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'.]
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.
Backshop I just read that UP has 175 officers across their entire system. I wonder how many are in the LA area?
I just read that UP has 175 officers across their entire system. I wonder how many are in the LA area?
rdamon Thinking more serious like .. https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks
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.
An "expensive model collector"
EuclidYour 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
n012944 It sounds like that line has been crossed already.
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.
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.
rdamonThinking more serious like .. https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pair-charged-interfering-safety-railroad-tracks
Convicted OneI'm confident that if UP believes that it's rights are not being protected, and the cause is actionable, they will pursue every remedy available to them.
Disagree. UP is not "Alice in Wonderland" here. Within the areas it operates in, UP should know which require higher security. It is not the responsibility of the local Police to cover for Corporations or Individuals that are negligent in regards to situational awareness and security. We do not live in a world that is crime free and every local PD is NOT staffed to the level to bring about a crime free environment. The local PD has to pick and choose what level of protection they can offer within their budget and manpower..........that is the reality of our world.
Convicted One The prosecutor's assertion that other carriers in the area are not experiencing similar loss, appears to be worth exploring. I'm confident that if UP believes that it's rights are not being protected, and the cause is actionable, they will pursue every remedy available to them.
The prosecutor's assertion that other carriers in the area are not experiencing similar loss, appears to be worth exploring.
I'm confident that if UP believes that it's rights are not being protected, and the cause is actionable, they will pursue every remedy available to them.
I agree with the need to explore the assertion about other carriers in the area not experiencing the same loss as U.P. The DA is offering that as proof that U.P. is causing the problem by tempting theft with insufficient container lock security. But that assertion needs to be checked as to whether other railroads in the area have the same set of condtions that U.P. does. I'll bet they don't. The premise of "other railroads in the area" amounts to very little correlation to support the conclusion that U.P. is at fault.
rdamon n012944 rdamon Running trains at 35MPH through the area would help as well That is when large objects start getting placed on the rails to stop trains. Doesn't that cross a Federal law enforcement line?
n012944 rdamon Running trains at 35MPH through the area would help as well That is when large objects start getting placed on the rails to stop trains.
rdamon Running trains at 35MPH through the area would help as well
Running trains at 35MPH through the area would help as well
That is when large objects start getting placed on the rails to stop trains.
Doesn't that cross a Federal law enforcement line?
Convicted OneTo argue "Oh it's up to the taxpayers to furnish a deterent" is naive and self indulgent.
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.
n012944 unless you are just looking to be difficult.
Can't we discuss the issues without your continued attempts trying to personalize your disapproval of my position?
Convicted One There is a reason why banks use vaults and armored cars with armed staff. To argue "Oh it's up to the taxpayers to furnish a deterent" is naive and self indulgent.
There is a reason why banks use vaults and armored cars with armed staff. To argue "Oh it's up to the taxpayers to furnish a deterent" is naive and self indulgent.
Apples to oranges. Target and Walmart do not lock their products into a vault when the stores are closed. It is expected that the police will help protect the stores. Why you think the vehicles used to get the products to the stores should be any different is beyond me, unless you are just looking to be difficult.
7j43kDo we then end up saying stealing is bad, but we won't do anything to you if you do?
it's kind of outside the scope of this forum, and I don't want to raise the ire of the trains staff with a social discourse. Point specific to your question I'll say that I believe that penalties for repeat offenders are far too lenient, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. So, I see bigger locks on armored containers as a more promising solution than the "more frequent slaps on the wrist" that our system would be willing to dole out.
And I'll just leave it at that.
edit to add: insanity is making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different outcomes. I think it better to focus energy on solutions with actual promise, than to keep putting the same dog in the race.
Woah! I thought I had seen something refering to this but I didn't pay much attention and I thought it wasn't true.......!
[Edited by admin to remove profanity]
n012944You are as incorrect as ever.
Well you see? THAT is just the whole thing. My entire life I've been lectured by everyone around me how every misfortune I've experienced, is a result of my inability to decode the obvious, anticipate the inevitable, and act proactively to prevent.
SO, I figure there is enough of that thinking to go around. Like I said, I didn't expect my opinion to be popular.
But shipping containers are a joke, security wise. There is a reason why banks use vaults and armored cars with armed staff. To argue "Oh it's up to the taxpayers to furnish a deterent" is naive and self indulgent.
Convicted One BUT, If I was regularly storing millions of dollars in an aluminum or fibreglass yard storage shed (as I keep my lawnmower in)....if the local hoodlums discovered same and started liberating my riches...I'd be at least partly to blame unless I took proactive measures to better secure my belongings.
BUT, If I was regularly storing millions of dollars in an aluminum or fibreglass yard storage shed (as I keep my lawnmower in)....if the local hoodlums discovered same and started liberating my riches...I'd be at least partly to blame unless I took proactive measures to better secure my belongings.
So, using your logic, if someone broke a window in my house, came in and stole my TV, I would be partly at fault if someone did the same thing again after I only replaced the window?
You are as incorrect as ever.
Pretty well said, except for the part about "don't expect the tax payers to fund your security program."
I believe the UP police are NOT funded by the tax-payers.
But true, the DA and the prisons ARE.
If the expense of the latter part is what bothers you, note that it also applies to shoplifting and other thefts. If store security catches someone stealing, is it too much to ask that they be prosecuted? If YOU catch a thief stealing from you backyard storage unit, is it too much to ask that the DA prosecute the thief?
Do we then end up saying stealing is bad, but we won't do anything to you if you do?
