Almost Like Something Out Of A Western!

[rdamon]

Thinking more serious like ..

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks

 

[CMStPnP]

rdamon

Thinking more serious like .. https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks  

OK, you realize by the very nature of their acts of using shunts there is very clear intent displayed to cause harm to groups of people or the larger community.

    Breaking into a container on a flatcar?    Can you prove that same intent in a court to do harm to others with an experienced Judge?      So in my view.......apples and oranges between the two.     If your arguing treatment should be the same between the two crimes.

[7j43k]

n012944

 

 

7j43k

 

 

n012944

 

It sounds like that line has been crossed already.

 

 

 

 

 

It "sounds" like it?

What do the sounds tell you about what happened to cross that line.

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

I am far from an expert on interstate commerce laws.  However it "sounds" like what is happening already is violating that federal law.  So yes, to this non expert, what I am being told about it, ie the "sounds," like the situation is already a federal case.

Clear enough for you?

 

 

Yes, I think so.  I was hoping you could say a bit more about that, than just that you have some sort of intuitive feeling that federal law was violated.  It has been put forward that IF a federal law was violated, the FBI should investigate.  I don't think an intuitive feeling is going to get much action.

I agree with your "sounds", to the extent that prosecutors are very good at finding SOME LAW SOMEWHERE that someone broke.  It sometimes seems truly amazing.  That said, finding out which ones they might be would be the next step.

 

Ed

[Psychot]

SALfan1

 

 

BaltACD

The 'Law & Order' mind set has the idea that arresting and convicting 'criminals' solves the problem.  It does not.  It just make the problem worse as now 'the state' has to house, supervise and feed those that have been convicted.  People are being convicted at rates in excess of the states ability to house supervise and feed those the state sends to prison.  Prison in reality is a 'school of higher learning' for the criminal 'profession' all paid for by the state.

I don't have the answers, but what is currently happening is not the correct answer. 

 

 

 

What other remedy do you propose?  Too many people don't know, or aren't willing to admit, that a certain percentage of the general population have made a conscious or unconscious decision that they are going to be criminals, they are always going to be criminals, and they aren't interested in rehabilitation.  I don't know what that percentage is, but I suspect it's between 10% and 20%; anyone with actual knowledge feel free to correct me.  There is nothing society can do to protect itself against these individuals but (1) lock them up, or (2) kill them.  If you lock them up, at least you keep them from preying on decent people while they are inside.  What are you going to do, tie them to a chair somewhere?  Because that is the only way you are going to keep them from committing crimes against the general population.  

I have seen enough of these people's arrest records to put my hand on a Bible and swear that locking up a relatively small number can make a significant dent in the overall crime rate.  When a 40-year-old has a 5-page or longer arrest record, it's a safe bet he (statistically more likely to be male) is a full-time criminal, and works diligently at it.

There is another group of individuals who are occasional or sometimes criminals, or they haven't committed to being career criminals.  Some of these individuals can be reached, and through counseling, training and vocational/educational opportunities these people MAY (emphasis on MAY) become productive members of society.  But their rehabilitation is 100% dependent on them - they have to want it and work for it, it can't be forced on them.  I'm a hard-liner on punishment for crime, but I'm 100% in favor of providing such counseling, training and vocational/educational opportunities, which can also benefit the third group of criminals.

These are the individuals who have been convicted of one crime, and find the experience so traumatic that they are going to do everything in their power to go straight.  These people can benefit from the programs mentioned above, and I'm in favor of providing them, but this group isn't a huge threat to society. 

 

 

We've already tried it your way, and the evidence is in: mass incarceration simply doesn't work. Part of the issue is that someone with a criminal record finds it virtually impossible to get a job in the U.S., hence inviting recidivism. I'm sure there is a segment of the population that would prefer to be criminals, but 10-20%? I don't think so.

[7j43k]

Mass incarceration simply DOES work.  Everyone who is incarcerated cannot commit a crime on the rest of the population.

Of course, one has to commit a crime to BE incarcerated.  So mass incarceration only stops repeated crimes for the duration of the incarceration.

But it is very difficult to steal my catalytic converter when you are in a jail cell for having done it before and been caught. 

 

 

 

Ed

[rdamon]

CMStPnP

 

 

rdamon

Thinking more serious like .. https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks  

 

 

OK, you realize by the very nature of their acts of using shunts there is very clear intent displayed to cause harm to groups of people or the larger community.

    Breaking into a container on a flatcar?    Can you prove that same intent in a court to do harm to others with an experienced Judge?      So in my view.......apples and oranges between the two.     If your arguing treatment should be the same between the two crimes.

 

 

This was in regards to the comment that they would result in blocking the tracks to stop the train.

 

[Convicted One]

Euclid

Your arguement is that it is not up to the taxpayers to furnish a deterent.   I am not sure what you mean by "deterent."  It is not up to the taxpayers to furnish a private security force.  But it is up to the taxpayers to fund the public servents who are tasked with enforcing the laws that prohibit some of what a private security force might directly prevent.  I think Gascon is being disingenous by saying that if he were to prosecute the crimes attributed to the people arrested by the U.P., that would amount to him providing security for the U.P

I'm concerned that this thread is going to devolve into a caldron of vitriol between hard liners and those of a different perspective....and bring about moderation...which I really don't want to be a part of. So this likely will be my last post in this thread.

What I'm saying about a tax payer furnished deterent is....I believe the containers are inadequately secure...for the convenience of the carriers, as well as to keep tare weight to a minimum. I believe that stouter containers and better locks are a necessary part of any effective solution.

