6 ms·

Seems like you're suggesting that private security should be an expected cost because the state will no longer protect you like they have been for many years...

xyzzyz 5y ago
I certainly did not expect the libertarian ideal of depending for protection wholly on private security, instead of on the state, to be first implemented in Los Angeles, of all places.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  UPs police force is not private security in the usual sense. Those in CA are California peace officers, and all of them are also specially federally empowered for interstate operations. And this isn't new, major railroads have had these publicly-empowered police forces since the late 19th century.
bpodgursky 5y ago
UP already has their own police. Why bother investing in more, if none of the arrests result in charges? It's pointless to spend more.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Why bother investing in more, if none of the arrests result in charges? UP is not complaining that none of the arrests result in charges. (They are complaining that the DA is settling for plea deals to lesser charges than they would prefer and not trying to employ cash bail as pre-conviction punishment for disabling [by incarceration of those who can’t afford it] suspects and deterring potential future criminals instead of not using it when it is not necessary to secure appearance of a suspect legally presumed innocent.) Also, it's well known that sufficiently visible security is a deterrent to crime, which is better than after-the-fact arrests, so an eruption in undeterred crime is evidence of a need for more and more visible security.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Let's be specific about what UP is complaining, then: "But even with these expanded resources and closer partnerships with local law enforcement, we find ourselves coming back to the same results with the Los Angeles County criminal justice system. Criminals are caught and arrested, turned over to local authorities for booking, arraigned before the local courts, charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine. These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours. Even with all the arrests made, the no-cash bail policy and extended timeframe for suspects to appear in court is causing re-victimization to UP by these same criminals. In fact, criminals boast to our officers that charges will be pled down to simple trespassing – which bears no serious consequence." You are perfectly correct in the pedantic sense, but the spirit of their complaint is much closer to the GP's post than to what you represent.
ilamont 5y ago
Private security is an expected cost for any business (or homeowner for that matter). Even if the local police department is fully staffed, they certainly can't be everywhere at all times, respond instantly to a report of crime, or deal with issues that it is not staffed for such as rampant technology-enabled crime. So, maybe the security is an investment in new cameras. Maybe it's a better lock that can't be bypassed. Maybe it's an investment in network security personnel or systems. Maybe it's a doorman at the apartment building, or a security guard serving as "eyes and ears" for the police. My question earlier is how much UP - a publicly listed company with $20B in revenue in 2020 - has increased security expenditures to keep up with traffic, theft, and other potential threats to its business.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Insane that this discussion is happening like this. Depending on the state for property protection is a basic facet of a functioning government. Literal organized stage coach robbery is not an issue anywhere else in the US, and it is not UPs responsibility to deal with it, unless we want to return to a period of private armies.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Fun fact — contract work as railway police was one of the original lines of business for the notorious Pinkerton Detective Agency.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Camera's not going to do anything by itself if you can't actually stop the person who is on the camera, and it's a lot harder to stop that person if they're never going to jail even when they're caught red-handed and arrested at the scene. I mean, heck, if it comes down to it, Private Security can also mean that UP just gives up on Los Angeles and its eponymous port entirely.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Cameras provide evidence that is far more reliable and simpler to present than testimony from a railway security guard. This evidence could even be shared publicly to support their case.
analog31 5y ago
To make an analogy, my dad worked at a large chemical factory. It had its own full service fire department. This department also participated in mutual aid with the surrounding town. One thing they could do was provide services that would normally not be a consideration for a sleepy suburb, such as a bomb squad. I think if your business is particularly security intensive, I don't see a reason not to supplement the basic services provided by the government. There have always been railroad police, armored car services, and so forth.
- munificent 5y ago
  I don't think moving random manufactured products from point A to point B should be considered "particularly security intensive". This is just basic commerce and logistics.
  - ecnahc515 5y ago
    The history of logistics disagrees with this. It used to be bandits raiding caravans, and now it's criminals raiding trains, front porches, etc.
    - buscoquadnary 5y ago
      And then we created civilized society so citizens and corporations could conduct such activities without threat to life or property.
      - focusgroup0 5y ago
        It appears that vigilantism will be making a comeback
        jonathanlb 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
vkou 5y ago
How much protection of their property can the average American expect from the state? Very little. The only thing you can expect of the police will do for you if you get burglarized is a signed police report, and if you're lucky, unsolicited advice to move to a better part of town. My wife's workplace gets stolen from fairly regularly. It's not located in one of those 'liberal' cities that allegedly don't enforce any laws. Despite that, the police have yet to do anything about it. The primary function of the police is not, and has never been protecting your property. The primary function of the police is protecting the upper classes from you.
- chasd00 5y ago
  > The primary function of the police is protecting the upper classes from you. i no longer buy that at all, i use to but not any longer. The whole "make police the bad guy" thing is over and done with. If police are not enforcing the law then how are they protecting anyone from anyone else regardless of class.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    But in this case they are enforcing the law. The prosecutors and courts are the ones not putting them in prison. And to the people saying UP just needs more cops, they wouldn't need more cops if as criminals were caught they were taken off the streets by prosecutors. If someone is successful at stealing from trains, but gets caught every 10th time and has to spend 4 hours in a holding cell, why would they quit stealing from trains?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    I would wager, but cannot prove, that if an LA politician's (extra points for being a congresscritter) home was burglarized that it, and the perpetrator, would get more action taken than one of us mere peons.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pbourke 5y ago
With all of these train robberies we’re going to need some Pinkertons
- bongwaterblack 5y ago

xyzzyz 5y ago

I certainly did not expect the libertarian ideal of depending for protection wholly on private security, instead of on the state, to be first implemented in Los Angeles, of all places.