Convicted One Flintlock76 Here's the thing. The primary function of government, any government from the federal level on down is the protection of the lives and property of their citizens I thought about this quite a bit last night while waiting to doze off, and the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the DA. (I don't expect this POV to be a popular one here on these boards) BUT, If I was regularly storing millions of dollars in an aluminum or fibreglass yard storage shed (as I keep my lawnmower in)....if the local hoodlums discovered same and started liberating my riches...I'd be at least partly to blame unless I took proactive measures to better secure my belongings. Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me. THAT is where I'm coming from, so please don't accuse me of blaming the victim exclusively. The import model we've made ourselves accustomed to has vulnerabilities that have been discovered. Perhaps magified as ever larger trains have to wait staged for just the right slot for departure (blame PSR, LoL?) So, until the railroads, importers, and shipping companies do something to make their modules more secure than a cigar box, I'd say don't expect the tax payers to fund your security program. Part of the reason it was so easy to steal jobs from the American worker (outsourcing) is because you had taxpayers paying to dredge harbors, raise bridges and expand tunnels to maximize the profitability of the import racket. And now you want the taxpayer to additionally foot the bill to protect these crackerboxes? How long are we expected to keep shooting ourselves in the foot? I say let the people profiteering from the current set up,... pay to armor these shipping containers into something worthy of their contents, and then pass that expense along to the consumers, and let them then decide if the true cost of doing business that way really is superior to "made locally". YMMV, but that's where I've ended up.
Flintlock76 Here's the thing. The primary function of government, any government from the federal level on down is the protection of the lives and property of their citizens
I thought about this quite a bit last night while waiting to doze off, and the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the DA. (I don't expect this POV to be a popular one here on these boards)
Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me. THAT is where I'm coming from, so please don't accuse me of blaming the victim exclusively.
The import model we've made ourselves accustomed to has vulnerabilities that have been discovered. Perhaps magified as ever larger trains have to wait staged for just the right slot for departure (blame PSR, LoL?)
So, until the railroads, importers, and shipping companies do something to make their modules more secure than a cigar box, I'd say don't expect the tax payers to fund your security program.
Part of the reason it was so easy to steal jobs from the American worker (outsourcing) is because you had taxpayers paying to dredge harbors, raise bridges and expand tunnels to maximize the profitability of the import racket. And now you want the taxpayer to additionally foot the bill to protect these crackerboxes? How long are we expected to keep shooting ourselves in the foot?
I say let the people profiteering from the current set up,... pay to armor these shipping containers into something worthy of their contents, and then pass that expense along to the consumers, and let them then decide if the true cost of doing business that way really is superior to "made locally".
YMMV, but that's where I've ended up.
Flintlock76Here's the thing. The primary function of government, any government from the federal level on down is the protection of the lives and property of their citizens
The containers were likely secured. However, when the perps show up with the tools to defeat that security...
It's too bad that your gazillion inch TV was stolen. Although your house had burglar bars on all windows and all doors were double locked, your house should have been built with no windows, and all doors should have been quadruple locked... It's not our fault that the burglars showed up with acetylene torches and cut off your burglar bars.
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...
According to him, it's all UPs fault. It's your fault if you left your garage door open and stuff was taken. Why were you in that part of town? You should have locked your car. Why were you wearing that wristwatch? It's all your fault and there's nothing we can do.
Here is the letter from Gascon to the UP:
https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/Letter-to-Union-Pacific-012122.pdf
I look forward to thoughts and comments after reading same.
7j43k Shadow the Cats owner And of course Newsome backtracked faster than I thought was humanly possible on his tough on crime talk. He is now saying UP is at fault for all the Thefts. I spent some time searching for this subject and couldn't find it. Could you please provide a link? Ed
Shadow the Cats owner And of course Newsome backtracked faster than I thought was humanly possible on his tough on crime talk. He is now saying UP is at fault for all the Thefts.
And of course Newsome backtracked faster than I thought was humanly possible on his tough on crime talk. He is now saying UP is at fault for all the Thefts.
I spent some time searching for this subject and couldn't find it.
Could you please provide a link?
Still looking forward to reading more about this.
A link(s) please?
Can UP ask Governor to install a special proscutor? Or maybe the US attorney appoint one?
tree68 Euclid ...Gason responded that it was not his job to provide security for the U.P. It may not be his job to provide security for UP, but he ought to be following through when they do provide their own security.
Euclid ...Gason responded that it was not his job to provide security for the U.P.
It may not be his job to provide security for UP, but he ought to be following through when they do provide their own security.
I agree. Providing security to the U.P. is not his job. However, I would not conclude that enforcing the law amounts to providing secuity. Enforcing the law is his job and that is all U.P. is asking him to do. Gascon is playing word games. Clearly he is not going to give U.P. the prosecutions that they seek.
I have a feeling that this situation will evolve somehow, possibly because of all the publicity it is suddenly receiving. There may be a big backlash to it that has some unforseen effect. It may also take on added dimensions of crime.
7j43k Euclid 'According to LAPD Deputy Chief Al Labrada, UP does little to secure or lock trains and has significantly decreased law enforcement staffing,' he wrote. 'It is very telling that other major railroad operations in the area are not facing the same level of theft at their facilities as UP.' I wonder how it is that Al is familiar with the staffing levels over time of UP law enforcement. Since Al says UP does little to secure or lock trains, I wonder how he knows what they DO do, and what he thinks enough would be; such that he wouldn't say that. Ed
Euclid 'According to LAPD Deputy Chief Al Labrada, UP does little to secure or lock trains and has significantly decreased law enforcement staffing,' he wrote. 'It is very telling that other major railroad operations in the area are not facing the same level of theft at their facilities as UP.'
I wonder how it is that Al is familiar with the staffing levels over time of UP law enforcement.
