Seems like you're suggesting that private security should be an expected cost because the state will no longer protect you like they have been for many years...
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.
It used to be bandits raiding caravans, and now it's criminals raiding trains, front porches, etc.
Logistics is the lifeblood of society and cannot be taken for granted even in a civilian sphere.
Maybe they can seek trial in a different locale if the railroad right of way has different jurisdiction.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
And this isn't new, major railroads have had these publicly-empowered police forces since the late 19th century.
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.
My question earlier is how much UP - a publicly listed company with $20B in revenue in 2020 - has increased security expenditures to keep up with traffic, theft, and other potential threats to its business.
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.
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.
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.
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.