3 ms·

People don't have to be thrown in jail for there to be a deterrent. That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras th

by slg 5y ago

People don't have to be thrown in jail for there to be a deterrent. That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras that don't record anything. Simply placing guards in the area will reduce theft. This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Union Pacific has responsibility to do at least the bare minimum to secure their own property and news of these layoffs seams to indicate they abdicated that responsibility in the hopes they could put political pressure on the government to do that work for them for free.

filed 5y ago
What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute. We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not. Theft is a violation of property rights. If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks
- slg 5y ago
  >What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute. Prosecution is not the only punishment. Getting arrested or getting in a confrontation with security are still negative outcomes that still occur and people will want to avoid. If you allow people to just walk into the area and walk out with the stolen property more people are going to do it. Making the act of stealing more difficult (or even just appear more difficult) will reduce theft regardless of the punishment. >We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not. >Theft is a violation of property rights. What did I say that makes you think I would disagree with this. >If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks My point is that Union Pacific has a responsibility to lock their house. If I leave my door unlocked and my house gets burgled, I have some responsibility in contributing to that outcome.
  - filed 5y ago
    - slg 5y ago
      It is a question of willful negligence. I don't think sleeping on a couch is negligent. I think leaving valuable property unattended and unprotected in an area in which you know crime to occur is willfully negligent.
eloisius 5y ago
>This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen To some degree, that's reasonable, but it also illustrates how low a bar Americans set for their society. Everyone is so numb to the existence of petty theft that we immediately blame the victim for leaving something in their car, or locking their bike up outside instead of bringing it inside. But I live in a major city where I routinely leave my laptop sitting on a table at coffee shops unattended while I run to the restroom, or lean my bike against the wall outside a restaurant while I go in and have lunch. School kids walk or ride the metro home by themselves after dark. People turn in lost and found wallets and cell phones. If you lose something on the metro, there's actually a good chance you'll get it back. Why do we act like ubiquitous violence and theft is just part and parcel to living in a modern city?
- slg 5y ago
  Context matters. People might not be aware but the few miles around Union Station are probably the densest population of homeless people in the country. People who have nothing to lose are going to be more likely to commit crime. The societal breakdown in that area is not caused by the increase in crime. The increase in crime is caused by a societal breakdown that has forced over 10,000 people onto the streets surrounding these train tracks.
  - eloisius 5y ago
    I realize this rail yard is an atypical scenario. I was responding to the analogy about leaving a laptop in your car. I know it’s unthinkable to do that in almost any populated area of the US, but the expectation of rampant theft isn’t a necessary part of life. I live somewhere that proves it.
krisoft 5y ago
> That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras that don't record anything. Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows? Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences. > This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.
- slg 5y ago
  >Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows? >Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences. As I said elsewhere, jail isn't the only deterrent. Being arrested is also deterrent. Plus not getting the stolen goods is a deterrent. If a guard comes and chases these people off before they can grab the property, there is no reason to try to steal anything. >Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag. These aren't old west style train robberies where people on horseback are chasing down moving trains and holding people up at gunpoint. These are trains sitting on the track for sometimes hours unattended, someone walks onto the tracks, pops the lock, and has the time to sift through all the property looking for something valuable. The trash in the area should be an obvious indicator that there is no time pressure to these crimes. It isn't a smash a grab. People are taking their time looking for the best stuff to steal and discarding what they don't want.
finite_jest 5y ago
> This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Many of us do want to leave in a society were you can indeed leave your laptop unattended on the back seat of your car. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

by slg 5y ago

filed 5y ago

What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute. We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not. Theft is a violation of property rights. If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks

slg 5y ago
>What good are security cameras if they still will not prosecute. Prosecution is not the only punishment. Getting arrested or getting in a confrontation with security are still negative outcomes that still occur and people will want to avoid. If you allow people to just walk into the area and walk out with the stolen property more people are going to do it. Making the act of stealing more difficult (or even just appear more difficult) will reduce theft regardless of the punishment. >We all have property rights, even businesses believe it or not. >Theft is a violation of property rights. What did I say that makes you think I would disagree with this. >If you don’t believe in property rights then I’ll take the keys to your house- thanks My point is that Union Pacific has a responsibility to lock their house. If I leave my door unlocked and my house gets burgled, I have some responsibility in contributing to that outcome.
- filed 5y ago
  - slg 5y ago
    It is a question of willful negligence. I don't think sleeping on a couch is negligent. I think leaving valuable property unattended and unprotected in an area in which you know crime to occur is willfully negligent.

eloisius 5y ago

>This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen To some degree, that's reasonable, but it also illustrates how low a bar Americans set for their society. Everyone is so numb to the existence of petty theft that we immediately blame the victim for leaving something in their car, or locking their bike up outside instead of bringing it inside. But I live in a major city where I routinely leave my laptop sitting on a table at coffee shops unattended while I run to the restroom, or lean my bike against the wall outside a restaurant while I go in and have lunch. School kids walk or ride the metro home by themselves after dark. People turn in lost and found wallets and cell phones. If you lose something on the metro, there's actually a good chance you'll get it back. Why do we act like ubiquitous violence and theft is just part and parcel to living in a modern city?

slg 5y ago
Context matters. People might not be aware but the few miles around Union Station are probably the densest population of homeless people in the country. People who have nothing to lose are going to be more likely to commit crime. The societal breakdown in that area is not caused by the increase in crime. The increase in crime is caused by a societal breakdown that has forced over 10,000 people onto the streets surrounding these train tracks.
- eloisius 5y ago
  I realize this rail yard is an atypical scenario. I was responding to the analogy about leaving a laptop in your car. I know it’s unthinkable to do that in almost any populated area of the US, but the expectation of rampant theft isn’t a necessary part of life. I live somewhere that proves it.

krisoft 5y ago

> That is part of the reason why there is a market for those fake plastic security cameras that don't record anything. Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows? Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences. > This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag.

slg 5y ago
>Why would people care about fake cameras, or real cameras for that matter, if they won't get trouble no matter what the image shows? >Fake cameras are only a deterrent because some of the camera looking objects are real. And real cameras are only a deterrent because getting caught doing something bad on them lead to bad consequences. As I said elsewhere, jail isn't the only deterrent. Being arrested is also deterrent. Plus not getting the stolen goods is a deterrent. If a guard comes and chases these people off before they can grab the property, there is no reason to try to steal anything. >Or the analogy is that someone stopped your car grand theft auto style and took your laptop from your bag. These aren't old west style train robberies where people on horseback are chasing down moving trains and holding people up at gunpoint. These are trains sitting on the track for sometimes hours unattended, someone walks onto the tracks, pops the lock, and has the time to sift through all the property looking for something valuable. The trash in the area should be an obvious indicator that there is no time pressure to these crimes. It isn't a smash a grab. People are taking their time looking for the best stuff to steal and discarding what they don't want.

finite_jest 5y ago

> This feels analogous to leaving a laptop unattended in the back seat of a parked car and blaming the government for not stopping it from being stolen. Many of us do want to leave in a society were you can indeed leave your laptop unattended on the back seat of your car. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.