The Great Freight-Train Heists of the 21st Century 78
Cargo theft from freight trains in the Los Angeles area has surged, with detectives estimating over 90 containers being opened daily and that theft on their freight trains in the Union Pacific area was up some 160 percent from the previous year. Nationally, cargo theft neared $1 billion in losses last year. Companies decline comment but California's governor publicly questioned the widespread railroad theft. Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks. Theft stems largely from e-commerce boom that reshaped freight shipping to meet consumer demand, opening vulnerabilities. Railroad police forces and online retailers aim to combat this but concede difficulty tracking stolen goods resold anonymously online. Some products stolen from containers even get resold back on Amazon. The New York Times Magazine: Sometimes products stolen out of Amazon containers are resold by third-party sellers back on Amazon in a kind of strange ouroboros, in which the snakehead of capitalism hungrily swallows its piracy tail. Last June, California's attorney general created what was touted as a first-of-its-kind agreement among online retailers that committed them to doing a better job tracking, reporting and preventing stolen items from being resold on their platforms. While declining to comment on specific cases, a spokesperson for Amazon told me that the company is working to improve the process of vetting sellers: The number of "bad actor attempts" to create new selling accounts on Amazon decreased to 800,000 in 2022 from six million in 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure where you live, but in Ohio the railroad tracks do not have guards.
Re: Sounds like California's fault (Score:2)
Trains move on railroad tracks, they sit in freight yards - the freight yards are protected/policed, mainline tracks aren't a target, since few want to chase a 45 MPH train to try and get inside a shipping container...
Re: (Score:2)
Trains move on railroad tracks,
Sometimes. And sometimes they sit still on tracks. And sometimes they move slowly.
they sit in freight yards - the freight yards are protected/policed, mainline tracks aren't a target, since few want to chase a 45 MPH train to try and get inside a shipping container...
And you know this how?
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like California needs to start being less tolerant on looters.
You don't know how California's politicians think. Basically, if you write a letter telling them that, the reply you get will look a lot like this:
https://www.democracynow.org/2... [democracynow.org]
Re: (Score:3)
What "other parts of the country" are you inventing where railroads have unlimited manpower to prevent trespassers? We have a cottage near the principle cross-Cascades rail line servicing the Pacific Northwest, there are two sidings nearby where cargo trains sometimes stop for hours waiting on track workers or cross traffic. We can walk up to pretty much any of the 100-150 car train and no one would notice.
Re: Sounds like California's fault (Score:2)
We're talking about freight yards, where trains wait for extended periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are, but there are plenty of opportunities outside of freight yards such as the sidings that I mentioned. There are also switching yards where trains sometimes have to wait for long periods before traffic clears so that they can change from one line to another. Then there are the pickup and drop off points, where the freight sits, generally unattended, often for days. Then there is the old fashioned Detroit mob tactic of just getting in the box car and pitching stuff out the door as the train
Re: (Score:2)
Small rural towns, where the police force is generally tiny, related to most everyone in town, under paid, and have to cover large territories, are the best opportunities. The small town where I grew up was putting up office buildings in the '80s even though office occupancy was under 60%. Turns out that on their books the building owners were showing almost full occupancy and using them to launder mob money, and this went on for years. In how many small towns is cooking meth or growing weed the largest
Re: (Score:2)
> In California the problem areas are well known, it is simply a lack of enforcement, you defunded the police, now there's no one to protect you.
I was curious so I did some Googling:
This link says California has both a bit less violent crime and a bit more police officers per capita than Texas does - https://247wallst.com/special-... [247wallst.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I like the sentiment of your post but the real reason people are leaving California is either a) they are republicans which can no longer swallow the politics or b) they are tired of the horrid cost of living and the inability to buy a home. I know people from both categories.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also Democrats who can no longer swallow the politics.
Re: (Score:1)
I like the sentiment of your post but the real reason people are leaving California is either a) they are republicans which can no longer swallow the politics or b) they are tired of the horrid cost of living and the inability to buy a home. I know people from both categories.
c) All the above.