Since Al says UP does little to secure or lock trains, I wonder how he knows what they DO do, and what he thinks enough would be; such that he wouldn't say that.
I suspect Al belives each container on UP should have a Shotgun rider like we seen in the goat roping Westerns with stage coaches.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted OneIf ya fill all the prisons up, then ya gotta build more....
Well, then you build more.
Here's the thing. The primary function of government, any government from the federal level on down is the protection of the lives and property of their citizens. Anything else is icing on the cake.
If they fail at the primary function what follows next? Vigilantism. And no-one with any sense wants that.
I had not heard that Newsome said that, but District Attorney Gascon said U.P. is at fault for the thefts because they don't secure their containers. I posted this in the other thread:
54light15Have prisoners pick up the trash? This comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBn5aIfZElE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBn5aIfZElE
As in "COOL HAND LUKE", "What we have here is a failure to communicate"
Convicted One. .....If ya fill all the prisons up, then ya gotta build more....
.....If ya fill all the prisons up, then ya gotta build more....
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
rdamonAre they seeing the same issue in the trenched lines?
The worst of the problem appeaes to be in the "Lincoln Heights" area. Which is a bit north of the trench. Likely the most vulnerable area... where east bound trains wait for their "slot" to proceed east, but I'm just speculating about that last part
Can they divert the material and people that have been idled at the border wall?
Are they seeing the same issue in the trenched lines?
7j43kMy bit of research turned up some space in the prison system for a few more lucky winners.
I suspect the picture might be a little bigger than what is at face value.
What is the forecast? Is there a budget of beds needed to be held available for expected new admissions for violent crime? (turnover).
I'm just telling you that I know for a fact that California periodically has to purge non-violent criminals early, to make room for new admissions...I think it happens frequently enough that the beneficiaries even have a special lingo for it....an "early out", or something similar.
So, I'd speculate that being "in that business", the prosecutors are mindful of system dynamics that affect their workflow. I may be giving them too much credit, but I don't think so.
My bit of research turned up some space in the prison system for a few more lucky winners.
The 13th Amendment specifically DOES allow forced labor for prisoners.
7j43kI just looked it up, and it does appear there is room for some more guests.
I wonder if Gunderson is still offering the "shackles" option on those tri-levels?
Flintlock76 But with the above and your other posts it seems you're looking for reasons to do nothing.
FWIW, I didn't interpret his fatalism as a personal desire to do nothing. I thnik he is just making a wistful poke at the price tag of an effective solution.
It's one thing to say "get tough on crime", but who wants to pay the pricetag?
We could get into a convoluted discussion about budget priority, and the things that government authority prefers to spend it's available resources on vs what the public thinks their money deserves to be spent on...but that would not conform to the central theme of these message boards. So I'll just say that I believe there are conflicted priorities fueling some of the "mystery" we seem to be painting here.
If ya fill all the prisons up, then ya gotta build more....
BaltACDIf there is room - is there enough budget? You don't put people in prison for free.
Balt, I love 'ya man, and I always enjoy and learn from your posts. But with the above and your other posts it seems you're looking for reasons to do nothing.
Something has to be done about this. It's an old maxim that if you ignore, rationalize, explain away, sympathize with, or in a backhanded way reward irresponsible or illegal behavior all you do is buy yourself more of it. That's the way it's always been and always will be.
Just a thought. Can some of the shortages we're seeing on supermarket and other shelves in retail establishments be traced back to this? Who knows how many goods aren't getting to market because they're lying trashed on the right-of-way?
Have prisoners pick up the trash? This comes to mind:
diningcarPrisoners of this type could be put to work. Like picking up trash from streets and roadways. In fair weather locations they could be housed in tents (see Phoenix, AZ a few years ago) as an example.
So make slave of prisoners. Locations that don't have funds to house prisoners also don't have funds to supervise them outside of the prison enviornment.
Prisoners of this type could be put to work. Like picking up trash from streets and roadways. In fair weather locations they could be housed in tents (see Phoenix, AZ a few years ago) as an example.
7j43k BaltACD Presuming they get prosecuted and convicted for prison time - is there sufficient prison capacity to hold them? I just looked it up, and it does appear there is room for some more guests. Ed
BaltACD Presuming they get prosecuted and convicted for prison time - is there sufficient prison capacity to hold them?
Presuming they get prosecuted and convicted for prison time - is there sufficient prison capacity to hold them?
If there is room - is there enough budget? You don't put people in prison for free.
What if Union Pacific started using West Colton and trucking to LA. Would it help? Gary
7j43k Euclid The DA feels that it is better to not prosecute the container thefts because the value of the prosecution is not worth the damage it does to the perpetrator for a simple mistake they made earlier in life. Fair enough. I wonder, though, if ANOTHER simple mistake were to happen. And ANOTHER. And ANOTHER. Almost as if it's a profession. Also, of course, the perpetrator really should get some Life Guidance before being released to continue his/her life. Perhaps he/she wouldn't think on their own that it would be good and proper to cease doing crimes, and could benefit from outside help. One of the Life Guidances could be picking up all that trash, so the Governor doesn't have to do it all (say, did the DA join him?). I was at a local meeting when a couple of kids came in to do their Restorative Justice thing. Truth is, they seemed like nice enough kids, and I did wish them well in life. Ed
Euclid The DA feels that it is better to not prosecute the container thefts because the value of the prosecution is not worth the damage it does to the perpetrator for a simple mistake they made earlier in life.
EuclidThe DA feels that it is better to not prosecute the container thefts because the value of the prosecution is not worth the damage it does to the perpetrator for a simple mistake they made earlier in life.
That was your mother's ashes in that urn they found discarded in the debris...
