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.
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
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
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
Can UP ask Governor to install a special proscutor? Or maybe the US attorney appoint one?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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]
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.
Running trains at 35MPH through the area would help as well
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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?
It sounds like that line has been crossed already.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.