Posted on 03/01/2013 11:29:15 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
A Massachusetts woman is suing FedEx claiming the company put her safety at risk and violated her privacy, CBS Boston reports.
A package containing several pounds of marijuana mistakenly arrived at the doorstep of Maryangela Tobin, a package she thought was a birthday present for her daughter.
"There were candles, pixie sticks and peppermint, and something we thought was potpourri," she said.
But the vacuum packed bags beneath were narcotics and Plymouth police called the company to flag the package saying the recipient could be a risk. But an hour later, Tobin says a man was knocking at her front door looking for the package, with two other men sitting in a vehicle in her driveway. She says FedEx gave away her address, and led the suspected dealers to her house.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
As long as it's Drug War supporters they're setting up, I'll chalk it up to poetic justice.
The taxpayers owed the damages. So no harm no foul.
It's a really crappy story. You have to watch the video to get the key point, which is apparently that FedEx delivered the package to the wrong address, then told the intended recipients where they had erroneously delivered it. I assume it's that address disclosure that Ms Tobin is suing over.
IOW, it's not the usual case, where the druggies ship the package to a random address and then attempt to retrieve it from the doorstep before the random recipient does (all the while running counter-surveillance, as you mention).
Great, by that perverse logic, let’s legalize terrorism, so we can end the “war on terror”.
How does the war on terror incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people?
And on another level how does your notion of ending the war on drugs by joining the enemy impact state’s rights? Does the federal government have the power to decide illegal drugs are suddenly legal, constraining every state from the power to enforce their own drug laws against drug contraband shipped to their state through interstate commerce?
Of course not.
I agree.
The states must have consent. The federal government is Big Brother, but fortunately the federal government is constrained by the Constitution.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Yes. According to AP, anway.
If you have to absolutely, positively get it there, forget FedEx and use the United States Postal Service.
I have to say, I didn't research this story thoroughly; I just assumed the County had to pay; maybe another FReeper really knows the story.
That said, how on earth do you rationalize that the taxpayer should by rights have footed the bill? Those idiot pet-killer cops should have paid out of their pockets and have been sentenced to a year of community service cleaning the elephant and gorilla pens at the National Zoo.
I order stuff on line all the time, and just about never look at the address when I get a package. I will look at the sender and if it’s not familar or something I expected, I may glance back at the addressee. Generally, however, I just open them up, it might be a book or printer cartridges or spices or a DVD or telescope accessories that I ordered two weeks before and haven’t thought much about since.
I’m pretty sure, if someone shipped me ten pounds of cocaine, I’d have it opened up before I read the address.
That is a much better story.
Do you think this will be one of the “Regrets” awaiting Bob Woodward?
Not necessarily.
Packages containing drugs can be sent to residential addresses on the expectation that it will be delivered during the daytime and left on the front door step if the owner is not home. Which home to send the package to? Follow the delivery truck and observe where packages are left on door steps. After some days of observation, you’ll have an idea of what addresses are suitable to discreetly pickup a package left on the doorstep of an absent homeowner.
With on-line delivery tracking available for packages and realtime updates on deliveries, you can know when the package is delivered as soon as the driver logs the information into the system. As soon as the package is reported as delivered in the tracking system, the drug dealer can drive to the address, collect the package, and be gone. I’m just surprised the drug dealer contacted the home owner. Now there is a face to be connected with the delivery. Maybe he was operating outside his home territory/range and didn’t care. Still, there has to be some expectation that not 100% will come through.
Here is a link to an incident about 5 years ago where the package got picked up and taken inside before the drug dealer could retreive it:
(Pretty cheeky sending the package to the Mayor’s house. There are additional links in sidebars to the story, including the SWAT raid that resulted in shooting the Mayor’s two Labs.)
I guess I am the odd one then. I always verify that something was ordered by my household before opening. I’ve been known to try to deliver it myself, or to call the sender if it is something unexpected. I thought everyone did that as common courtesy.