Re: Sounds like California's fault (Score:1)
Or c) they are DemocrÃts that are not ideologically captured and no longer feel safe.
The snakehead of capitalism says... (Score:3)
The snakehead of capitalism says this is from a paywalled article.
but California's governor publicly questioned the (Score:2)
but California's governor publicly questioned the widespread railroad theft
Questioned it on what basis? Don't the freight/tracking companies know definitively what they lost and how would the governor office have a clue. Why is "theft" a political issue?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that sentencing some homeless guy who lives in a cardboard box (see the story) to life imprisonment is going to lead to a dramatic reduction in freight theft.
Of perhaps if the US' richest state didn't have armies of homeless people living in tents in vacant lots this would be less of a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of perhaps if the US' richest state didn't have armies of homeless people living in tents in vacant lots this would be less of a problem.
At least 25% of those people came to California after they became homeless.
Another big percentage is people who came here for a job because there was nothing in their state, and then became homeless.
California's homeless problem is America's homeless problem.
Re: but California's governor publicly questioned (Score:2)
If you're going to be homeless, why not be homeless in California - the laws are all in your favor, and the costs for all the social services is paid by others.
If I didn't have to pay the crazy taxes and high property values in California, I'd consider moving there...
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to be homeless, why not be homeless in California - the laws are all in your favor, and the costs for all the social services is paid by others.
The costs for the social services are paid by others no matter where you are, but California is somewhat unique in that it has had to take an honest look at the most cost-effective ways of managing the problem. This has led this state to conclude that it is not affordable to incarcerate the itinerant and/or impoverished, nor to leave them without food or medical care. Some other states do their best not to implement the SNAP, AFDC, Medicare, and other federal programs which help to mitigate the costs of imp
Re: (Score:2)
What "theft" are you talking about? TFS says:
Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks
Sounds like a lot of the "theft" is shit being carelessly loaded, which is then scavenged. Why do the shippers allow it and why there are no measures taken to collect this is beyond me, but it sure ain't the job of the attorney, unless someone complains of damages due to careless handling.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing with the TFS, not me. Address your concerns appropriately.
Re: but California's governor publicly questioned (Score:2)
They are shipping containers, they are broken into and emptied - they don't just throw a bunch of flat panel PCs, laptops and other items on a flat car and park it next to a homeless camp...
Re: (Score:1)
Nice spin. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, that's because the primary thieves (who dropped the stuff the homeless were stealing) got away clean.
That's right, blame the victim for providing something to steal.
Re:Nice spin. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Blame the victim for being unwilling to pay for adequate security. The railyards are private property, and their security is the responsibility of the owners. Like any private property, the police are only to supposed to enter if a crime has already been committed. In St. Louis, if you go into the railyards without a good reason the railroad security people will be all over you. It does not stop theft, but it reduces it. As for not prosecuting the crimes, they are not even reported, so they cannot be prosecuted.
Probably because having physical security isn't such a liability in St. Louis, and people caught almost certainly won't be doing it again any time soon. California doesn't work that way.
California does not prosecute non-violent crimes (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously. My car window was smashed when visiting SFO in 2020. This had become rampant everywhere, leave *nothing* visible. Police are very frustrated.
Their three strikes laws have filled the jails, so their solution is to never prosecute!
So go take a container off a train, there is no real down side.
Re: California does not prosecute non-violent crim (Score:2)
People around here (in Los Angeles) have told me that it's gotten so bad in SF that people there are starting to leave their windows rolled down under the assumption that if they don't, they'll probably come back to see their window smashed even though they left nothing of value in it.
Re: (Score:1)
And those security guards should be permitted to shoot to kill. The problem with California is that the criminals have more legal protection than any security guard.
Re:Nice spin. (Score:4, Insightful)
Security guards do **NOT** want that right, much less that responsibility. I've worked in Security for a long time, and have never, ever, met a guard who thought that they should be able to shoot someone for stealing something much less kill them. (Have met two cops who did, though.)
