Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjbgkagh | Hacker News Reader

You’d think that all the empty packages on the ground would be a clue that there is package theft going on and that they should do something about it. Like avoid stopping in those areas, organize security, something. USPS recently lost my package in transit through LA, given the timing it seems likely it was stolen in one of these raids.

View on HN

>they should do something about it. Like avoid stopping in those areas, organize security, something

"UP considering rerouting it’s trains out of LA county. UP asks DA to be harder on theives. Says they’re back out on the tracks a day after released"

https://twitter.com/CBSLAKristine/status/1482115852216385538

Thanks, I guess the wheels are turning. My comment was facetious, clearly they know, I just wish the people involved given the evidence would be able to act faster and more decisively.

Acting faster and more decisively would cost the parties that be more money than the underlying problem costs them in the first place.

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/CBSLAKristine/status/148211585221...

They have been making arrests but the D.A. releases on $0 bail the next day. So theses criminals just go right back at it.

Until they are convicted, sure - the problem with cash bail is of course that it's a 3:1 ratio of unconvicted to convicted people in jail at any given time and it massively disproportionately affects the poor. The average person unable to make bail has a salary of around 14k; the average bail is set at $10,000.

You're a retail worker making 26k a year. You're arrested, and can't come up with $1,000 to get a bond, so you stay in jail for a couple of weeks, lose your job and get evicted. Now the prosecutor comes to you with a choice: take a plea deal and get out now with time served or go to court - the court date is of course in a month and you'll have to stay in jail over that period.

Innocent until proven guilty matters.

So, make the whole judical process faster, especially for simple crimes.

That's not how it works. They're going to have bail and will probably pay it no matter what. People shouldn't be imprisoned until their trial outside exceptional circumstances. Stealing packages doesn't qualify.

Dangerous people should be jailed and flight risks should be jailed. Everything else is just a bail bond racket and power play by prosecutors. If the "charged" commits another crime or breaks the limits of his "freedom" they should go right back to the slammer until their court date.

Petty thieves are hardly dangerous people. They aren't hijacking trains at gunpoint.

A lot of these rail thefts in particular are organized by gang members.

Then keep them in jail after they're charged with actual dangerous crimes instead of jailing them before their trial preemptively for petty theft.

That's the thing, these people aren't being taken to trial either.

I think they are forced to transit these areas. Only so many rail lines that exist and they have to slow down due to practicalities of congestion at freight and trainyards which the low speed makes them vulnerable to being boarded.

Especially given that its the port of LA we are talking about that these trains are traveling to and from for the most part. Most goods from Asia in this continent have come through that port.

> Like avoid stopping in those areas

That may be illegal due to various anti-discrimination laws:

> But Free and other riders were baffled over proposed legislation that would lower mandatory penalties for taxi drivers who refuse to pick up certain passengers, or turn down requests to take passengers to a specific destination.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-cabbies-fines-...

These are freight trains, so unlikely to fall under such laws.

And they are through trains - they don't do local pickup and delivery.

I figured cargo was separate to passenger. I assume they have their reasons to stop, like making way for traffic, or waiting for more cargo. Just wish they’d prioritize alternative solutions. At this stage I’m going to have to send packages by air instead. A little harder to hijack.

Never taken cabs in New York, but that seems insane. How can cabbies be legally compelled to take fares e.g. somewhere they fear for their own safety, or on a route that will lose them money?

There are lots of laws like that. Yesterday, I went to a pizza restaurant. It was myself and another person waiting in the restaurant. A person walks in with a large pitbull.

Immediately the other person ran to the opposite corner and asked the person with the dog to wait outside the restaurant because they had been a victim of a pitbull attack. And, of course, the person with the dog pulled the service dog card.

At this point, the business owner can do nothing. Once someone says a dog is a service dog, no one can ask them to leave until after the dog causes damage, per the ADA.

The person in the restaurant with the dog immediately claimed they forgot the vest that says their dog is a service animal. This tells me the dog was definitely not a service animal, because anyone who actually needs one knows that no proof is required.

Anyway, my point is the laws in the US right now let any dog owner walk around with impunity and impose dogs on people who do not want to be around dogs. Which means I have to modify my behavior with my toddlers and leave places where any random person can bring a Rottweiler or pitbull.

Edit: In the dog situation, you can even go further and see that NY state just forced owners of less dangerous and aggressive breeds to subsidize owners of more dangerous and aggressive breeds. Why would the government need to get involved in subsidizing risks of various dog breeds?

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/01/new-ny-state-law-bans...

I don't think the problem is with service animal laws, which I think are genuinely well-intentioned, but with the type of people who would consider owning a potentially dangerous dog in the first place.

Some animals really aren't suitable as pets for the vast majority of owners - which might be a more fruitful discussion than objecting to service animals too quickly.

I did not write that I object to service animals. There is clearly no enforcement of service animal laws, which are lacking, and no recourse for anyone harmed by them, which is what I was trying to point out.

There are already laws that ban dogs from restaurants and grocery stores. But there is a higher law that says if you say the words service dog, then no one can say anything to you and you do not have to prove anything, rendering the laws banning dogs from restaurants and grocery stores useless.

It might be a conversation for another time, but dog bite cases are a staple of basic tort claims. Plenty of recourse - an owner is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable harm caused by their animal.

Doesn't stop certain obnoxious owners from taking their animals where they really ought not, etc.

There may be recourse, but It would be greatly preferable to avoid the dog bite in the first place. They can leave life-long injury.

Any dog of substantial size can be “a dangerous dog”. I have owned two American Bulldogs and 1 “pit bull” and they were all well-trained and probably overly friendly. My cat has done more damage to me and to the dogs. The only dog that isn't potentially "potentially dangerous" are probably ones like the small breeds like chihuahuas and Pekingese. It really is 90% training/how-they're-raised and 10% genetics. Don't get a dog unless you can make him/her a part of your pack/family. Cats are much better if you just want a pet to chill with.

> Some animals really aren't suitable as pets for the vast majority of owners - which might be a more fruitful discussion than objecting to service animals too quickly.

The problem isn't service dogs, but fraudulent service dogs claims. And often health departments hold business owners liable for these fake claims (fine the owners because they should have known that the pit bull wasn't a service dog because they lacked a harness), which is doubly ridiculous if you aren't allowed to challenge someone's service dog claim (which actually isn't true, I think, there isn't a law on the book that businesses cannot verify service dogs, its just culture that pushes them to trust).

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

> Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?

>A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

> Q8. Do service animals have to wear a vest or patch or special harness identifying them as service animals?

>A. No. The ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness.

Among other reasons, people's fear for their safety may be driven by reasons that aren't rational. For example, someone who is afraid to drive into neighborhoods that have a high percentage of black residents even when the neighborhood isn't particularly dangerous.

Because those conditions are attached to operating a permitted cab in New York. The permits have changed hands for hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years, they aren't agreeing to the terms by accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion

Didn't even see GP comment, but I can tell you many medallion holders have "agreed" under duress, one way or another.

There is effectively no difference between the state placing those conditions on all taxis, or forbidding all taxis except those that have a medallion, to which those conditions are attached.

If the medallions are changing hands for more than $0 we can infer that most buyers are opting into the conditions attached to the medallion. They may not be happy with all of them, but they have had an opportunity to consider them.

Mostly in the past it has been to prevent racism from preventing a ride. Aka "he looked suspicious" was usually "he's a person of color"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com