Radio Club in Chicago.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1049039758541710&id=136879969757698
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD Noise is noise. When something IS NOT your job function, it is NOISE. To be Trumpian, "If you are not doing MY job - YOU'RE FIRED!' Rail employees, when on company property, are prohibited from using electronic devices that were not issued for the performance of the employee's duties. Like I said just above, there are certain people I would definitely try to keep off the witness stand. Capitalized and colorized certitude would be a red-flag to any jury. "Um, Mr. BaltACD, are you telling the jury that the decedant was prohibited by the railroad, by the terms of his employment as a security guard for the railroad, from having a radio device that could have saved his life? Are you telling us that the railroad made a determination that it was not part of the job description -- of a security guard -- to have a radio that would have informed him if a dangerous person was being chased onto railroad property? Your Honor, the Plaintiff rests their case."
BaltACD Noise is noise. When something IS NOT your job function, it is NOISE. To be Trumpian, "If you are not doing MY job - YOU'RE FIRED!' Rail employees, when on company property, are prohibited from using electronic devices that were not issued for the performance of the employee's duties.
Noise is noise. When something IS NOT your job function, it is NOISE. To be Trumpian, "If you are not doing MY job - YOU'RE FIRED!'
Rail employees, when on company property, are prohibited from using electronic devices that were not issued for the performance of the employee's duties.
Like I said just above, there are certain people I would definitely try to keep off the witness stand. Capitalized and colorized certitude would be a red-flag to any jury.
"Um, Mr. BaltACD, are you telling the jury that the decedant was prohibited by the railroad, by the terms of his employment as a security guard for the railroad, from having a radio device that could have saved his life? Are you telling us that the railroad made a determination that it was not part of the job description -- of a security guard -- to have a radio that would have informed him if a dangerous person was being chased onto railroad property?
Your Honor, the Plaintiff rests their case."
I'll be Trumpian. You and your jury are fired and the plaintiff will pay court costs!
Paul MilenkovicYour Honor, the Plaintiff rests their case."
Palintiff isn't very convincing. Does the security guard at the mall monitor police channels? Really - this isn't much different. This situation is tragic, but to think a privately-hired security guard that is in charge of monitoring company assets should be listening to various police frequencies for the off chance something may affect them is simply absurd. Sorry, but juror #7 sides with the defendant.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
PNWRMNM Despite my affinity for the railroad, I would be leaning toward a big award to the plaintiff if I were on the jury. Mac McCulloch
Let me put it this way. I would never show partiality to one side indicating that I have made up my mind as a juror before hearing all of the testimony and seeing the exhibits.
But were I an attorney working for the railroad, there are certain people who have expressed certain strong opinions about what that unfortunate man's job was or wasn't, who I would definitely want to keep off the witness stand if I could.
Rail employees, when on company property, are prohibited from using electronic devices that were not issued for the performance of the employee's duties. A scanner combing various radio channels that are not a part of the company's business would violate these rules. Such rules apply to anyone on company property, employees or contractors according to FRA interpertations.
I doubt the police only have a single channel, I know the railroads have multiple channels in each territory to be used for specific types of company business. I suspect the police also have multiple channels for specific police purposes. Radio Channels are party lines - if everyone talks at the same time no one is heard.
PNWRMNM schlimm Troop383 I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Your words were clear. "Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers." If the rail security guard had had access to the police chatter, he would have had a better chance of survival. But I guess in your mind, he doesn't rate that. On that we agree! Mac
schlimm Troop383 I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Your words were clear. "Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers." If the rail security guard had had access to the police chatter, he would have had a better chance of survival. But I guess in your mind, he doesn't rate that.
Troop383 I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Your words were clear. "Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers." If the rail security guard had had access to the police chatter, he would have had a better chance of survival. But I guess in your mind, he doesn't rate that.
On that we agree!
Mirabile dictu!!
The RR security guard should have had access. He might or might not have listened to the local police chatter of what was going down, his problem. But at least he would have had a better chance. What's wrong with that?
As to the comment above on police not viewing private security folks favorably, the Harvey police chief said, "police in the departments investigating the shooting death are considering Hardin a fellow law enforcement officer. Officers have slept at the Harvey Police Department as they have spent the last several days investigating the death of one of their own."
schlimm Troop383 Your words were clear. "Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers." If the rail security guard had had access to the police chatter, he would have had a better chance of survival. But I guess in your mind, he doesn't rate that.