Euclid why struggle to find explanations for the DA’s reluctance to prosecute the container theft
Oh, it wasn't a "struggle", I was glad that I could help.
Convicted One Sometimes the "official" explanation given for a particular set of circumstances, is intentionally dodgy. Especially when true motive might draw flies. Just speculating, but maybe the local prosecutor would prefer the solution Ed proposes, let the perps be prosecuted and incarcerated on the federal dime, rather than burdening already scarce state resources? Wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was a factor. Around here there is a big snit about state level prisoners being kept in county jails as a spurious "diversion" program claiming to shelter low level criminals from hard realities of our prison system. When the more tangible end effect is to shift the cost of incarceration to local coffers. I can imagine a scenario where the LA prosecutor is being mindful of who's footing the bill for those prisoners he "creates".
Sometimes the "official" explanation given for a particular set of circumstances, is intentionally dodgy. Especially when true motive might draw flies.
Just speculating, but maybe the local prosecutor would prefer the solution Ed proposes, let the perps be prosecuted and incarcerated on the federal dime, rather than burdening already scarce state resources? Wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was a factor.
Around here there is a big snit about state level prisoners being kept in county jails as a spurious "diversion" program claiming to shelter low level criminals from hard realities of our prison system. When the more tangible end effect is to shift the cost of incarceration to local coffers.
I can imagine a scenario where the LA prosecutor is being mindful of who's footing the bill for those prisoners he "creates".
EuclidWhen I ask what the DA could do to cooperate, I am asking what options he has to act in a cooperative way.
Okay, I see now that the subtle approach is not working, so I'll spell it out.
Perhaps the DA is as concerned about theft from containers as the railroads are about myriad issues they spawn in the communities they pass through?
BaltACD Maybe the venue should be changed to Brookside, Alabama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXE9i1Qk7q8
Maybe the venue should be changed to Brookside, Alabama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXE9i1Qk7q8
Maybe. But the crimes are not taking place there.
They are taking place in Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County, in California, in the United States.
One can only assume that stealing things must be illegal in at least one of those jurisdictions. And that a conspiracy to steal (RICO, RICO, RICO...) is illegal in the United States.
The DA, Gascon, is probably feeling a bit anxious, since the governor, Newsom, has felt the need to appear and, uh, fill plastic trash bags. That does NOT appear to be saying that Gascon has Newsom's support.
Euclid Ed, As I understand it, the railroad police have no trouble arresting the perpetrators, but when they bring them to the DA, he will not press charges. So the perpetrators are just released and are back at the containers the next day. I recall reading that the U.P. said they have arrested about 100 people looting containters, and the DA has not charged any of them because he says there is not enough evidence. I am not sure what could be done at the Federal level. The news has not discussed that. I doubt that there has ever been a situation like this before. The DA has reportedly given a clear and specific reason for not wanting to press charges.
Ed,
As I understand it, the railroad police have no trouble arresting the perpetrators, but when they bring them to the DA, he will not press charges. So the perpetrators are just released and are back at the containers the next day. I recall reading that the U.P. said they have arrested about 100 people looting containters, and the DA has not charged any of them because he says there is not enough evidence. I am not sure what could be done at the Federal level. The news has not discussed that. I doubt that there has ever been a situation like this before.
The DA has reportedly given a clear and specific reason for not wanting to press charges.
Only suggesting that the UP police get a bit more thoughtful about what and where to charge the miscreants. Perhaps they should hold them until they have puzzled that out. Somewhere.
Meanwhile, the FBI is not Investigating whether any federal laws have been broken.
EuclidEd, As I understand it, the railroad police have no trouble arresting the perpetrators, but when they bring them to the DA, he will not press charges. So the perpetrators are just released and are back at the containers the next day. I recall reading that the U.P. said they have arrested about 100 people looting containters, and the DA has not charged any of them because he says there is not enough evidence. I am not sure what could be done at the Federal level. The news has not discussed that. I doubt that there has ever been a situation like this before. The DA has reportedly given a clear and specific reason for not wanting to press charges.
From U. S. Code 49, V, E, 281, 28101:
"...rail police officer...may enforce the laws of any jurisdiction in which the rail carrier owns property, to the extent of the authority of a police officer...of that jurisdiction..."
If one is in LA, jurisdictions would appear to be: Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County (sheriff), California, and United States.
I see the possibility of arrests under federal law, and those do not go through the government of Los Angeles.
In particular, Theft From Interstate Shipment (18 U.S.C. section 659) comes to mind. And then there's the ever popular RICO.
Convicted One Euclid What should the District Attorney do to cooperate? I'm sure that you've read the numerous posts from our regulars here in pertaining to communities complaining to the railroads about blocked crossings. So, you know what they say about payback? Why would any community that has been force fed the drill about trains being beyond their jurisdiction, expend their resources to the benefit of non-cooperative extra-jurisdictional entities? Specific to the last sentence in your original reply, ...exactly!! if UP wants to hire on-site security to establish a pre-emptive deterrent,..no one is stopping them
Euclid What should the District Attorney do to cooperate?
I'm sure that you've read the numerous posts from our regulars here in pertaining to communities complaining to the railroads about blocked crossings.
So, you know what they say about payback?
Why would any community that has been force fed the drill about trains being beyond their jurisdiction, expend their resources to the benefit of non-cooperative extra-jurisdictional entities?
Specific to the last sentence in your original reply, ...exactly!! if UP wants to hire on-site security to establish a pre-emptive deterrent,..no one is stopping them
When I ask what the DA could do to cooperate, I am asking what options he has to act in a cooperative way. But, considering that he believes his practical de-criminalization of the train theft is what he considiers to be the correct policy for the benefits I described above; it is unlikely that can do anything to cooperate.
