Better not keep items sent to you by accident.

[Newbian]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man...ceny-misleading-police-officer-230124458.html

Man arrested for keeping an 86-inch flat-screen TV that was mailed to his home by mistake

A man from Freetown, Mass., was arrested on Monday night for keeping an 86-inch flat-screen TV that was mailed to his home by mistake, according to Boston 25 News.

Nick Memmo, 35, told the outlet what occurred at his home the night of his arrest: “They surrounded the house and knocked on the door with flashlights coming through all the windows. They told me to come outside then handcuffed me.”

Memmo said that he originally bought and paid for a 74-inch flat-screen TV on Amazon, but when the 86-inch arrived, delivered by a third-party shipping company, he chose not to return the larger model. The police found it mounted on to his wall.

“I looked into all the laws and said, ‘You know, it’s a scratch ticket. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose,'” he said, adding that “Amazon said I had nothing to worry about. I made no wrong decisions at that point.”

The shipping company, however, disagrees. They allegedly made numerous calls to Memmo before they finally went to police.

No more freebies for you all!

 

[dasherHampton]

To me this story demonstrates a much bigger current issue: the asinine deletion of comment sections by most major news sites. I had to scroll though the comments to learn he had been sent TWO TVs and kept both. He didn't just get a size upgrade.

A lot of comments are trolling, to be sure. But a person can usually get "the rest of the story" there as well. Like in the case of the woman who was arrested for trying to get her child a better education by enrolling him in a school district where she didn't live. It fomented a ton of outrage.

The problem: she started dealing drugs around the new school, something never motioned in any article I read about that particular news item. I didn't learn that until I read the comments on the story.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

To me this story demonstrates a much bigger current issue: the asinine deletion of comment sections by most major news sites. I had to scroll though the comments to learn he had been sent TWO TVs and kept both. He didn't just get a size upgrade.

A lot of comments are trolling, to be sure. But a person can usually get "the rest of the story" there as well. Like in the case of the woman who was arrested for trying to get her child a better education by enrolling him in a school district where she didn't live. It fomented a ton of outrage.

The problem: she started dealing drugs around the new school, something never motioned in any article I read about that particular news item. I didn't learn that until I read the comments on the story.

I had a similar problem reading the article here - It definitely made it confusing sounding as to if a package was midelivered to his house - or his original 74" was mistakenly sent as an 86"

I don't QUITE know how to feel about this - If they did in fact call him (and he received the messages) then yeah - definitely a deadbeat person that should pay the price.

I mean my first question is for 86" was it delivered to his house with his house listed as the address and his name listed? Otherwise it's wrong just for opening someone else's mail.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's BS that you can be arrested and jailed for that, seems a little over the top. Of course it's the states where cops just drool at the idea of surrounding people's home in some big take down event, probably in full tactical gear and where they love to put people in jail over petty crime.

Amazon should have just charged him for the cost of that TV if he failed to return it. No need for police to even be involved.

 

[alcoholbob]

Why isn't this a civil issue? I don't understand why the cops got involved, other than the fact that a corporation told them to get involved? If an individual shipped an item to the wrong address on a craigslist or ebay sale, or if you bought something online and it was misdelivered, do you think the cops would give a shit? Because a corporation got involved, the cops get to spend $10,000s of taxpayer money on a SWAT team stunt raid on some dad in his garage? This story basically reeks of fascism.

Who knows, maybe the cops needed a new TV. I've got a neighbor whose house was cleaned out by burglars a few years ago. The cops told him they recovered his property but needed to keep it as "evidence" and he never got it back. Who wants to bet this TV is going to end up hanging on the wall of the local precinct breakroom?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

For anyone that is actually interested in the legalities of this.... I subscribe to this guy and noticed he did a video on this:

 

[VirtualLarry]

I noticed in that video, that he made an off-hand comment, that if you "just receive something in the mail, doesn't mean that you can keep it".

My understanding, and this I've heard repeatedly over the years, from people, is that if you receive something in the mail, UNSOLICITED (edit: and addresssed specifically TO YOU, or ADDRESSEE at that address), that you CAN keep it, or otherwise CANNOT be forced to pay for it. (Apparently, that used to be a sort of scam some years back, sending people packages that they didn't order, and trying to force them to pay for it.)

Supposedly, this is in the federal mail-order statutes. (If anyone knows offhand where, I would like to know.)

HOWEVER, my understanding is that THIS DOES NOT APPLY, to "mis-delivered" packages, those that show up on your doorstep, but addresses to SOMEONE ELSE. Those, you are basically required to make "all reasonable attempts" to return to sender, or deliver to the correct recipient. I suppose simply turning the goods over to the police would be an acceptable solution as well.

 

[IntelUser2000]

To me this story demonstrates a much bigger current issue: the asinine deletion of comment sections by most major news sites.

The press is just taking advantage of the growing hatred and paranoia towards the government/big corporations/police. While the hatred is understandable, misleading journalism is not.

HOWEVER, my understanding is that THIS DOES NOT APPLY, to "mis-delivered" packages, those that show up on your doorstep, but addresses to SOMEONE ELSE.

That makes perfect sense. I still wouldn't keep the package in the first scenario, because its still taking advantage of mistakes. I'd rather return it and hope the company gives a small product for free out of goodwill.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The difference here is he 'signed' for a delivery that wasn't his. It wasn't some random package left on his door step or mailbox. Somewhere I had read he tried to decline it but the driver wouldn't take no. No way to know if that is true or not, but I also was not aware of the first TV delivery either.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The difference here is he 'signed' for a delivery that wasn't his. It wasn't some random package left on his door step or mailbox. Somewhere I had read he tried to decline it but the driver wouldn't take no. No way to know if that is true or not, but I also was not aware of the first TV delivery either.