Now you sound like a lib. If we would only embrace our enemies they'd love us, and we'd all just get along. You demonize some of the tactics of the War on Terror, with the implied parallel argument of demonizing some of the tactics of the War on Drugs in order to discredit the effort, but you make an overly sweeping assertion. A society has a right to community standards. Anarchy is not a right. The absence of the rule of law is not freedom.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Naturally. Every state is a miniature experiment. The states with stupid ideas (e.g. high taxes, reverse discrimination in hiring, excessive welfare-state benefits that discourage productivity,....legalizing heroin?) will eventually suffer because of their ill-considered practices. The states with better ideas will thrive, and eventually the states with stupid ideas will adopt the practices of the successful states. Federalism, as envisioned by the founders.
I see you're falling into the pattern of a typical 'liberal-tarian', with a parochial habit of continually asking questions in lieu of a coherent defense.
Great, by that perverse logic, let’s legalize terrorism, so we can end the “war on terror”.
How does the war on terror incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people?
Now you sound like a lib. If we would only embrace our enemies they'd love us, and we'd all just get along.
Wrong - I asked a question, which you are apparently unable to answer. But since you indicate below that you find asking questions to be suspect for some reason, here's a statement: the war on terror doe not incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people (and so my anti-WoD argument does not apply there).
You demonize some of the tactics of the War on Terror, with the implied parallel argument of demonizing some of the tactics of the War on Drugs in order to discredit the effort,
Wrong again - any connection between the wars is your baseless inference not my implication.
but you make an overly sweeping assertion. A society has a right to community standards. Anarchy is not a right. The absence of the rule of law is not freedom.
Straw man - I argue not for anarchy but an end to futile and counterproductive drug bans.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Naturally. [...] Federalism, as envisioned by the founders.
Good to hear! Many FR Drug Warriors frantically tap-dance around states' rights.
I see you're falling into the pattern of a typical 'liberal-tarian', with a parochial habit of continually asking questions in lieu of a coherent defense.
That's pretty funny considering that my text to which you first replied was not a question. As a man of consistent principle, I'm sure you won't be asking me any - although if you did you might be less prone to false inferences and straw men.
A question?! How parochial and incoherent!
When I bought my current house and moved in, I found that the owner had stripped the house of light fixtures that should have stayed, we eventually went to court over that and he had to replace them.
Before going to court however, I truly accidentally opened a letter delivered here that was addressed to him.....from the I.R.S., they were going to audit him and provided him with a phone number and address, to get in touch with them for an appointment.
I threw it away and in the next several months I continued to get letters in his name, I threw those away too, unopened. What I did was questionably illegal but I did stop at one plan of mine to write back to them, in his name telling them to go to hell and take their audit with them....I might have done some jail time for that.
Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it, then you claim my inference is incorrect though my inference made a better argument that you are capable of -- which is not surprising since your original statement is more nonsense than fact. "Hooch" is by definition illegal and shipping it implies marketing of it, so there will always be incentives to ship it, to avoid liquor taxes. Or if you carelessly meant homebrewed liquor by "hooch", then in order for homebrewed liquor sales to be legal, the tax revenues on all liquor would have to be eliminated to forego any competitive advantage by the unlicensed "hooch" makers, an unrealistic expectation. More likely your "hooch" would be taxed, which would preserve the black market for your "hooch". Furthermore in shipment, if liquor is not properly declared then it's also illegal because any significant quantity of alcohol is dangerous to ship, and therefore has to be declared (just as if you were to ship rubbing alcohol). Finally "At one remove" is ambiguous. So the bottom line is you wrote a sloppy sentence outlining your flawed thinking and were called on it. You've been backtracking ever since.
Try re-writing your screed and standing in line on Stossel's show the next time he has Ann Coulter as a guest punching bag. You can ask a question, right behind the similarly-minded misguided kids fighting for repealing laws against gay marriage.
And, at one remove, of the War on Drugs that incentivizes such system-playing - nobody gets threatened by rumrunners seeking their stealthily-shipped hooch, because there's no incentive to stealthily ship hooch.
Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it
It made perfect sense as a clause attached to the sentence to which it was a reply (see above).
"Hooch" is by definition illegal
Semantic gymnastics. Nobody's impressed.
You've been backtracking ever since.
Rejecting your clumsy misreadings is not "backtracking."
I notice you avoid addressing any substantive points - here they are again:
"the war on terror doe not incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people (and so my anti-WoD argument does not apply there)."
"I argue not for anarchy but an end to futile and counterproductive drug bans."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.