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.
Just saying. If what he did, is actually a crime, then why did the case vaporize? There are only really two possibilities. Either the case moves forward and goes to trial, or the charges get dismissed. If this case moved forward, then where is the record of his court appearances?
The first thing to understand is that any cop, can arrest and charge any person, at any time, for any reason he feels like. That does not mean the DA or a judge will go along with the charges. Under the Constitution a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There is no evidence that this man has been proven guilty, or ever will be proven guilty. That means at this time the man is 100% innocent of any crime. That is not my opinion, that is a Constitutional fact, that many here seem to not understand.
Quote:
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
And there won't be any updates, because they rarely report cases when charges are dropped. Which is what is going to happen. Because you can't prosecute somebody for keeping a free gift.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the guy was not the recipient of a "free gift," but rather, a mistaken delivery. To continue to lie about the facts, when you absolutely understand the facts, appears to be the manifestation of some sort of mental disorder. You really should seek professional help.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the guy was not the recipient of a "free gift," but rather, a mistaken delivery. To continue to lie about the facts, when you absolutely understand the facts, appears to be the manifestation of some sort of mental disorder. You really should seek professional help.
It has been demonstrated here that it was a free gift, under both state and federal law. You just don't want to accept the facts, and apparently the lack of a conviction is not going to change your mind. So I don't think there is any point in continuing the debate. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
It has been demonstrated here that it was a free gift, under both state and federal law. You just don't want to accept the facts, and apparently the lack of a conviction is not going to change your mind. So I don't think there is any point in continuing the debate. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
Nope. You just keep insisting it was despite the evidence. Copies of the relevant statues have been copied into the thread. You either haven't read them, or don't understand them. Either way, you're wrong.
As has already been pointed out, a conviction is unlikely. He will pay for the TV, or give it back, and possibly pay a fine. It is unlikely to ever make the news.
Just saying. If what he did, is actually a crime, then why did the case vaporize? There are only really two possibilities. Either the case moves forward and goes to trial, or the charges get dismissed. If this case moved forward, then where is the record of his court appearances?
The first thing to understand is that any cop, can arrest and charge any person, at any time, for any reason he feels like. That does not mean the DA or a judge will go along with the charges. Under the Constitution a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There is no evidence that this man has been proven guilty, or ever will be proven guilty. That means at this time the man is 100% innocent of any crime. That is not my opinion, that is a Constitutional fact, that many here seem to not understand.
That has not happened here. So the man is innocent.
As I already stated, I think it's far more likely that he was given the option of paying for the tv in return for the charges being dropped. It's also possible he's been found guilty, but there is no way the charges were dropped because it was decided that what he did wasn't a crime. For the millionth time, it was NOT A FREE GIFT.
so I'm supposed to call amazon and spend MY time fixing their goof
if its a recognized address say a neighbor...no brainer I take them their tv with a smile
Heck I believe in karma
I would waze the address, cvarefully load the tv into my truck...and take it to them
THEY can call the amazon tards and figure out why the tards goofed...within reason, not driving 2 hours both ways lol
but he didn't go and take it, they dropped it off...he shouldn't be arrested
the rightful owners SHOULD get their tv...let amazon eat it
so I'm supposed to call amazon and spend MY time fixing their goof
if its a recognized address say a neighbor...no brainer I take them their tv with a smile
Heck I believe in karma
I would waze the address, cvarefully load the tv into my truck...and take it to them
THEY can call the amazon tards and figure out why the tards goofed...within reason, not driving 2 hours both ways lol
but he didn't go and take it, they dropped it off...he shouldn't be arrested
the rightful owners SHOULD get their tv...let amazon eat it
It's really not that big a deal. You call Amazon, they arrange for pick up, you don't even have to print a label, the carrier brings it with them.
Or of course, you could try to steal it by just keeping something that was delivered in error and clearly never intended to be received by you. And you could decide just how long before you can stop worrying about being arrested.
so I'm supposed to call amazon and spend MY time fixing their goof
if its a recognized address say a neighbor...no brainer I take them their tv with a smile
Heck I believe in karma
I would waze the address, cvarefully load the tv into my truck...and take it to them
THEY can call the amazon tards and figure out why the tards goofed...within reason, not driving 2 hours both ways lol
but he didn't go and take it, they dropped it off...he shouldn't be arrested
the rightful owners SHOULD get their tv...let amazon eat it
Here we go again. A decent person would have told the delivery driver that only one of the tvs was his instead of signing for both because he was like "free tv, cool!". For him to allow this mistake to happen in the first place was a lapse in ethics and judgement, but to not give it back after being asked makes him a criminal. No, Amazon was not at fault so why should they eat it? This was nothing more than an honest mistake by a delivery driver.
As I already stated, I think it's far more likely that he was given the option of paying for the tv in return for the charges being dropped. It's also possible he's been found guilty, but there is no way the charges were dropped because it was decided that what he did wasn't a crime. For the millionth time, it was NOT A FREE GIFT.
No, if he was found guilty, he would have had to appear in court to be sentenced. There would a record of that, but there is none.
I don't disagree that the case likely ended in mediation. That is the way a case like this would normally be resolved. There is no way of knowing what might have happened in mediation. He may or may not have agreed to return the TV.
An example of how mediation could work. Here in Oregon a man was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, when school district employees called the police on him for filming their building from a public sidewalk. Which is 100% a Constitutional right, by too many court cases to mention. Ultimately the case was resolved with mediation between the man and the police department. The charges were dropped and the police department agreed not to arrest the man again for filming in a public place. The police admitted that they were wrong to arrest the man.
No, if he was found guilty, he would have had to appear in court to be sentenced. There would a record of that, but there is none.
I don't disagree that the case likely ended in mediation. That is the way a case like this would normally be resolved. There is no way of knowing what might have happened in mediation. He may or may not have agreed to return the TV.
Wait, what?!? After steadfastly maintaining your ridiculous (and completely incorrect) assertion that what he did was 100% legal under both Federal and state law, you're now changing your story to this "likely ended in mediation?" Why would that be likely, if he was 100% legal?
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.
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.
