Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Train burglaries in LA

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 652 posts

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#411

Post by pvaldes »

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #406
pvaldes wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Return backwards in time and kill Hitler Hum, could I suggest an evil alternative? Just schedule a few meetings with the people that lend money to Hitler and explain them that he will try to keep the money and will go to extreme measures to avoid returning it, including killing them or their relatives if possible. Really bad investment, don't touch this turd with a thousand foot pole. Thank me later when you still…

[flagged]

You are clearly misunderstanding the tone of the conversation.

But in any case yes, Pre-WW2 Germany was "a paradise" compared with Post-WW2 Germany or with immediately post-Hitler Europe if you prefer it. (And the world is much better without cocaine fueled dictators, for sure).

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#412

Post by sgjohnson »

dredmorbius wrote: post #393
sgjohnson wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but States are not "within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States" In this context "the United States" means the federal government. States are also within the jurisdiction of the state government, and therefore not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. This is the exact same reason why the US president can only pardon federal crimes.

The conditions are ORed, not ANDed: Whoever, in any Territory or District, OR within or upon any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (Capitalisation for emphasis by me.) The crime depicted is a federal one under US law.

A State is also not a Territory or a District.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#413

Post by nswest23 »

buran77 wrote: post #183
mngnt wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cause is the same as it always has been: it is easier for some people to get to the desired standard of living by stealing/other crime than by working. Why crime us going up? Because of higher desired standard (every body needs an iPhone, brand name shoes and hats), more difficulty with earning a wage (largely, difficulty getting a job at all) and decreased difficulty in crime (defunding police, more aesily avail…

When risking getting caught stealing is more attractive than working then it's safe to say the working opportunities for those people aren't worth almost anything. People take the easier option. You choose "lock your trains well" despite knowing the answer will be "crack those locks well" because it was the easy answer. The view is simple. Eventually the train will be a rolling mountain of steel protected by an army.…

did you see the amount of packages that had been opened and littered all over?? I'd say that the risk of getting caught there was extremely low and that desperation had little to do with it and it was more opportunistic.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#414

Post by Fatnino »

dusted wrote: post #102

My observation from the comment sections to this post-apocalyptic video is the following: People focusing on how to prevent the theft of these cars, funding police, armed guards on trans, better security. I think this is an interesting perspective, it's very "American", it's like it has been accepted by these commenters that rampant thievery is a perfectly natural part of life and so, must be worked around rather tha…

I taken it your machine is connected directly to the internet with no firewall and your admin password is password.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#415

Post by gonehome »

kogepathic wrote: post #228
gonehome wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo the comment you’re replying to is a kind of progressive left-wing university faculty lounge flavor of upper middle class politics and is not representative of the vast majority of Americans (but is overrepresented online). I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.

> I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault. Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems. Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1] The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for…

You can advocate for policy that works to improve things that lead to increased crime and be strict about enforcing the law when crime occurs. While this doesn't necessarily fit cleanly into existing partisan politics, it is possible.

Excusing crime because of these other things I think is patronizing to the majority of poor people that are not criminals. It's also a luxury belief imo in that the majority of victims are ethical people in poor communities getting hurt by the criminals who mostly target them (which is why you see a lot of data in poor communities asking for increased policing).

I'd guess it's a view formed from a lack of interaction with the people committing these crimes (in addition to the victims) too. Anyone can rationalize criminal behavior and make it not their fault. I don't have much tolerance for this and don't think society should really either. Discretion exists and context does matter, but people have agency and are responsible for the choices they make.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#416

Post by systemvoltage »

nightsd01 wrote: post #71
systemvoltage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain areas in Bay Area (may be south bay) are probably better than others. Digging around a bit, SF (and generally the rest of the bay area follows) has a substantially higher crime rate than say Austin or the US average: https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/austin_tx/san_fran... There are probably better sources than what I linked. It is really bad here in my experience and I want to move out.

What kinds of crime are you talking about? Loitering? Murder? Again, it’s all relative. How would increased police funding help with ANY of that…? There are plenty of reasons to want to move out of the Bay Area. Christ, traffic on the 101 often makes me want to jump off the golden gate bridge - but I don’t see how snarky remarks about “defund the police” help one way or another without dramatically misunderstanding a…

For me the main reason to leave is crime and general third-worldlyness. Got my car broken into several times, several parks are occupied by the homeless, Citizen app is going crazy where I live, the whole thing is not what I think of a developed nation.