Now consider for a moment any security guards that you might have met. Would you trust them to make the correct judgement before shooting to kill? The vast majority of security guards are one step above restaurant dishwashers and a step below roofers in smarts, and almost all of those who aren't dumb as a rock use the job as a placeholder while they find something better. It's a shitty, boring, low pay job with crappy hours and worse working conditions, people who take those jobs are not someone who I would trust with the right, much less the responsibility, to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
The security guards would rather just fill out their report and collect a paycheck. May as well not even have a guard if they aren't, you know, guarding anything. This is precisely the same thing as having a guard in retail. They stand around with their dick in their hand and everyone know they can't do anything so why even have them there?
Probably have the security guard for insurance purposely because it sure as heck isn't to deter crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would, if you were being paid a buck or two over minimum wage and no benefits would you feel a responsibility to risk life and limb for an employer who obviously doesn't give a crap whether you live or die? (In fact Walmart takes out 'dead peasant' insurance on some of their security guards.)
Re: (Score:2)
You get what you pay for.
If you are paying a security guard to stand around and watch ("observe and report" is the job description) that is what you will get. If you want a bouncer to keep order and rough up tough guys making trouble at the club, you can pay for that too. If you want someone to intervene and arrest criminals, hire an off-duty police officer as security.
How much is it worth to you?
Re: Nice spin. (Score:1)
Nobody WANTS to but everybody should have the RIGHT to. Security guards that have the option to shoot (which is always intended to kill), are much more effective than security guards that are not allowed to shoot. See retail theft in California, where groups of kids will just loot any store they want without repercussions. Try that in most other states and you will not survive very long.
Re: (Score:2)
So you really think that property ownership is more important than a life? Kind of confirms your previous posting history.
groups of kids will just loot any store they want
This is nothing new, it's an old, old Gypsy tactic, it used to happen in the small town where I grew up in the '60s. A large unruly group enters a store, causes trouble, and while staff is occupied handling it the rest clean them out. I'd be shocked if that tactic were less than a century old.
Re: (Score:1)
If you think MY property is more important than YOUR life, then you must value your life less than that of my property. So why should I value your life higher than you value your own?
My property is what sustains my life and that of my family so yes, to me, my right to property is more important than your life to live if you steal what I need to sustain my life.
With that kind of statement, why shouldn't I come and squat at your house? It's just property, why do you value my life less than your property? You
Re: (Score:2)
Then you value your freedom much less than your property as well, "I was defending my Beanie Baby collection" is generally not taken into account when sentencing people for manslaughter.
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on where that Beanie Baby collection was. If it's in my house, I have the right to defend my house, regardless of what you intend to steal. When you break in, the property owner has no duty to read or query your intent nor state their intent to defend.
Re: (Score:3)
And those security guards should be permitted to shoot to kill. The problem with California is that the criminals have more legal protection than any security guard.
I worked for several years as armed security: guarding construction sites overnight, bouncing around in the back of an armored car, and finally as an armed courier. In California. I held concealed and open carry endorsements in addition to the basic "guard card". My training included how to shoot, and what to do after I shoot someone (first aid, and what to say to the police).
The gun was meant as a deterrent. My employers really did not want the liability of my shooting someone, they just wanted to redu
Re: (Score:2)
The railyards are private property, and their security is the responsibility of the owners. Like any private property, the police are only to supposed to enter if a crime has already been committed.
By default, yes. But anyone can give the police standing permission to patrol their property at their own discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
If I leave my car unlocked and you steal it, you are still the cunt that stole someone else's property. Stop victim blaming.
Shroud the containers (Score:3)
Make a steel shroud which can be lifted by the container cranes and put it over the containers after loading, then they will need to bring in plasma torches instead of cordless grinders.
Re: Shroud the containers (Score:2)
Or, maybe, stop unloading in CA ports, since your containers aren't safe once unloaded from a ship...
There are west coast container ports outside CA...