Yeah I don't blame him for signing it. Anytime I've ever gotten any package that I had to sign for - they just hand me a blank screen to just scribble on.

And I've never had the delivery person say "Check before signing to make sure the name/address on the package matches yours"

 

[LikeLinus]

Yeah I don't blame him for signing it. Anytime I've ever gotten any package that I had to sign for - they just hand me a blank screen to just scribble on.

And I've never had the delivery person say "Check before signing to make sure the name/address on the package matches yours"

That's all well and good, but this was an 86" TV that was extra from what he ordered. I'm pretty sure you're going to notice a massive extra TV box instead of just one. Kind of hard to miss.

 

[ondma]

Yeah I don't blame him for signing it. Anytime I've ever gotten any package that I had to sign for - they just hand me a blank screen to just scribble on.

And I've never had the delivery person say "Check before signing to make sure the name/address on the package matches yours"

Have to agree with this. If a package came to my house and I was expecting a delivery, probably would just sign the screen without checking. Now if one hadnt ordered something similar, or had already received the item, they definitely should check to see if the address is correct.

Not doubt the recipient was in the wrong here, just seems like an over-reaction and poor use of the police's time, considering all the other crime going on. Since online ordering is becoming so common now, there may have to be statutes to address this kind of situation. I suppose technically it is theft, but is seems like a different situation than intentionally breaking in and stealing something or intentionally defrauding someone.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That's all well and good, but this was an 86" TV that was extra from what he ordered. I'm pretty sure you're going to notice a massive extra TV box instead of just one. Kind of hard to miss.

Yeah, no, don't misunderstand my post. I'm justifying him signing for the package because they are always speedy to get that signed.

Not justifying him not properly returning it to the rightful owner, answering his phone, etc...

 

[HeXen]

To me this story demonstrates a much bigger current issue: the asinine deletion of comment sections by most major news sites. I had to scroll though the comments to learn he had been sent TWO TVs and kept both. He didn't just get a size upgrade.

A lot of comments are trolling, to be sure. But a person can usually get "the rest of the story" there as well. Like in the case of the woman who was arrested for trying to get her child a better education by enrolling him in a school district where she didn't live. It fomented a ton of outrage.

The problem: she started dealing drugs around the new school, something never motioned in any article I read about that particular news item. I didn't learn that until I read the comments on the story.

It's all about the clicks these days. My local newspaper is biased with the local police. I witnessed a cop unload an entire clip on a guy holding a gun. The newspaper said police fired one shot wounding the suspect. Like hell they did, that cop sprayed shots all over the place while trying to run away and perhaps only 1 bullet happened to hit the suspect. You can't even trust the news nor any site that says "facts" these days.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The law system always works in the favour of the bigger guy. Say you are running a mom and pop online store, if you send the wrong item to someone, it's tough luck. The customer gets to keep it. But if you are running a multi billion dollar online business, then you have the power to get that item back and/or punish the customer.

Same with the idea of putting the price wrong in a physical store. At a big store, they'll catch that at the cash and charge you the right price. In a mom and pop store, the customer is legally in the right to take the item at the wrong, lower, price.

Sadly how the world works.

 

[Sonikku]

I noticed in that video, that he made an off-hand comment, that if you "just receive something in the mail, doesn't mean that you can keep it".

My understanding, and this I've heard repeatedly over the years, from people, is that if you receive something in the mail, UNSOLICITED (edit: and addresssed specifically TO YOU, or ADDRESSEE at that address), that you CAN keep it, or otherwise CANNOT be forced to pay for it. (Apparently, that used to be a sort of scam some years back, sending people packages that they didn't order, and trying to force them to pay for it.)

Supposedly, this is in the federal mail-order statutes. (If anyone knows offhand where, I would like to know.)

HOWEVER, my understanding is that THIS DOES NOT APPLY, to "mis-delivered" packages, those that show up on your doorstep, but addresses to SOMEONE ELSE. Those, you are basically required to make "all reasonable attempts" to return to sender, or deliver to the correct recipient. I suppose simply turning the goods over to the police would be an acceptable solution as well.

So if he said "Yeah, I got one. But it's addressed to me, so I'm not turning it over" he'd be in the clear?

 

[clamum]

For anyone that is actually interested in the legalities of this.... I subscribe to this guy and noticed he did a video on this:

Thanks, I'll check that out later.

Agreed with others about getting the full story from the news. I (try to) stay reasonably abreast of current news every day by scanning the headlines and maybe a couple articles, just so I somewhat know what's going on, but I absolutely abhor the pathetic state of news. You get one side of the story usually and it's full of half facts and bullshit and atrociously lazy "journalism." It's just disgusting.

 

[alcoholbob]

The law system always works in the favour of the bigger guy. Say you are running a mom and pop online store, if you send the wrong item to someone, it's tough luck. The customer gets to keep it. But if you are running a multi billion dollar online business, then you have the power to get that item back and/or punish the customer.

Same with the idea of putting the price wrong in a physical store. At a big store, they'll catch that at the cash and charge you the right price. In a mom and pop store, the customer is legally in the right to take the item at the wrong, lower, price.

Sadly how the world works.

Right, which is basically fascism. Bigger entities become a national moral hazard, any losses are socialized, profits are privatized, they get to lobby for regulations that hurt the smaller stores that the bigger entity can absorb through their larger compliance/legal departments while at the same time getting bigger tax breaks for being bigger, and the cops are basically tax-payer funded Pinkertons that work for the coporations.