I can deal with traffic, weather is wonderful.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#417

Post by gonehome »

furyg3 wrote: post #192
gonehome wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably SF’s lack of police response enables continued drug abuse and homelessness. See: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/rescuing-jessica-s... This person has no interest in treatment. They want to do drugs and take advantage of what’s provided to keep doing that. You can’t fix that with hotels. You either need to require treatment or imprison (paired with arresting dealers). On the more progressive end, m…

Arresting dealers / busting drug rings is one of the few policing activities that directly leads to MORE crime. What happens when you bust a drug ring and arrest some big players? You immediately create a power vacuum, which leads to a turf war where other players (in the gang or between gangs) start jockeying for power, spreading their mayhem across the area. The only solution here is legalization, treatment, and ge…

Only if you keep the market alive.

Arrest the dealers and administer the drug to addicts for free at clinics? I think that would be an interesting approach.

I'm not a policy expert. I used to agree with you, but I think part of the issue is trivial access to drugs (see the tenderloin). It's harder for addicts to quit when it's very easy to get the drug (whether that's via dealers or legalization) and the city helps to enable you (hotel shelters, etc.) I understand the good intent and compassion, but a lot of bad policy on the left starts with good intent and ends with unanticipated bad consequences. Cities with arguably crueler enforcement don't have these issues (San Mateo). SF attracts addicts because they know it's lax and drug access is easy. Pair that with NIMBY housing policy and it's very hard to get housed and off of drugs.

I'd argue the SF approach to this has been a failure, London Breed's recent speech on the topic is something I agree with. The equilibrium we're trapped in is bad. We need to force a choice and that choice is likely either treatment or prison.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#418

Post by nouveaux »

coryfklein wrote: post #401
dusted wrote: post #102

My observation from the comment sections to this post-apocalyptic video is the following: People focusing on how to prevent the theft of these cars, funding police, armed guards on trans, better security. I think this is an interesting perspective, it's very "American", it's like it has been accepted by these commenters that rampant thievery is a perfectly natural part of life and so, must be worked around rather tha…

Option 1) Upgrade the security on the containers Option 2) Re-work society from the ground up to eliminate any incentive for burglary It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time.

I want to caveat this whole thing by saying that I'm not a supporter of abolishing the police in case someone thinks I want to take funding away from law enforcement.

"It is no wonder why folks are drawn more to Option 1, which is about a bajillion times more approachable, but which doesn't preclude also working on Option 2 at the same time."

I think it does. Option 1 solutions of the world often mitigate the visible problems like whack-a-mole. It reinforces the effectiveness of option 1. It also creates a whole system that ends up protecting itself.

Lets say you hire 100k people to start fighting thefts. The underlying problems that produces thieves are around, so they continue to steal. Option 2 supporters say "Fund social safety nets." Option 1 supporters say theft has gone down 50%, hire more crime fighters. The thief catchers say "Protect our jobs." More money goes into fighting crime and not social safety nets.

At least with regards to crime, we've been at it far too long to know what works and what doesn't. Crime reduction is far more correlated with social stability than increased law enforcement.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#419

Post by gonehome »

nomel wrote: post #396
xorfish wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heroin itself is much less damaging to your body than more popular drugs like tobacco or alcohol. Making it harder for addicts to get heroin or a replacement will only increase the energy they will spend on getting it. This makes it nearly impossible to get to a better place in their life. It is mostly getting the drug that has a negative effect on holding down a job, not the drug itself.

It’s much more damaging to the mind and ability to have a functional life. My sister was a functional alcoholic for 25 years. When she started heroine, everything changed, and she overdosed within 2.

There's a group of people that like to pretend heroin is less harmful despite all the evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if they're users rationalizing their own use or what, but it's an odd thing I've noticed.

Re: Train burglaries in LA

#420

Post by gonehome »

Someone wrote: post #187
gonehome wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of poor people who are not thieves. I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else. There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.

I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged. I do read people (rightfully, IMO) claiming that societal changes can significantly decrease the number of people doing this. I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.

> "I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged."

This comment is basically arguing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932479

They frame it a little indirectly, but it's the underlying core of their point.

You can advocate for policy that reduces crime while still enforcing laws against criminals and not excusing the criminal behavior.

Post reply on HN