Regarding your point about security, in terms of law enforcement, what should U.P. do on their own to prevent the thefts? If they applied enough policing manpower, and have the power to arrest trespassers, what exactly would be a successful action?
My 1st line: What goes around comes around.
diningcarIt is sad to see this once beautiful State deteriorate.
People get the government they deserve brother, the "leaders" out in California weren't voted in by the man in the moon.
7j43k So, going along the lines of "it isn't me, it's you"
Honestly, I don't believe either of us is the fault. It's the baling wire and chewing gum holding this place together.
If a company that is located in the LA area gets a container, it will be delivered by truck, and never be on the UP.
If a company moves inland to somewhere like AZ, then their container MIGHT be on UP. It is not up to UP to decide that. And if they move farther inland, the odds the container will travel on the UP will increase. Again, the UP does not make that decision. That decision will be made by either the shipper or the receiver.
What goes around comes around; sometime double.
California and specific locations like LA are seeing small businesses, and individuals, fleeing to AZ, ID, NV. and TX. because of this and the taxes paid to clean up what is damaged or destroyed by these same miscreant participants.
It is sad to see this once beautiful State deteriorate.
Convicted OneIt is interesting to ponder LA's reluctance to productively cooperate,...
Convicted One,
I've tried replying to you on two of your posts, and get a 403 when I submit. So, going along the lines of "it isn't me, it's you" (I think I've heard that one before), I'll respond indirectly:
There isn't a leak problem with the method I described because there is only a hole in the bottom of the container--more of a drain than a hole, then. It COULD have a cover or gasket, but KISS really does apply here. Any successful solution has to fit that.
It is interesting to ponder LA's reluctance to productively cooperate, in context with the cold shoulder that railroads have shown communities in response to complaints about blocked crossings (and decaying infrastructure). If the railroads insist that what happens on their property is beyond local jurisdiction, then perhaps this outcome might have been forseeable?
Bruised egos and bent jurisdictions, just like we see sometimes on Blue Bloods.
York1Shouldn't the DA do his job prosecuting criminals? The victim is not the one to blame.
Yes there are two problems with that. First is as BaltACD stated and the second is you missed the part in the story where it stated this was probably driven by ORGANIZED CRIME. Which to Law Enforcement means the street criminals are expendable to the prosecution and easily replaced if the paid for lawyers of the CRIMINAL SYNDICATE does not keep them out of jail. No problem finding more to step in their shoes. The real criminals sponsoring these crimes are far removed from the scene and difficult for LE to reach.
Fence in the Alameda Corridor installed new in the 90's was trashed by 2005. (including the fancy Israeli super security zig-zag stuff).... Chain Link / Cyclone fence doesn't work (absolute joke and ought to be banned, even with razor wire) - It'll have to be heavy duty commercial steel fence which isn't cheap. (Close to $1million a mile done right)
All you have to do is go down in Orange County/ San Diego County to see how well fencing goes over. (See STB FD-36433 at Del Mar) Don't Fence Me In
And then you have to maintain it. (More importantly, WHO is gonna maintain it?) Statutes on railroad livestock fencing is one thing, people is something else. The Chicago-StLouis HSR corridor is already dealing with those issues.
Until there are "consequences" for LA's "finer citizens", this will continue. The guv is down there picking up trash* "for show" because the federal money will dry-up fast after this, the high speed rail mess in central CA (which got abused wasting tons of $$$ moving homeless around, a transportation infrastructure project turned into a social welfare project) and other CA politician mishandled/mismanaged projects. Federal spending will stop until CA (and LA in particular) gets its act together.
Congestion in the ports and the LA Basin (compounded by record traffic) is not going to be solved by one railroad (UP) all on it's own.
(Norfolk Southern and intermodal truckers have electrified fence in some of their installations around intermodal yards and that doesn't work either plus the extra room for barrier isolation safety zones is not there ... Wonder what Gomez Addams would do? 10 Digit item number for land mine?)
(*) Picking up trash on railroad property without 214 flag protection? Isn't that an FRA Code-1 violation?
OldEngineman The UP isn't moving anywhere. That's b.s. The LAPD isn't going to do much more than they're doing now, which is little-to-nothing. Nor is the LA criminal justice system. If this problem is to have a long-term solution, it's up to the UP and shipping companies to devis and implement it on their own. One solution: FENCE OFF the entire corridor for as many miles as it takes. Heh... isn't the US government in possession of prefabricated 30' high "border fencing" that isn't being used? Ship that to LA and install it in the most sensitive areas. But it's going to take more than that, as this organized looting is going to spread elsewhere. What's needed is a new, easily-applicable method that prevents container doors from being opened once loaded onto the well cars. Something that is passive, not "intrusive" (i.e., confined exclusively to the OUTSIDE of the container), will not interfere with stacking on ships or at terminals, and cannot be defeated with torches, let alone bolt-cutters. In essence, once the containers are stacked and loaded onto the cars, there should be no way to open the doors on either end until they're physically off-loaded from the cars, and the passive security is removed. Whoever can devise such a system is gonna make a lot of money.
The UP isn't moving anywhere. That's b.s.
The LAPD isn't going to do much more than they're doing now, which is little-to-nothing. Nor is the LA criminal justice system.
If this problem is to have a long-term solution, it's up to the UP and shipping companies to devis and implement it on their own.
One solution: FENCE OFF the entire corridor for as many miles as it takes.
Heh... isn't the US government in possession of prefabricated 30' high "border fencing" that isn't being used? Ship that to LA and install it in the most sensitive areas.
But it's going to take more than that, as this organized looting is going to spread elsewhere.