Re: (Score:2)
So add a large capital expense and dramatically increase loading times of trains?
Re: (Score:2)
Make a steel shroud which can be lifted by the container cranes and put it over the containers after loading, then they will need to bring in plasma torches instead of cordless grinders.
Or maybe, just maybe, deal with the underlying causes of homelessness preventing the requirement for expensive, onerous security?
Oh sorry, disregard that it sounds too sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, just maybe, deal with the underlying causes of homelessness preventing the requirement for expensive, onerous security?
A beautiful idea. Unfortunately for you (and everyone else), bullets are a LOT cheaper than restructuring society.
You may not know exactly WHO runs this society, but ya gotta admit, whomever they are, you know they will choose the bullets first. Especially since they actually like what they have built.
Life in America, if you have money, is some of the finest life ever to be had throughout all of history.
Almost like (Score:2, Insightful)
Poverty and crime are connected.
Marines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Former Marine here (1986-1992). I'm guessing your service record is non-existent or you're from the stolen valor crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Marines (Score:2)
A criminal would need to be put I front of a judge for that choice to be offered, sadly few criminals go that far into the legal system.
Also, sentencing guidelines are more of a thing now than in decades past.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost like society needs public support for rehabilitation.
After all crime was rampant in the past (Score:2)
NOT
The claim of the poverty causing crime will not survive a few moments engagement with crime trends over the past 200 years. The period of the Depression in the 1930s, for example, saw relatively little crime despite rampant poverty, whilst the decline in crime rates and the reverse over the past 30 years are totally inexplicable in terms of poverty.
Remember that criminology departments at university only exist because it gives economists someone to laugh at.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any statistics for low crime in the depression? Especially before prohibition was repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Only insofar as the habits and thought processes that lead people into poverty correlate with choosing to commit crimes. Getting free money (in this case from a national lottery) slightly increases one's odds of being convicted of a crime: https://www.nber.org/system/fi... [nber.org]
Re: Almost like (Score:1)
Yes, if you do crime, it is more likely you and your children will be poor. If you donâ(TM)t do crime, finish high school, donâ(TM)t have kids before marriage and donâ(TM)t do drugs you are unlikely to remain poor in your own lifetime and a high chance your children will have higher than average wealth.
I thought ... (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2)
Nothing "great" about looting (Score:4, Insightful)
The NYT should not be glorifying this. It isn't a "heist" - it's just looting.
Civilization is a delicate thing, and much easier to destroy than to create. Ultimately, property crimes are crimes against us all, and when they reach unacceptable limits they need to be stopped. Mass looting of freight trains (or stores) passes any acceptable limits.
'We have a right not to be poor' (Score:1)
Once that becomes a bedrock of left wing politics, it is surely inevitable that crime rates will rise as people take seriously what politicians say.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the right-wing, 'government causes poverty' propaganda is better? All those people blaming government spend a lot of time supporting it, even demanding government save them. Now that white Christian American is becoming a minority, they spend a lot of time demanding god or politicians bring back the 1950s.
Re: (Score:2)
think, people (Score:2)
"..California's governor publicly questioned the widespread railroad theft. Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks. "
Yes, those were the ones *arrested*. The ones opportunistically gleaning what's left over after the organized, practiced criminal gangs crack the containers in the first place.duh?
Boxes don't just... (Score:2)
Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks.
Boxes don't just "fall" out of shipping containers...
This is a non-sensical distinction - yes, one person breached the container, then maybe 100 people will swarm the container, some going into the container, some scavenging from the items left outside the container.
They don't have to be organized to be a problem, and being disorganized doesn't absolve them of anything. Being homeless doesn't mean you're entitled to a flat screen TV or anything else you find inside a shipping container that happened to be p
Fell off the back of the truck (Score:2)
California's governor publicly questioned the widespread railroad theft. Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks.
Does Gavin Newsom even know how containerized cargo works? There aren't any loose boxes to just fall off the back of the train, truck, whatever.
How? (Score:2)
Having a hard time feeling bad (Score:2)