[atourgates]

Most of it is much more opportunistic than that example.

> "But over the course of the task force’s existence, which lasted nearly a year, only 34 of the roughly 700 people arrested or cited for stealing from trains were part of these organized crews. Many more were just passers-by or unhoused people living near the tracks in R.V.s or makeshift structures who just happened to pick up fallen boxes."

It's just one datapoint, but under 5% of the thefts this specific taskforce identified were perpretrated by organized groups. Most were essentially opportunistic thefts by individuals on the margins of society.

[spenczar5]

Careful, there: 5% of the people arrested or cited. That is not the same as 5% of the thefts (one would expect the professionals do more than their share of the thieving) or even 5% of the thieves (one might believe that pros are less likely to get caught).

[ysavir]

It's also not representative of the quantity of stolen cargo. Even if it's 5% of thefts, that 5% could be responsible for 60% of stolen cargo.

[dotancohen]

This is such a great example of lying with statistics. I know that it was not deliberate, which is why the lie is so effective. Even the teller believes it to be true.

[HenryBemis]

> I know that it was not deliberate

Although I never underestimate human stupidity or laziness for misrepresentation of numbers/statistics/etc, it's usually some poor SME that writes the report, and then the Manager sees the "60%", freaks out, asks the SME to rewrite making it softer, and thus the truth is (given a serious effort to be hidden).

I've been writing audit, security, and other reports a big part of my life. I tend to write numbers in the form of "5 out of 100 X (5%) examined, regarding the Y process, failed due to..". It freaks out anyone who reads my reports, but, hey, they pay me for accuracy and truth. Once I send it (and it's 'untouched' on my Sent Items), they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they put THEIR names & signatures in the bottom if they change a single word (sorry for the cynicism but there exists no corporate hill that I want to die on) - also you never know when a regulator will come back 6.5 years later and ask about THAT job scheduler that was transferring £€$5bn per day between X-system and Y-system.

I cannot recount the AMOUNT of times my report has 'softer' writing in the end, and it's their prerogative. But "it's not deliberate"????? No way in hell!!! Manager --> Director --> C-suite --> Audit Committee --> Regulator. EVERYONE will change a couple of words, and instead of a dumpster fire (Red) it will end up being Yellow.

[Chris2048]

Maybe there should be official guidelines for stats communication that require a certain level of legalise-like specify. No more "there is no evidence for.." of the sci world.

[Chris2048]

The phrase "who just happened to pick up fallen boxes" suggests the boxes had already left the train at that point? Not the same as entering the train.

[pooper]

This just sounds like the police not doing its job. Or rather doing busy work to avoid doing its job.

Previously on reddit https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/ree4ef/this_huge_...

[RecycledEle]

I expect members of organize gangs do want to not admit to being members of such gangs. I would expect to hear a slurred version of "I just wanted something and I saw a box. I'm homeless. I don't have a name. They never told me when I was born. I didn't grow up like you did."

[dragonwriter]

> It's just one datapoint, but under 5% of the thefts this specific taskforce identified were perpretrated by organized groups.

5% of the people arrested, not 5% of the thefts.

“Less sophisticated thieves are more likely to be arrested” isn’t a surprising result.

[pixl97]

Yep, much harder to get caught if you have a team monitoring for police activity and a ready get away car and they know where to hit with the highest response times.

[gorlilla]

It's still accurate in the sense of proximate cause. Each theft event is a singular event composed of one or possibly multiple items being stolen.

[dragonwriter]

> It's still accurate in the sense of proximate cause

Its not, though.

> Each theft event is a singular event composed of one or possibly multiple items being stolen.

Even if you ignore that the arrest rate likely isn't consistent between the two groups, that doesn't make the arrest proportion “accurate in the sense of oroxinate cause” unless you assume also that the organized vs. disorganized arrested parties are responsible for the same number of theft events per individual.

All the proportion of individuals arrested in the theft ring vs. not actually tells you is the proportion if individuals areested. It doesn't tell you the proportion of “theft events” or the proportion of $ valie of theft or anything else.

[usrusr]

They catch the vultures who arrive at the scene when the lions who did the hunting are gone.

Perhaps some of what is happening is truly done by opportunistic amateurs, but the observation voted would also be perfectly consistent with a ground truth where every single case was done by an organized group.

[londons_explore]

> who just happened to pick up fallen boxes

I wonder if any of those 'fallen' boxes were deliberately dropped in an area covered by CCTV just to catch opportunistic thieves?

It would certainly be a good way to catch one type of thief while entirely missing the biggest heists.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

If you pick up a box off the road, are you a thief?

[jdietrich]

If that box is sealed, it has someone else's address on it and you make no effort to return it to them, then you are inarguably a thief. It's no different to taking a parcel from someone's porch.

