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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2019, 10:35 PM
 
21,417 posts, read 27,399,920 times
Reputation: 15572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The ordering and delivery details are not relevant to the charges.

He's charged with lying to the police. They asked him specific questions and he gave them false answers to their questions.

Debate about whether he was in his rights to keep the television is irrelevant--that's not what the charges are about.
Misleading a police officer was only one of the charges. He was also charged with larceny, so yeah, his "rights" or lack of them to keep the TV are relevant here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2019, 10:59 PM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
4,425 posts, read 2,775,294 times
Reputation: 3903
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Funny how police surrounded his house, they must have thought they were dealing with a real scarface type criminal!
"Say hello to my 86" friend!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 01:05 AM
 
19,662 posts, read 12,896,129 times
Reputation: 13387
Leave us look at this with a bit of common sense and logic.


Nick Memmo has not produced an invoice, packing slip, shipping label or anything else that shows the television in question was ordered (even if in error), shipped or otherwise sent by Amazon.com to be delivered to his home. Instead he keeps going on like many of you here; claiming after some "research" he believed legally the merchandise was his due to it being delivered to incorrect address or whatever.


Anything shipped by Amazon even when handled by a third party shipper would come in some sort of packaging with a shipping label affixed, and included paperwork (invoice/receipt, waybill, return shipping label, etc...). If Mr. Memmo had produced any of those items showing that Amazon indeed made the mistake that would be a different story. But he's got nothing, zip, nada, zero, stugots.


Indeed that third party delivery service would be less liable for this whole mess if they could point to an invoice or something from Amazon showing they did deliver television as ordered (according to paperwork). Also how would they know a television was not delivered to proper address if all their paperwork checked out. That is if *two* television sets were addressed to Mr. Memmo, that is what happened so how could they then have been short and otherwise made aware something was wrong?


It hasn't been made public yet, but am willing to bet this all leads to somewhere there is paperwork showing who the television set was ordered by, and shipping address.


Nick Memmo was arrested and charged for basically theft by lying/deception. If he had busted out with said paperwork either at time of arrest, and or being booked it would have shed a completely different light upon things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 01:18 AM
 
19,662 posts, read 12,896,129 times
Reputation: 13387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
So you don't know. Thanks for the answer.

The reason I asked the question is because the news story said that the item was "mailed to his home by mistake," indicating an error on the sender's part.

Writer of that Yahoo.com news story is repeating second hand sourced information.


You cannot "mail" something large as that huge big screen television. USPS does not deliver nor even accept such large parcels.


Further down into the story writer says "shipping company disagrees..." Well which is it? Was television "mailed" or delivered by a shipping company.


There are those who use "mailed" to mean any parcel or delivery, which is incorrect.




https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man-...230124458.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 01:23 AM
 
19,662 posts, read 12,896,129 times
Reputation: 13387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I didn't claim it was "one of their employees who delivered the television set." It was, however, one of their employees who printed out the label and put it on the package, which is what I meant by a mistake by one of their employees. Clear enough now?

I'm quite aware that Amazon employees don't do the damn deliveries.

Again, what I am wondering is how the package was addressed and whose name was on the thing. People keep claiming someone else's name was on it, but it's just as likely that whoever was making labels made an error. Before someone jumps on this and twists it in typical C-D fashion, I'm not claiming that an employee error absolves the recipient, but the fact that he's tried to claim the FCC ruling as applicable (which it isn't, Cloudy, so give it up) suggests that it may have been addressed to him.


Dude, go back and read linked articles above, and or do some research on our own.


Nick Memmo admitted to God and the world that the television was delivered to him by mistake, *and* he was well aware of that fact.


"Memmo admits it was delivered to his home by mistake and he admits police tried to question him about it several days before his arrest."


https://www.boston25news.com/news/fr...take/932527925
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 03:54 AM
 
21,417 posts, read 27,399,920 times
Reputation: 15572
Dude, I get that substandard reporting is a part of the picture here and that "mailing" is often used to denote any type of shipping. Other news stories used "sent" instead of "mailed," including the one you linked to. I should have saved you a tangent and used that word myself.

The guy admitted that the thing was "sent to him by mistake," but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was addressed to someone else. If someone orders a TV and two show up, it's a no-brainer for anyone who can count as high as two that a mistake was made somewhere along the line.