Troop383
With 'police chatter' you are living in a dream world of what people that aren't employed by said police agency are supposed to be doing for the organizations that actually employ them. The poor fellow was 'working' for his living and not a foamer sitting on a couch listening to a multi-channel scanner to get his kicks.
Troop383I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
They've got a suspect and an arrest warrent has been issued. Now they have to find the guy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-harvey-security-guard-killed-met-1202-20161202-story.html
Paul MilenkovicAnd that the man was not the correct kind of "cop" held in high enough regard by LEOs is a reason for a man to die?
Apples and oranges. Could just as easily have been a conductor, engineer, or laborer. The shooter didn't care - this was someone who might interfere with his getaway.
Knowing the bad guy was coming his way might only have served to let him hide.
Again, through no fault of his own, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Troop383 I am sure they are out there somewhere- but in my 23 years of law enforcement I have never come across a police agency that has given a private security company access to their police radio channels. Talking with the railroad police officers, they even have a hard time getting access to radio channels from some local agencies. Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers.
I am sure they are out there somewhere- but in my 23 years of law enforcement I have never come across a police agency that has given a private security company access to their police radio channels. Talking with the railroad police officers, they even have a hard time getting access to radio channels from some local agencies.
Generally, private security guards aren't held in very high regard by law enforcement officers.
And that the man was not the correct kind of "cop" held in high enough regard by LEOs is a reason for a man to die?
BaltACD RME BaltACD I'll grant this much: railroad security should have at least the ability to monitor and, if necessary, contact police directly (after all, at least some of them do have police power. "Calling 911" is not an option in an emergent situation involving violence. Extending this to crew safety: What's the difference in distracting effect between scanning police frequencies -- even with special permission -- and listening to WNEW news or weather on FM? Heck, we even thought for a while that transmissions on other railroad frequencies were enough of a distraction to high-side Amtrak 188. Your company pays you to do their work. If your work with your company is to monitor other organizations radio channels, then you doing the work of your job description. If your job description does not include the requirement of monitoring other organizations radio channels then you are not doing your job if you do so. Secondly, organizations such as Fire and Police each have multiple channels for specific purposes that are germaine to their business needs and converstaion security. Just because something is broadcast by someone doesn't require everyone in the broadcast area to hear it. There are different channels for a reason - for a legitimate conversation to be effective the parties in the conversation MUST know what the parties involved are saying to each other. When you have multiple parties talking over each other all you have is unintellegible noise.
RME BaltACD I'll grant this much: railroad security should have at least the ability to monitor and, if necessary, contact police directly (after all, at least some of them do have police power. "Calling 911" is not an option in an emergent situation involving violence. Extending this to crew safety: What's the difference in distracting effect between scanning police frequencies -- even with special permission -- and listening to WNEW news or weather on FM? Heck, we even thought for a while that transmissions on other railroad frequencies were enough of a distraction to high-side Amtrak 188.
I'll grant this much: railroad security should have at least the ability to monitor and, if necessary, contact police directly (after all, at least some of them do have police power. "Calling 911" is not an option in an emergent situation involving violence.
Extending this to crew safety: What's the difference in distracting effect between scanning police frequencies -- even with special permission -- and listening to WNEW news or weather on FM? Heck, we even thought for a while that transmissions on other railroad frequencies were enough of a distraction to high-side Amtrak 188.
Your company pays you to do their work. If your work with your company is to monitor other organizations radio channels, then you doing the work of your job description. If your job description does not include the requirement of monitoring other organizations radio channels then you are not doing your job if you do so.
Secondly, organizations such as Fire and Police each have multiple channels for specific purposes that are germaine to their business needs and converstaion security.
Just because something is broadcast by someone doesn't require everyone in the broadcast area to hear it. There are different channels for a reason - for a legitimate conversation to be effective the parties in the conversation MUST know what the parties involved are saying to each other. When you have multiple parties talking over each other all you have is unintellegible noise.
Was ending up dead part of that man's job description? Is the management of that railroad that rigid with the bolded does nots, the are nots, and the capitalized MUSTs in their employee handbook? May make for interesting legal discovery by the surviving family. A courtroom judge may have his own set of does nots, are nots, and musts, too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.