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 ...
Thanks for your post — it appears the County was held liable; and by that, I mean the taxpayers paid the bill. It should have come from the pockets of the individuals who shot the dogs. Your article even says the dogs were not provoking the officers.
A silver-dollar sized bundle of dope and a few empty baggies are all they need to plant on you to declare you a dealer and ruin your life. The cop gets promoted sooner and the government seizes your property. Corrupt local governments also use this system to imprison people at will. It happened to a friend of mine during a property dispute.
It happens all the time to innocent people and the cops typically get a slap on the wrist so they don't "talk too much":
Yes I understand your awkward, mangled statement makes perfect sense to you.
Like many misguided denizens of liberalism, you prefer to demonize the law-makers instead of the law-breakers. Perhaps you engage in those activities yourself, and feel threatened. As for the other side, perhaps they’re your suppliers. Perfect — it might also explain the mangled syntax.
Now excuse me for a while, I have to “at one remove” myself from this thread before I throw up on the keyboard.
Definitely a NOT GUILTY here...
I'm just going to interrupt here to state that there is plenty of stealthily shipped hooch, but they don't use UPS or Fed Ex to move it because shipping costs. Booze has a much lower value by volume, so it's not cost effective to ship by contract carriers like drugs are.
Most hooch is illegal because it's being sold with fraudulent labels and tax stamps and in very large volumes to bars who are buying cheap and selling high while avoiding applicable federal, state and county taxes.
It's more about business model than it is about the illegality of the substance. Even if dope were legal, there will be people involved in moving black market product with fake tax stamps just like they do with booze and cigarettes.
Fed Ex was stupid to give out the mistaken recipients address instead of saying they had sent someone to retrieve the package for re-delivery. It will cost them.
Sounds like you might be either: (a) postal eployee or (b) a G-man...: )
Former prosecutor, did a lot of drug trafficking prosecution.
lol......
The lawsuit claims "FedEx disclosed the address "despite explicit Police advisory against such disclosures" and violated Massachusetts privacy laws."
Lawyers make all sorts of claims on behalf of clients, but if it all went down as you suggest, I'd expect this lawsuit to be dismissed rather quickly.
Fascinating story, though. Wish we knew more.
One thing is certain, however: That lady needs to get out of Dodge. Drug dealers aren't known for their sense of what's fair or not fair, nor for their patience and willingness to listen to fine legal distinctions!
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. [emphasis added]
Like many misguided denizens of liberalism, you prefer to demonize the law-makers instead of the law-breakers.
Which part of "and" did you not understand?
Perhaps you engage in those activities yourself, and feel threatened. As for the other side, perhaps theyre your suppliers. Perfect it might also explain the mangled syntax.
And here come the Drug Warrior ad hominem slurs, right on schedule.
I have to at one remove myself
A little free education for you:
re·move
[ri-moov] verb, re·moved, re·mov·ing, noun noun
15.
a degree of difference, as that due to descent, transmission, etc.: a folk survival, at many removes, of a druidic rite.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/remove
I'm just going to interrupt here to state that there is plenty of stealthily shipped hooch, but they don't use UPS or Fed Ex to move it
So nobody gets threatened by rumrunners seeking it, as I said.
Most hooch is illegal because it's being sold with fraudulent labels and tax stamps and in very large volumes to bars who are buying cheap and selling high while avoiding applicable federal, state and county taxes.
How much is "plenty" in comparison to the legal movement of this legal drug?
Pretty small, because of the cumbersome volume of the product. It’s too much work for the pay off.
I have no problem with legalization of all drugs. My point is that it’s not the legal status of alcohol that causes Fed Ex or UPS to not be used for moving hooch.
Fed Ex and UPS are simply the wrong shipping method for the product. It was a business model point, not a legalization point. If it were cost effective, moon shiners would be using it same as dope shippers.
If dope were legal, USPS flat rate priority mail envelopes would be hands down the most cost effective method of shipment.
I agree with your business model point.
If it were cost effective, moon shiners would be using it same as dope shippers.
Which brings us to the legalization point that there are simply far fewer moonshiners because alcohol is legal.
I don’t know about that. Government can raise sin taxes to the point that it incentivizes the black market in the same manner prohibition stimulates the drug trade.
There is huge business in cigarettes with counterfeit tax stamps compared to booze, partly I think because nicotine is more addictive and because smokes are more compact and because gov’t has found it easy to continuously raise cigarette taxes while the booze lobby has a much larger consumer/voter base to protect them from the perpetually revenue hungry politicians.
I dont know about that. Government can raise sin taxes to the point that it incentivizes the black market in the same manner prohibition stimulates the drug trade.
It CAN do that - but the near absence of a black market in alcohol indicates that it has not done so (yet).
There is huge business in cigarettes with counterfeit tax stamps compared to booze, partly I think because nicotine is more addictive and because smokes are more compact and because govt has found it easy to continuously raise cigarette taxes while the booze lobby has a much larger consumer/voter base to protect them from the perpetually revenue hungry politicians.
All true - but of the differences you note, I think the tax difference is the largest.
It is also true that shipping liquids is a shipper’s PITA, which is another reason to not bother with booze. If alcohol came in a powder you mixed with water to drink, it would be trafficked illegally with counterfeit tax stamps just like the smokes are.
As compact and easily smuggled as drugs are in comparison to alcohol, it amazes me how more people don’t get why interdiction and the WOD is such a waste of resources and a chronic endangerer of civil rights.
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.