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.

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.

The history of logistics disagrees with this.

It used to be bandits raiding caravans, and now it's criminals raiding trains, front porches, etc.

And then we created civilized society so citizens and corporations could conduct such activities without threat to life or property.

It appears that vigilantism will be making a comeback

Some of the largest battles of World War II involved nothing more substantial than moving goods from point A to point B, or stopping the other country from moving their goods from point A to point B.

Logistics is the lifeblood of society and cannot be taken for granted even in a civilian sphere.

UP has its own police with full law enforcement powers. I would be curious to know if that force has been downsized. They did abandon the police headquarters building at the western edge of the LA yard.

They can arrest but they cannot prosecute. The state needs to try the suspects and enforce any penalties. UP police cannot do the latter -they can only arrest.

Maybe they can seek trial in a different locale if the railroad right of way has different jurisdiction.

The only other option the UP police have is asking a federal prosecutor to take the case. And that's only if there's some credible evidence of a federal law violation.

I'm not generally one for expanding federal jurisdictional reach, but there's a much clearer federal connection for: internationally imported shipping containers leaving a federal port facility on a (primarily) federally regulated mode of transportation devoted (primarily) to interstate commerce... than there is for 90% of what legally gets classified today as federal jurisdiction.

Is there no theft laws at the federal level?

That's the same as the normal LA police. The prosecutor is a separate department altogether.

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

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cameras don't provide much useful evidence in these cases. The recordings typically show a medium size man wearing a hoodie. Could be anybody.

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.

> 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.

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.

Fun fact — contract work as railway police was one of the original lines of business for the notorious Pinkerton Detective Agency.

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.

> 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.

One of the basis for bail is likelihood to reoffend while on bail.

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.

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.