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

[sandworm101]

Yes. The fact that property is unguarded doesn't render it free to any random person. You can legitimately safeguard something, such as moving it off the road, but once you open the box or take the box home, you are a thief. And if the box is sitting on railroad property, you are likely guilty of attempted theft as soon as you pick it up. Also trespassing.

[pi-e-sigma]

What you say is not true in the slightest. In a lot of the US jurisdictions you can keep what you found provided you report it to the authorities and nobody claims it in some time frame. In other cases you can take what you found if you found it on your land etc. Lots of various laws apply, depending where you live and what exactly you found. If it was likely to be intentionally left where you found it to be later picked up again, or if it was intentionally abandoned etc. You can even take legal ownership of land that you and the authorities know is not yours provided you use it long enough (adverse possession) and you think a random box left by the side of the road is somehow untouchable?

[solatic]

> nobody claims it in some time frame

You have some nerve to equivocate between an anonymous object bearing no clues as to its ownership and a box with an address label on it signifying exactly to whom the parcel belongs. How do you blame an owner who likely lives hundreds if not thousands of miles away for not contacting every police precinct along the shipping path instead of expecting someone who finds the parcel to simply return it to the shipping company so that they can finish the job?

[neilkk]

The package in transit belongs to Amazon not to the addressee.

[Mordisquitos]

A more generous quote of GP comment provides the answer:

> provided you report it to the authorities and nobody claims it in some time frame

One would expect that "report it to the authorities" covers that problem. The authorities will take care of either contacting the shipping company and letting them know, instructing you on how to do it yourself, or even take possession of the package to return it themselves.

[sandworm101]

Not for amazon boxes that fall off trucks.

[londons_explore]

Amazon isn't gonna go to the police station to claim their lost box... So actually, this would probably work to legally claim an amazon box.

[lupusreal]

We shouldn't even be humoring the premise of boxes falling off trains without thieves deliberately breaking into the trains in the first place.

[Chris2048]

Not sure if this is same in US, but where I am the railway tracks and a fair bit of land alongside it it the property of the railway and usually appropriately fenced and signposted. A dropped or fallen parcel is highly likely to be located on that land and thus not public.

I'd say an anonymous parcel on private land is the concern of the landowner, even with a right-of-way.

[sandworm101]

Amazon boxes are not anonymous. Even without a lable, it is clear to whome it belongs.

[londons_explore]

In my moral view, yes you are if you do not make at least a minimal effort to locate the properties true owner. For example, calling the phone number written on the outside of the box.

[Terr_]

In the legal view too. (At least in the US.)

[pixl97]

The difference in the road and a train track is one of public and private property. The train track is not public property and even walking down it can lead to an arrest for trespassing, much less picking up boxes and carrying them off.

[Terr_]

That particular distinction doesn't really matter: If I drop my wallet in the street and someone finds it and takes all my cash, that's theft regardless of whether it landed on the public road or a short distance away on a private driveway. (Also, I don't think anyone would consider it "finders keepers" if the thief started using the credit-cards!)

So it's theft either way, but the private-ness of the zone may mean additional crimes are getting committed, such as trespassing and/or burglary. (Or worse variations of the same crime, depending on how the laws are written.)

[pixl97]

There are two sides of the law.

What is written in the books.

What is practiced by law enforcement and the judicial system.

So while dropping your wallet in the street may technically be a crime, the idea that law enforcement is going to go about seeking justice for the infraction is pretty much laughable in the vast majority of situations unless there is a large amount of corroborating evidence.

>(Also, I don't think anyone would consider it "finders keepers" if the thief started using the credit-cards!)

I mean, that is its own separate crime, and the only one likely to be punished as there is a direct evidence chain where you're accessing an account without permission and performing the act of theft.

[ttt11199907]

Would it still be theft if the money in your wallet was money that you found on the street the day before?

[Terr_]

Huh? Thieving from a thief is still theft, the same way that raping a rapist is still rape.

(Also even when a wily Sicilian complains that "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen".)

[lupusreal]

> who just happened to pick up fallen boxes.

Anybody who believes this is being foolish. Packages don't just "fall off" of boxcars. Those cars aren't open topped, the cardboard packages would be ruined by the weather if they were. The only way for a package to fall off a train is if somebody deliberately breaks into the train cars with those packages, and probably starts throwing the packages off the train.

The fact that they couldn't charge most people with that only highlights the inadequacy of their enforcement.

[rdtsc]

> were part of these organized groups

I could also see that people performing the crime might be unhoused, what are they going to do with 20 blenders they just stole? They will go to some organized group and sell the loot for some cash.

So on paper it doesn’t appear organized in practice it’s sort of is. If there is no one buying the 20 blenders, it’s not worth bothering jumping on a train for them.

[infecto]

Wrong interpretation. Others already pointed out the volume of items stolen but it I don't think that statistic points out who perpetrated the original crime. It makes sense, only a handful of individuals would be the ones break the train, anyone else around would certainly jump in the action.