What's needed is a new, easily-applicable method that prevents container doors from being opened once loaded onto the well cars. Something that is passive, not "intrusive" (i.e., confined exclusively to the OUTSIDE of the container), will not interfere with stacking on ships or at terminals, and cannot be defeated with torches, let alone bolt-cutters.
In essence, once the containers are stacked and loaded onto the cars, there should be no way to open the doors on either end until they're physically off-loaded from the cars, and the passive security is removed.
Whoever can devise such a system is gonna make a lot of money.
You are describing the same anti-theft "method" that I wrote about earlier in this topic.
I'm glad you agree with me, and I appreciate your support.
The UP isn't moving anywhere. I agree. But their freight might. The shippers whose containers are getting emptied can bring them through any port they want. As I've mentioned, the boxes could be dropped at Oakland, instead of LA.
Then UP can haul empty stack trains. Shorter ones, anyway. Less profitable ones, anyway.
UP is making a big stink about this because they are hearing from their shippers. UP isn't losing money; it's losing a reputation. The shippers are losing money, and they don't like it. Same for the insurance companies that are involved.
Law enforcement - to be effective has to hold the 'fear factor' over the population it polices. That factor was eliminated with the enactment of Prohibition. While the laws were enacted, they were not embraced by a sizable portion of the population that wanted their booze - legal or not. Prohibition created the real profit motive in organized crime to supply the population what they wanted (and it didn't hurt that Organized Crime in many cases bought the police in their areas of business.) Move that on to all the other areas of human failues - gambling, prostitution, drugs and finally traffic enforcement and you have the police interacting with the population on a almost first name basis and there is no fear in the interaction.
Familarity breeds contempt is the saying and it rings true in many cases.
Throw in disproportionate enforcement with one class ending up with years in prison and another class walking out of the courtrooms without a care in the world when charged with the same cimes and the same levels of evidence.
I don't have the answers.
I know I'm missing the big picture or something, but I'll ask anyway. How big is this area we are talking about? Can't they fence it in better? The governor says he's going to pledge $255 million over 3 years. How much fence can you buy with that?
York1 CMStPnP The worst part of this is UP could fix the track fluidity issue, resolve the issue on it's own without outside help Shouldn't the DA do his job prosecuting criminals? The victim is not the one to blame.
CMStPnP The worst part of this is UP could fix the track fluidity issue, resolve the issue on it's own without outside help
Shouldn't the DA do his job prosecuting criminals?
The victim is not the one to blame.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/california-governor-visits-site-of-train-thefts-announces-funding-to-address-issue/
Still in training.
York1Shouldn't the DA do his job prosecuting criminals?
I'm not trying to sound combative, but...and then do what with them?
Prison berths cost money, and often are already in short supply. They frequently have purges in the state prison system where non-violent offenders with short time left get cut loose early to make more room for incoming "traffic". I saw it happen several times while I was living out there.....many repeat offenders I knew personally have been beneficiary numerous times.
So, with that being the reality, which I am sure prosecutors are acutely aware of the chronic shortage....I suspect there are factors driving what we see as overly lenient enforcement, that never make it to the table in context with the discussion we are allowed to have here.
Plus we've got a society that is determined to see the offenders as victims,.... on top of the above fiscal limitations.
I feel for the train crews who have to face this lawlessness day in and day out. Certainly not good for the blood pressure.
CMStPnPThe worst part of this is UP could fix the track fluidity issue, resolve the issue on it's own without outside help
York1 John
mudchicken The problem with container theft goes back to almost the beginning of the advent of serious container movement as an organized gang activity in the LA Basin. It already had taken hold with TOFC movements and autoracks before that. It got worse with the construction of the Alameda Corridor which funneled three railroads into one access route into the port (s). Gangbangers did get killed/injured falling off moving trains, espeially during starts or stops. Ken Fath, a former member on this forum (since passed away) was a special agent turned Damage Control officer for Team Chico, ... the big man had plenty of stories about intermodal theft and the LAPD "don't care" attitude enforced by city hall. The lack of assistance from LAPD (and other jusidisdictions nearby) is also something that is not new. That problem extends even more to illegal dumping. LAPD had a bad habit of herding the homeless onto railroad property and then telling the railroad to clean it all up. -Former LA Roadmaster Bucky's comment don't fly with those that have been there and those that are there now.
The problem with container theft goes back to almost the beginning of the advent of serious container movement as an organized gang activity in the LA Basin. It already had taken hold with TOFC movements and autoracks before that. It got worse with the construction of the Alameda Corridor which funneled three railroads into one access route into the port (s).
Gangbangers did get killed/injured falling off moving trains, espeially during starts or stops. Ken Fath, a former member on this forum (since passed away) was a special agent turned Damage Control officer for Team Chico, ... the big man had plenty of stories about intermodal theft and the LAPD "don't care" attitude enforced by city hall.
The lack of assistance from LAPD (and other jusidisdictions nearby) is also something that is not new. That problem extends even more to illegal dumping. LAPD had a bad habit of herding the homeless onto railroad property and then telling the railroad to clean it all up.
-Former LA Roadmaster
Bucky's comment don't fly with those that have been there and those that are there now.
I am not referring to theft in general. I am talking about what is happening with this particualr explosion of theft in LA that is all over the news lately. U.P. says this began in 2020, and they explain why it began, and how they want to end it by reversing what started it.
The worst part of this is UP could fix the track fluidity issue, resolve the issue on it's own without outside help but chooses not too. Instead it stands by the wayside while it's clients property is looted from it's custody. What a great message on client service to send to the marketplace......not.
EuclidThe easiest solution is to just turn it off.
I'm forced to think of the episode with the Nike container in Chicago, where the final disposition was that it was determined to be "entrapment" leaving a big chunk of cheese so tempting that the rats just couldn't resist.