I'm just wondering why he would try to say that the FCC ruling applies to his situation if the parcel had someone else's name and address on it. Maybe he really is that dumb, idk.

Before you go off again, understand that I'm not making a definitive case for the thing being mislabeled or trying claim that the TV was his to keep. Even if it had been mislabeled, he wouldn't have a legal right to keep it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 04:49 AM
 
19,662 posts, read 12,896,129 times
Reputation: 13387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
Dude, I get that substandard reporting is a part of the picture here and that "mailing" is often used to denote any type of shipping. Other news stories used "sent" instead of "mailed," including the one you linked to. I should have saved you a tangent and used that word myself.

The guy admitted that the thing was "sent to him by mistake," but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was addressed to someone else. If someone orders a TV and two show up, it's a no-brainer for anyone who can count as high as two that a mistake was made somewhere along the line.

I'm just wondering why he would try to say that the FCC ruling applies to his situation if the parcel had someone else's name and address on it. Maybe he really is that dumb, idk.

Before you go off again, understand that I'm not making a definitive case for the thing being mislabeled or trying claim that the TV was his to keep. Even if it had been mislabeled, he wouldn't have a legal right to keep it.


Answer is very simple; Nick Memmo tried or is trying to run game and get himself a brand new giant screen television for *free*.


Knowing from the start he didn't order the larger television set Nick Memmo should have strongly refused delivery; that would have been the right thing to do. This especially if none of the documentation had or has his name. But no, the guy took delivery of said television and promptly began researching scheming ways to keep the thing.


He ignored/disregarded telephone calls from delivery service, then lied and evaded LE first time they came to question him about the matter.


Personally don't think Mr. Memmo thought things would go this far; that is either he truly does believe that FTC or whatever rules/laws apply in this situation and thus is in his rights to keep the television. Or, just thought Amazon or whoever would forget the matter and eat the loss.


We'll find out more by Nick Memmo's next court date. The television is now unboxed/used either Amazon or the delivery company is going to eat some kind of loss. Original recipient of that large TV is hardly going to want that one after it has been installed, uninstalled, hauled in by LE as evidence and so forth. Amazon likely sent them a replacement by now anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 05:16 AM
 
294 posts, read 82,540 times
Reputation: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
So .... has it been established that the TV was actually addressed to someone else, or did the mistake originate at the distribution center (as in both TVs somehow got addressed to him)? Does anyone know if it was actually addressed to the guy?
Nobody knows yet and could be hard to prove?
The perpetrator probably destroyed the box with the label on it. If a small shipping company does not have proper Procedure for signing ( no name of recipient, or something scribbled- this guy may have an argument.) He would say addressed to him, the company may not be able to produce a label
I bet there will be a some sort of settlement in this case.
Amazon would not want this to draw attention any longer than it is.
Wonder how much that TV ? was it really worth it to muddy your own name like that? Wonder what line of work that guy is in- hope he does not need a new job soon...
His face all over the TV, hope his mother / father not around to see it.

Last edited by Nik4me; 03-28-2019 at 05:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 05:42 AM
 
294 posts, read 82,540 times
Reputation: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
If he had just kept his mouth shut he wouldn't have had this problem.
Funny
They say Police was trying to talk to him and after he refused- they got a warrant to make him talk to them about this matter- police was investigating the shipping company complaint ( the shipping company had tried for 3 month of emailing, calling and postal mail- then went to police)
I have read somewhere, that he was not arrested for larceny but for avoiding a bench warrant- a felony; he was evading the police in trying NOT TO TALK to them.


So don’t make him a “ stick to the man hero” - he was not a freedom fighter and is trying to de-fraud a small business, which can’t spread their losses to the customers- you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,420 posts, read 389,514 times
Reputation: 3662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
So .... has it been established that the TV was actually addressed to someone else, or did the mistake originate at the distribution center (as in both TVs somehow got addressed to him)? Does anyone know if it was actually addressed to the guy?
I don't think it matters, either way this guy did not have a right to keep the tv whether it was the seller's or the shipper's mistake. The article makes it pretty clear though that it was the shipper's fault, and I don't think it's possible that they created a label with the wrong name and address on it, because shipping company's don't fill out shipping labels - sellers do.
I think it's pretty safe to assume the shipping label on the second tv was not made out to idiot.
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

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