I believe it is the posture of the shippers, railroads, et al that this is a cost they would rather dodge, and that they could do so "if the taxpayers would just take on the cost of long term incarceration" of any crook with a crow bar who dare threaten their business model.

So, I'm saying that I think the shipping end is overly dependent upon what they believe the deterent value of incarceration should be for them.

"Why should I spend money on more secure  containers, a cost I could avoid if the courts would just put away every crook that comes to prey upon my cracker boxes?"

So that is the "taxpayer furnished security" that I'm talking about.

The way the system is now, I think it's just too inviting, and you'd end up having to lock-up too many people before incarceration rate provided the deterent necessary.  Too many prisoners on the taxpayers dime, in other words. (and I suspect this latter aspect to be a factor in the reluctance of the LA prosecutor to perform at the level the hardliners expect)

I personally believe a hybrid solution might have promise.

Let's make the containers more secure, such that they require a more dedicated effort to break into,  and then more severely punish those who continue to break in despite the added level of protection. Make is so that not just any idiot with a crow bar can break into the things,  and then figure that anyone who can break in despite the countermeasures, deserves more serious punishment.

Of course an added benefit of more secure containers is that it ideally would take longer to break into them,  narrowing the window of opportunity.

If the thugs can't break in before the train start's rolling...I believe that will cut out a lot of the theft.

Hope this adequately explains what you were asking about.

[n012944]

rdamon

Thinking more serious like ..

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks

 

 

 

I was thinking more low tech.  Old washing machines or refrigerators seem to be the tools of choice.

[Euclid]

JUST-IN-TIME ROLLING ARREST & DETAIN

 

I can see one solution to the problem that U.P. could enact.  Currently, if they arrest people, they take them to the authorities for prosecution, but if the authorities refuse to prosecute, the arrest was of no use.  That is the current situation.

 

However, such an arrest does take the perpetrator out of service for maybe 4-24 hours while they are in police custody and being processed downtown.  So why not just use that arrest phase alone to stop the theft problem without the need for prosecution?

 

What I mean is just have U.P. police at the site 24-7.  If trespassers enter the property, the police order them to leave.  If they don’t leave, the police arrest them.  If they resist arrest, the police use force to make the arrest and subdue them. 

 

If the volume is running high, accumulate a number of arrested offenders and have them wait in a van.  When 4-6 of them are accumulated, take them to the LA prosecutor and leave them there.  If the prosecutor turns them loose, and if they return to the crime site, just repeat the process. 

 

In this way, the police could just use their power of arrest to continuously mop up the problem by removing the thieves as fast as they show up. 

 

There would be no need to prosecute and incarcerate the thieves to keep them from committing crime at the site.  While the police cannot use deadly force to stop the thievery, they can use whatever force is needed to stop the thieves by arresting them. 

 

This remedy would require manpower and time, but if U.P. thinks the cost is too high, they can just write off the cost of the theft as the price of doing business. 

[Backshop]

I just read that UP has 175 officers across their entire system.  I wonder how many are in the LA area?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Backshop

I just read that UP has 175 officers across their entire system.  I wonder how many are in the LA area?

 

That's a number that isn't out of line with other roads.  Railroad police forces are spread quite thin everywhere.

[Euclid]

Here is the most recent news I can find.  It focuses on the solution to the problem that U.P. has developed.  The article says U.P. is increasing its number of special agents working the LA site, but will not reveal the total number due to concerns about organized crime possibly having the U.P. under surveillance. 

 

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2022/02/09/union-pacific-la-county-da-provide-updates-on-cargo-theft-prevention/

 

The article also says that the State has created the Rail Cargo Theft Task Force, which will result in the creation of “vertical prosecution.”  The article adds that the task force is headquartered within the finance and corruption bureau, and will thus be able to easily leverage help of other specialized operations, including cyber and organized crime divisions.  

[Overmod]

Good find, Ron!

Yes, reading between the lines, the machinery is being put in place to solve this 'correctly' from nearly everyone's where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit priority.

Vertical integration of specific 'railroad theft' offenses would indeed be the most effective answer: this now allows anyone photo-identified on railroad property actually committing the usual range of property offenses to be picked up by special agents, given extraordinary rendition to detention and rapid trial, and given appropriate sentencing on an appropriately accelerated basis.  No community backlash, no law-of-unintended-consequences problem with pandemic-action zero cash bail issues, no shifting the blame where the latest finger points... and it addresses the "supply chain issues for the public" that were the real issue all along, in perhaps the most effective and well-directed fashion that exercise of the 'police power' can.

What will be interesting to see is how the subsequent 'prevention of recidivism' is handled.  Much of this is going to hinge on the 'positive ID' of those subjected to the new vertical enforcement mechanism -- there needs to be high-resolution shots or video of people caught in flagrante, backed up by clear testimony of human drone pilots who can testify in court that they observed the events captured in the pictures.  

How you handle the issue of spray-painting the perps is another issue.  This was a kind of poetic justice when the concern was taggers/writers [note that I'm only invoking That Which Dare Not Be Discussed, not actually using the g-word or its euphemisms] but there are a number of concerns with its use in the present context, including potential capture and malicious abuse of the chemical 'taggants' that would be involved...

I think we now have the structure of the probable response and can stop abusing and prejudging each other over use/abuse of codewords.  [It is a shame that the other "theft" thread has had to be locked, because it would have been the more logical place to discuss the impending 'vertical' response to the problem.  It would be an even greater shame to block this thread -- which actually started with a somewhat pejorative premise -- or indeed to cut off discussion of the whole topic, because 'we can't just get along'.]