So long as you have prevailing mindsets such as that out among the general population, I doubt that stricter enforcement is gonna happen.
Then you have all those activists looking for patterns in incarceration, trying to claim that the system is the problem due to bias, etc.
I don't see much promise in any crackdown lasting long enough to make significant impact.
This whole problem was turned on in 2020. The easiest solution is to just turn it off.
7j43kGetting back to container cargo theft:
I believe your suggestion for more secure containers are a necessary part of a solution.
The "bolt" affixed from inside the bottom container, which secures the doors of a top container, also on the inside, gives me concerns about potential leakage. How would you address that?
I'm sure something could be made to work
It's entirely possible that insurance companies won't touch a container that goes through the port. In the first world war, there was a German cruiser in the Indian ocean called the S.M.S. Emden that harassed shipping to the point that insurance companies wouldn't touch a ship that was in that area so a lot of shipments didn't move. Stopping commerce was what it was all about. I think that could happen here.
Getting back to container cargo theft:
I have presented an idea to eliminate container cargo theft from those stack trains.
Since much of the cargo is insured, I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies wake up (eventually) and offer two insurance rates for these containers: one for a secure container, similar to what I have described, and another rate for the as-is containers. Which do you think will be higher, so as to offset the insurance losses on those non-secure type containers?
Backshop I agree. UP isn't going anywhere. Not only do they have too much infrastructure in LA, but so do all their customers. Flying into LAX, all you see mile after mile in the Inland Empire, are distribution centers.
I agree. UP isn't going anywhere. Not only do they have too much infrastructure in LA, but so do all their customers. Flying into LAX, all you see mile after mile in the Inland Empire, are distribution centers.
Most of the boxes going to those distribution centers do not travel on UP. They go by truck from the dock.
Most of the containers on those stack trains are going east.
UP moving SOME of their traffic from LA to Oakland is cheap and simple. The boxes are unloaded in Oakland instead of LA.
This assumes there is unused capacity at Oakland. Whether there is right now I have no way to find out. What WOULD take time and money would be to increase capacity beyond what's available now.
I am sure ALL of it could not be transferred, though.
There are three major port locations on the US west coast: LA/Long Beach, Oakland, and Seattle/Tacoma.
The reason LA gets a lot of traffic is because a lot of it is LA bound (none of that, however, is on these stack trains). The reason Seattle/Tacoma gets perhaps more than its share is because it provides a shorter shipping route. Oakland has neither of these advantages.
One thing Oakland has is a very short transit between the docks and the container rail loading area--less than a mile, using streets mostly bare of non-port traffic. There are two routes out of town, one north along the Bay over to Sacramento and east, or south to use either the old WP line going east or the old SP line south towards LA.
I don't know much about the present Port management, but back when I was there, it was pretty quick acting and customer friendly.
Backshop Murphy Siding Euclid U.P. has said that if they cannot resolve this issue, they will pull their operations out of the affected area. What exactly would that entail? To be cynical, I don't think it would entail much of anything. I seriously doubt that UP would spend the gazillion dollars it would take to move their operations. They are simply using that threat to get the local authorities excited about helping to fix the current situation. I agree. UP isn't going anywhere. Not only do they have too much infrastructure in LA, but so do all their customers. Flying into LAX, all you see mile after mile in the Inland Empire, are distribution centers.
Murphy Siding Euclid U.P. has said that if they cannot resolve this issue, they will pull their operations out of the affected area. What exactly would that entail? To be cynical, I don't think it would entail much of anything. I seriously doubt that UP would spend the gazillion dollars it would take to move their operations. They are simply using that threat to get the local authorities excited about helping to fix the current situation.
Euclid U.P. has said that if they cannot resolve this issue, they will pull their operations out of the affected area. What exactly would that entail?
U.P. has said that if they cannot resolve this issue, they will pull their operations out of the affected area. What exactly would that entail?
To be cynical, I don't think it would entail much of anything. I seriously doubt that UP would spend the gazillion dollars it would take to move their operations. They are simply using that threat to get the local authorities excited about helping to fix the current situation.
I too doubt that U.P. will move, but it was they that said they are considering it. I was just wondering what such a move would acually consist of. I guess they are the only ones who can answer the question. It will be interesting to see how this drama unfolds as things move forward. With all the high value goods walking out of there, I wonder if that could attract secondary robbery.
azrailA lot of those dist centers are moving farther East, to the Palm Springs area or West Phoenix.
To better access a undocumented worker base?
It could be as simple as keeping the trains through there moving fast enough that they are hard to board. Stopping one there would be suicide, theft-wise.
Perhaps shorter trains that can be brought up to speed more quickly.
Or not...
Convicted OneI may be a tad biased, since I was beat unconscious and robbed there.
She wasn't beaten unconscious, but former US Senator Barbara Boxer was mugged in Oakland several weeks ago.
A lot of those dist centers are moving farther East, to the Palm Springs area or West Phoenix.
7j43kDoesn't mean it doesn't happen
i don't see any move to oakland as being an escape to a "safer" environment. Seems like just more of the same to me.
This goes a number of years back, but I thought that volumes through the port of Oakland were in decline in favor of Long Beach? Seemed like I remember there was excess capacity in Oakland and that being explained that Southern California was "stealing" that business?
I've also got a sure-enough failsafe way to stop the container looting, at a fairly low cost, certainly cheaper than paying police wages, prison guard wages......
You provide door locking on the inside, and it's "activated" from the bottom of the container. One version is a steel rod slid vertically from underneath, through hasps on the inside of the main door. The steel rod can only be installed and removed from underneath. Which is incredibly difficult to do with a container loaded on a well car. But NOT if you can arrange clearance underneath.
