Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. mom sues FedEx for giving suspected drug dealers her address
CBS ^ | 03/01/2013

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; fedex; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
This woman is SOL.
1 posted on 03/01/2013 11:29:22 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Help me out here. Are we to assume FedEx handed out her address because the drug dealers didn’t know where they sent the package?


2 posted on 03/01/2013 11:35:34 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

She’ll be fine. She just has to blast her shotgun in the air a couple of times and everything will be rosy.


3 posted on 03/01/2013 11:35:50 AM PST by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The way I’m interpreting it, FedEx delivered it to the wrong address. Then when the drug dealers called them up demanding to know where their package was, FedEx told ‘em.


4 posted on 03/01/2013 11:41:35 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Did Fed Ex mis-deliver the package to the wrong address and then tell the addressee where the driver left the package?


5 posted on 03/01/2013 11:42:36 AM PST by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

“She’ll be fine. She just has to blast her shotgun in the air a couple of times and everything will be rosy.”

Noooooo, through the door!


6 posted on 03/01/2013 11:42:52 AM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (This stuff we're going through now, this is nothing compared to the middle ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

definitely not a birthday gift for the daughter


7 posted on 03/01/2013 11:45:06 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The drug dealers knew where they sent the package. It was a deliberate attempt to get around package interdiction programs run by law enforcement. Law enforcement will run dogs through Fed Ex, USPS and UPS shipping hubs and will pull packages that fit various profiles. Those packages are then put under the dog’s nose, and if there is an alert, they get a search warrant for the package. If narcotics are found, then a transmitter triggered by opening the package is enclosed, and the package resealed. The package is then delivered in a “controlled delivery” by law enforcement officers, who are in possession of an “anticipatory search warrant” that allows them to make entry if the transmitter indicates the package is opened.

In this case, the drug traffickers were trying to defeat that process with several layers of protection, the first being all the scented candles, potpourri and the like. If there was a “controlled delivery” by law enforcement, it would be on the home of this poor innocent woman, not the intended recipient. The idea was that the drug traffickers would be at the home waiting for the delivery, and if there were no unmarked police vans around, they would go get the package with some veiled threats involved.

This woman is lucky she didn’t get a visit by the SWAT team.


8 posted on 03/01/2013 11:47:57 AM PST by henkster (I have one more cow than my neighbor. I am a kulak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I doubt the traffickers called Fed Ex. The traffickers shipped it and had the parcel tracking #. They were monitoring the shipment on the Fed Ex website, and knowing when it was due to be delivered, they were in the neighborhood waiting. They were also running counter-surveillance to make sure the police were also not in the area waiting.

I don’t think she has a case against Fed Ex. She was an innocent victim of drug gangs who are playing the system.


9 posted on 03/01/2013 11:51:43 AM PST by henkster (I have one more cow than my neighbor. I am a kulak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: henkster

I don’t know. I had a similar thing happen to me with a pair of shoes from Zappos. They were supposed to be delivered to my son at college, but they never got there. When I tracked them, it said they went to the right street address but the wrong town. Zappos started a trace with UPS, and UPS eventually called me and told me where they’d been delivered. In this case, it was his mom’s house (they looked up his name and found it associated with her address), but they didn’t know that before they told me.


10 posted on 03/01/2013 11:59:47 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Yeah, they would have shot her dogs.


11 posted on 03/01/2013 12:02:25 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Having prosecuted several of these cases over the years, I strongly suspect it was not an innocent mistake by the sender of the package, Fed Ex did not make a shipping mistake, nor did they have to call Fed Ex. One would wonder whether Fed Ex would even have a record of the call if one were made, and I really doubt the guys in the driveway will be “available” as witnesses for her.


12 posted on 03/01/2013 12:02:50 PM PST by henkster (I have one more cow than my neighbor. I am a kulak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: henkster
She was an innocent victim of drug gangs who are playing the system.

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.

13 posted on 03/01/2013 12:08:11 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
A Massachusetts woman is suing FedEx claiming the company put her safety at risk and violated her privacy, CBS Boston reports.

So the news media puts her face and name on tv and lets everyone know she is from plymouth just in case the drug dealers missed something. But FedEx is left holding the bag. Well, they do have too much money.

14 posted on 03/01/2013 12:14:39 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

She may be mostly innocent. However, if it was an incorrect address as she claimed, why did she open it? I’m sure the name would have been incorrect in that case as well. I do know the shipper can get some information about where a package is delivered with the proper information for verification, but I don’t see any shipper fault here from the information we have.


15 posted on 03/01/2013 12:15:55 PM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: henkster
This woman is lucky she didn’t get a visit by the SWAT team.

Who would have shot her dogs and tied up and terrorized her elderly mother. This happened in Maryland to the mayor of one of our towns, whose front step was used in this way for a drug drop. The family were completely traumatized. And, of course, the taxpayer paid the damages.

"The deputies opened fire and executed our dogs the very second they broke down our front door," Calvo, 37, said at a news conference on his front lawn Thursday. "We were harmed by the very people who took an oath to protect us."