dragonwriter 5y ago
UPs police force is not private security in the usual sense. Those in CA are California peace officers, and all of them are also specially federally empowered for interstate operations. And this isn't new, major railroads have had these publicly-empowered police forces since the late 19th century.

bpodgursky 5y ago

UP already has their own police. Why bother investing in more, if none of the arrests result in charges? It's pointless to spend more.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why bother investing in more, if none of the arrests result in charges? UP is not complaining that none of the arrests result in charges. (They are complaining that the DA is settling for plea deals to lesser charges than they would prefer and not trying to employ cash bail as pre-conviction punishment for disabling [by incarceration of those who can’t afford it] suspects and deterring potential future criminals instead of not using it when it is not necessary to secure appearance of a suspect legally presumed innocent.) Also, it's well known that sufficiently visible security is a deterrent to crime, which is better than after-the-fact arrests, so an eruption in undeterred crime is evidence of a need for more and more visible security.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Let's be specific about what UP is complaining, then: "But even with these expanded resources and closer partnerships with local law enforcement, we find ourselves coming back to the same results with the Los Angeles County criminal justice system. Criminals are caught and arrested, turned over to local authorities for booking, arraigned before the local courts, charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine. These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours. Even with all the arrests made, the no-cash bail policy and extended timeframe for suspects to appear in court is causing re-victimization to UP by these same criminals. In fact, criminals boast to our officers that charges will be pled down to simple trespassing – which bears no serious consequence." You are perfectly correct in the pedantic sense, but the spirit of their complaint is much closer to the GP's post than to what you represent.

ilamont 5y ago

Private security is an expected cost for any business (or homeowner for that matter). Even if the local police department is fully staffed, they certainly can't be everywhere at all times, respond instantly to a report of crime, or deal with issues that it is not staffed for such as rampant technology-enabled crime. So, maybe the security is an investment in new cameras. Maybe it's a better lock that can't be bypassed. Maybe it's an investment in network security personnel or systems. Maybe it's a doorman at the apartment building, or a security guard serving as "eyes and ears" for the police. My question earlier is how much UP - a publicly listed company with $20B in revenue in 2020 - has increased security expenditures to keep up with traffic, theft, and other potential threats to its business.

thatguy0900 5y ago
Insane that this discussion is happening like this. Depending on the state for property protection is a basic facet of a functioning government. Literal organized stage coach robbery is not an issue anywhere else in the US, and it is not UPs responsibility to deal with it, unless we want to return to a period of private armies.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Fun fact — contract work as railway police was one of the original lines of business for the notorious Pinkerton Detective Agency.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Camera's not going to do anything by itself if you can't actually stop the person who is on the camera, and it's a lot harder to stop that person if they're never going to jail even when they're caught red-handed and arrested at the scene. I mean, heck, if it comes down to it, Private Security can also mean that UP just gives up on Los Angeles and its eponymous port entirely.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  Cameras provide evidence that is far more reliable and simpler to present than testimony from a railway security guard. This evidence could even be shared publicly to support their case.

analog31 5y ago

To make an analogy, my dad worked at a large chemical factory. It had its own full service fire department. This department also participated in mutual aid with the surrounding town. One thing they could do was provide services that would normally not be a consideration for a sleepy suburb, such as a bomb squad. I think if your business is particularly security intensive, I don't see a reason not to supplement the basic services provided by the government. There have always been railroad police, armored car services, and so forth.

munificent 5y ago
I don't think moving random manufactured products from point A to point B should be considered "particularly security intensive". This is just basic commerce and logistics.
- ecnahc515 5y ago
  The history of logistics disagrees with this. It used to be bandits raiding caravans, and now it's criminals raiding trains, front porches, etc.
  - buscoquadnary 5y ago
    And then we created civilized society so citizens and corporations could conduct such activities without threat to life or property.
    - focusgroup0 5y ago
      It appears that vigilantism will be making a comeback
      - jonathanlb 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

vkou 5y ago

How much protection of their property can the average American expect from the state? Very little. The only thing you can expect of the police will do for you if you get burglarized is a signed police report, and if you're lucky, unsolicited advice to move to a better part of town. My wife's workplace gets stolen from fairly regularly. It's not located in one of those 'liberal' cities that allegedly don't enforce any laws. Despite that, the police have yet to do anything about it. The primary function of the police is not, and has never been protecting your property. The primary function of the police is protecting the upper classes from you.

chasd00 5y ago
> The primary function of the police is protecting the upper classes from you. i no longer buy that at all, i use to but not any longer. The whole "make police the bad guy" thing is over and done with. If police are not enforcing the law then how are they protecting anyone from anyone else regardless of class.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  But in this case they are enforcing the law. The prosecutors and courts are the ones not putting them in prison. And to the people saying UP just needs more cops, they wouldn't need more cops if as criminals were caught they were taken off the streets by prosecutors. If someone is successful at stealing from trains, but gets caught every 10th time and has to spend 4 hours in a holding cell, why would they quit stealing from trains?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Karunamon 5y ago
  I would wager, but cannot prove, that if an LA politician's (extra points for being a congresscritter) home was burglarized that it, and the perpetrator, would get more action taken than one of us mere peons.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pbourke 5y ago

With all of these train robberies we’re going to need some Pinkertons

bongwaterblack 5y ago