U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2019, 03:29 PM
 
20,359 posts, read 16,515,961 times
Reputation: 38206

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
it sounds like they made plenty of efforts to recover the tv before he was arrested. what does that mean he has nothing to worry about? under what logic does the guy have the right to keep the product? the guy sounds like a lowlife dirtbag to me. he knew he was stealing, he was just hoping it wasnt worth anyone's effort to arrest him.
If it were a major carrier they probably would not have called police, but it sounds like the tv was delivered by a small outfit who probably couldn’t just eat the cost of replacing the tv.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2019, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,857 posts, read 536,955 times
Reputation: 4691
"After looking up the laws I thought I could legally keep it."
"I answered the cops questions with 'I don't know.'"
"If I knew I would be arrested I would have given the tv back."
What a pos, doing the right thing never occured to him - what he thought he could get away with was his only concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 03:43 PM
 
12,193 posts, read 18,345,843 times
Reputation: 18969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Suspicion to charge isn't proof of anything, it's just a suspicion that can be backed by some evidence, which may include the company saying he signed for it.

But, again the signature has to be shown to be for that TV, and only that TV, if he signed once as he received both TV's at the same time, you'd have to show that the signature was making a knowingly false representation, he'd have to know that he was signing for both, and that one was not addressed to him at the time of signing, and be able to prove it. I've received several things of high value from Amazon (my home theater speakers came to around $30,000 came in one delivery, the fronts alone were $5k a tower), and only provided one signature for the lot, the only time I've needed to provide more than one signature is if there was more than one retailer involved, and both need signature proof of delivery, because both originated from different retailers. While I cannot corroborate this is the same for everyone, I can't help but think that if this is typical, then it's going to be hard to prove he made false pretenses to receive that larger TV, when getting his actual order completed required the same signature.

Sure if the police want to charge someone with something they can, mail and wire fraud are prime examples, if you've ever lied online and it could be determined that it was for gain (undefined what gain its talking about), you may be guilty of felony wire fraud.
One of the articles referenced a signature and him claiming "he didn't remember" if he signed for the shipment or not. There might also have been some statement that he made to the police that got him in trouble. Who knows, as usual the police only provide the basic of information. We shall see in time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 05:47 PM
 
20,612 posts, read 13,629,904 times
Reputation: 14253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
One of the articles referenced a signature and him claiming "he didn't remember" if he signed for the shipment or not. There might also have been some statement that he made to the police that got him in trouble. Who knows, as usual the police only provide the basic of information. We shall see in time.
Jails and prisons are full of people who "didn't remember" this or that action, and or otherwise have a very convenient memory.


Law 101: You cannot be guilty of lying/perjury if response to questions are "I don't recall/remember". Such responses also aren't much use for self incrimination either; though even a half blind jury can see someone is lying through their teeth.


Just watch any crime/law show from Perry Mason on down, that or read court transcripts of actual trials. Either way you'll find no small number of witnesses and or accused that repeat again and again; I cannot recall/ I don't remember. That is when LE, DA or whatever attorney busts out various evidence (if they have it). Otherwise it is just one large game of cat and mouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 06:58 PM
 
3,195 posts, read 1,805,299 times
Reputation: 8432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
Here is the law. You don't have to like the law, but it is the law. The police can arrest him for it, but until he is convicted, it means nothing.



39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise _ U.S. Code _ US Law _ LII _ Legal Information Institute
Are you by any chance a sovereign citizen? That’s how your logic comes across. You can parrot irrelevant FTC regulations all you want, it won’t change the fact that the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISION has ZERO AUTHORITY over misdirected or erroneous deliveries, regardless of who sends and receives them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 08:21 PM
 
19,922 posts, read 11,072,620 times
Reputation: 19911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
But anyways, apparently they have proof, he was aware.
This is the reason - the actual charge: "Larceny Over $1,200 by false pretense and misleading a police officer."
We can argue the FTC rule all day but it's a waste of time, he's not being charged for simply keeping something that was shipped to him in error. False pretense - he made some kind of claim or signed something knowing that he was not entitled to the TV, with then intent of theft or fraud. The full story I am sure will come out eventually. In another article they stated that the police literally had to obtain a search warrant to get the TV.

Really, when it comes down to it, it sounds like even when the police visited he could have settled this. He probably pissed off the cops somehow. There is an old story - a cop sees a car parked in the desert, no road or other cars for miles, if he's pissed off he can find reasons to write tickets all day long.
The charge itself obviates any reference to the FTC regulation.

This is like the charge that sent Martha Stewart to prison. She didn't go to prison for violating stock market regulations, she went to jail for lying to investigators about something that was actually innocuous.

The charge here is not about the defendant keeping the television, it's about how he handled himself as the police investigated. He may have been attempting to steal something he had a right to keep, and committed a crime by the attempt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 10:00 PM
 
5,908 posts, read 2,004,519 times
Reputation: 5548
If he had just kept his mouth shut he wouldn't have had this problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 12:30 AM
 
10,291 posts, read 2,633,739 times
Reputation: 7031
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
If he had just kept his mouth shut he wouldn't have had this problem.
Yep, thats why its so important to be teaching our kids to KNOW their rights when it comes to interacting with police, rather than just telling them to OBEY and COMPLY anything and everything police instruct or ask of you. We would have a lot less people getting themselves into trouble if we started teaching kids their rights related to interacting with police, what they can ask, and cannot, when you must respond and when you dont have to as well...very important!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 12:50 AM
 
28 posts, read 2,111 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
If it were a major carrier they probably would not have called police, but it sounds like the tv was delivered by a small outfit who probably couldn’t just eat the cost of replacing the tv.
I would think if that was the case the delivery person would not have told him to keep it.. He would have def taken it back to thier shop and made sure it was correctly delivered....... (So they wouldnt have to worry of replacing it)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 05:05 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,270 posts, read 871,199 times
Reputation: 12429
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
If he had just kept his mouth shut he wouldn't have had this problem.
If he hadn't tried to keep what was not his, he wouldn't have had this problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top