3 ms·

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

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.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Won't do much good if no one's taking them to court, which seems to be an issue at the heart of the complaint.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Cameras don't provide much useful evidence in these cases. The recordings typically show a medium size man wearing a hoodie. Could be anybody.
pmorici 5y ago
They can’t be everywhere at once but they should be apprehending repeat offenders it sounds like they are arresting plenty of criminals they just aren’t being prosecuted so they continue to rob and pillage.
bmarquez 5y ago
> 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. All of the things listed are simply deterrents, that would not stop a criminal knowing that he would not get prosecuted from taking the extra time to bypass them. Cameras can be evaded with masks, locks can be grinded down (see lockpickinglawyer), security is pointless if they know they cannot be detained.
mikeg8 5y ago
You’re asking a great question, but at the end of the day, if criminals have no fear of repercussion, the “security” investments are almost equal to throwing money away.
vorpalhex 5y ago
UP already has passive monitoring, and active monitoring. They are in fact arresting people. Then the DA is not doing shit to charge those arrested. What more do you want UP to do? They are literally giving criminals bagged and tagged to the police.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Then the DA is not doing shit to charge those arrested They are being charged and convicted, and UP explicitly acknowledges this. UP is complaining that the convictions are based on plea deals to charges less severe than UP would prefer, and that cash bail is not being unconstitutionally abused (I mean this is pretty much black and white in their letter) as pre-conviction punishment of the legally presumed-innocent rather than bail terms being set based on what is necessary to secure appearance at subsequent court hearing.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    One of the basis for bail is likelihood to reoffend while on bail.

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.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Won't do much good if no one's taking them to court, which seems to be an issue at the heart of the complaint.
- nradov 5y ago
  Cameras don't provide much useful evidence in these cases. The recordings typically show a medium size man wearing a hoodie. Could be anybody.

pmorici 5y ago

They can’t be everywhere at once but they should be apprehending repeat offenders it sounds like they are arresting plenty of criminals they just aren’t being prosecuted so they continue to rob and pillage.

bmarquez 5y ago

> 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. All of the things listed are simply deterrents, that would not stop a criminal knowing that he would not get prosecuted from taking the extra time to bypass them. Cameras can be evaded with masks, locks can be grinded down (see lockpickinglawyer), security is pointless if they know they cannot be detained.

mikeg8 5y ago

You’re asking a great question, but at the end of the day, if criminals have no fear of repercussion, the “security” investments are almost equal to throwing money away.

vorpalhex 5y ago

UP already has passive monitoring, and active monitoring. They are in fact arresting people. Then the DA is not doing shit to charge those arrested. What more do you want UP to do? They are literally giving criminals bagged and tagged to the police.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Then the DA is not doing shit to charge those arrested They are being charged and convicted, and UP explicitly acknowledges this. UP is complaining that the convictions are based on plea deals to charges less severe than UP would prefer, and that cash bail is not being unconstitutionally abused (I mean this is pretty much black and white in their letter) as pre-conviction punishment of the legally presumed-innocent rather than bail terms being set based on what is necessary to secure appearance at subsequent court hearing.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  One of the basis for bail is likelihood to reoffend while on bail.