Convicted One 7j43k UP already transports containers in and out of Oakland. Lived in the East Bay for three years, commerical real estate was my vocation, warehousing. And I spent serious time canvassing the industrial bowels of Oakland seeking customers. That whole 12th street/San Leandro street/blvd corridor is no better a neighborhood than the one currently supporting the pillaging in LA. I may be a tad biased, since I was beat unconscious and robbed there.
7j43k UP already transports containers in and out of Oakland.
Lived in the East Bay for three years, commerical real estate was my vocation, warehousing. And I spent serious time canvassing the industrial bowels of Oakland seeking customers. That whole 12th street/San Leandro street/blvd corridor is no better a neighborhood than the one currently supporting the pillaging in LA.
I may be a tad biased, since I was beat unconscious and robbed there.
Quite possibly.
I've lived in Oakland over 50 years, and have not been. I also worked several years for the Port of Oakland, so I'm somewhat familar with container intermodal.
As far as I've heard, there's been no container looting here, so I was asking about it.
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it sure hasn't made my "news feeds".
7j43kUP already transports containers in and out of Oakland.
Convicted One York1 Sadly, a move to Oakland would just mean the problem moves, too. Definitely true, been there, bad neighborhood. Think that the locals are trying to gentrify the area by moving the ball park there and then surrounding that with commercial.
York1 Sadly, a move to Oakland would just mean the problem moves, too.
Definitely true, been there, bad neighborhood.
Think that the locals are trying to gentrify the area by moving the ball park there and then surrounding that with commercial.
UP already transports containers in and out of Oakland. Have either of you any information on container looting there?
EuclidWhat I am asking is, what would have to be done in order to find a different routing for these trains, as U.P. has suggested may be their solution to the problem? Do they have alternate lines that are far away from this current hot spot? Would they have to modify alternate route lines?
Start with a big tunnel boring machine and extend the Alameda "trench" into the inland empire.
7j43kI don't have the proper rail map of LA to answer that, but I did find a news item saying that UP was considering moving some/all of their intermodal operation out of LA County. That can be done by moving this up to Oakland.
Sadly, a move to Oakland would just mean the problem moves, too.
Euclid What I am asking is, what would have to be done in order to find a different routing for these trains, as U.P. has suggested may be their solution to the problem? Do they have alternate lines that are far away from this current hot spot? Would they have to modify alternate route lines?
What I am asking is, what would have to be done in order to find a different routing for these trains, as U.P. has suggested may be their solution to the problem? Do they have alternate lines that are far away from this current hot spot? Would they have to modify alternate route lines?
I don't have the proper rail map of LA to answer that, but I did find a news item saying that UP was considering moving some/all of their intermodal operation out of LA County.
That can be done by moving this up to Oakland.
Shadow the Cats owner The only thing that will stop these widespread theft rings is throwing them in prison and not allowing criminals to get away with crimes.
Very true for those cases where a container of a given item is targeted, but I suspect that what's going on in LA is more of a "smash and grab" thing, with many of the participants simply "hangers on," in it for the thrill or the possibility of acquiring something of value.
As one article pointed out, one item found discarded in the debris was an urn with someone's ashes.
Essentially, it's looting.
Flintlock76 Euclid U.P. has said that if they cannot resolve this issue, they will pull their operations out of the affected area. What exactly would that entail? Certainly more supply chain disruptions until the "kinks" are worked out.
Certainly more supply chain disruptions until the "kinks" are worked out.
The most practical solution would seem to be to have enough police on site to continually arrest trespassers and take them to the DA. They may have to repeat that every day, but at least it would prevent the looting.
UPS uses a combination of bolt seals their called that as they require bolt cutters to remove them and case hardened padlocks. Yet if you watch the video you'll see even their containers and trailers are getting broken into. Short of using titanium for the locks these thieves have the ability to get into anything they want in a hurry. What needs to be done is start hammering these gangs under the RICO statue. The only thing that will stop these widespread theft rings is throwing them in prison and not allowing criminals to get away with crimes.
A federal court may just be the answer.
At any rate, and I'm not trying to be political here, considering the last discussion I figured one picture was worth 1,000 words.
Couldn't the containers have a heavy-duty combination lock of some kind rather than a flimsy car seal? Maybe I'm naive about this but there must be a way. Each container has it's related documents that would be emailed, right? And couldn't the combination (or whatever) go along with the document to the receiver?
Extending my previous post, if any federal laws appear to be being broken (interstate commerce, and all), the FBI could spend some time there. And again, the arrestees would come before a federal court.
I know that in another thread, it devolved into such a mess it was deleted.
Without saying anything political, here is a quote from the article that shows why this is such a problem:
“Criminals are caught and arrested … charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine,” the company said in a letter dated Dec. 20, 2021. “These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours.” “Criminals boast to our officers that charges will be pled down to simple trespassing — which bears no serious consequence,” Union Pacific wrote. “Without any judicial deterrence or consequence, it is no surprise that over the past year UP has witnessed the significant increase in criminal rail theft described above.”
“Criminals are caught and arrested … charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine,” the company said in a letter dated Dec. 20, 2021. “These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours.”
“Criminals boast to our officers that charges will be pled down to simple trespassing — which bears no serious consequence,” Union Pacific wrote. “Without any judicial deterrence or consequence, it is no surprise that over the past year UP has witnessed the significant increase in criminal rail theft described above.”
It appears railroad police MIGHT be able to enforce some federal laws. If the suspects are arrested for violating them, I expect they'd go through the federal system, not the local one.
Wonder if the old SP modified police train cars are still around?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.