16 posted on 03/01/2013 12:24:38 PM PST by Albion Wilde (Gun control is hitting what you aim at. -- Chuck Norris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: henkster
This woman is lucky she didn’t get a visit by the SWAT team.

Just wait until the kiddies in the WH hears of this and decides to set up some of their enemies with this scam.

17 posted on 03/01/2013 12:24:58 PM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Attorneys for Prince George's County on Monday settled a lawsuit brought by Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo that accused deputies from a county sheriff's SWAT unit of storming into his home without a proper warrant the day they shot his family's two dogs and held him at gunpoint.

He's lucky he was a mayor - I don't think us little people are even allowed to sue the police.

18 posted on 03/01/2013 12:29:30 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Great, by that perverse logic, let’s legalize terrorism, so we can end the “war on terror”.

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. The states must have consent. The federal government is Big Brother, but fortunately the federal government is constrained by the Constitution. If the feds were to suddenly legalize pot (as an example) then pot shipments from Washington state to Texas would still not be legal, unless Texas legalized it too, in addition to other considerations. Each state transited by the dope shipments have a say.


19 posted on 03/01/2013 12:30:35 PM PST by zipper ("The Second Amendment IS my carry permit!" -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
She may be mostly innocent.

What do you mean by "mostly" innocent?

However, if it was an incorrect address as she claimed, why did she open it?

Where did she claim it was an incorrect address?

20 posted on 03/01/2013 12:31:05 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Just wait until the kiddies in the WH hears of this and decides to set up some of their enemies with this scam.

As long as it's Drug War supporters they're setting up, I'll chalk it up to poetic justice.

21 posted on 03/01/2013 12:31:35 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

The taxpayers owed the damages. So no harm no foul.


22 posted on 03/01/2013 12:34:03 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: henkster
I doubt the traffickers called Fed Ex. The traffickers shipped it and had the parcel tracking #. They were monitoring the shipment on the Fed Ex website, and knowing when it was due to be delivered, they were in the neighborhood waiting. They were also running counter-surveillance to make sure the police were also not in the area waiting.

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).

23 posted on 03/01/2013 12:36:00 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zipper
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.

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?

24 posted on 03/01/2013 12:36:52 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Did Fed Ex mis-deliver the package to the wrong address and then tell the addressee where the driver left the package?

Yes. According to AP, anway.

25 posted on 03/01/2013 12:42:32 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; Ingtar
A more detailed account (http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/28/55278.htm) confirms that it was the wrong address. But there's nothing suspicious about opening a package that's been delivered to your home - particularly near a birthday.
26 posted on 03/01/2013 12:50:02 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bgill

There’s a word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting


27 posted on 03/01/2013 12:52:47 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (What word begins with "O" and ends in economic collapse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

If you have to absolutely, positively get it there, forget FedEx and use the United States Postal Service.


28 posted on 03/01/2013 12:53:16 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
The taxpayers owed the damages. So no harm no foul.

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.

29 posted on 03/01/2013 12:54:42 PM PST by Albion Wilde (Gun control is hitting what you aim at. -- Chuck Norris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

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.


30 posted on 03/01/2013 1:03:30 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (What word begins with "O" and ends in economic collapse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
A more detailed account (http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/28/55278.htm) confirms that it was the wrong address.

That is a much better story.

31 posted on 03/01/2013 1:07:51 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Do you think this will be one of the “Regrets” awaiting Bob Woodward?


32 posted on 03/01/2013 1:09:16 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

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:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/09/13/ST2010091302597.html?sid=ST2010091302597

(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.)


33 posted on 03/01/2013 1:13:46 PM PST by Captain Rhino (Determined effort is the hammer that Human Will uses to forge Tomorrow on the anvil of Today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

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.


34 posted on 03/01/2013 1:14:45 PM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
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. 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.

35 posted on 03/01/2013 1:24:56 PM PST by zipper ("The Second Amendment IS my carry permit!" -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: zipper
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.

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.

36 posted on 03/01/2013 1:37:20 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: zipper
And on another level how does your notion of ending the war on drugs by joining the enemy impact state’s rights?

A question?! How parochial and incoherent!

37 posted on 03/01/2013 1:40:45 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
She may be mostly innocent. However, if it was an incorrect address as she claimed, why did she open it?

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.

38 posted on 03/01/2013 2:33:51 PM PST by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
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, 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.

39 posted on 03/01/2013 2:35:50 PM PST by zipper ("The Second Amendment IS my carry permit!" -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: zipper
She was an innocent victim of drug gangs who are playing the system.

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."

40 posted on 03/01/2013 2:43:12 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

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.


41 posted on 03/01/2013 3:20:19 PM PST by Albion Wilde (If you're too busy to duck hunt or catch fish, you're too busy. --Jase Robertson, Duck Dynasty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zipper; JustSayNoToNannies
The big difference in the WOD is that the only burden of proof required to convict someone of a felony AND seize all their property can be a small palmable package. For most crimes there are victims, witnesses, unique property, etc.

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":

http://wh8te.com/cowboy-cop-who-planted-crack-under-couples-car-seat-to-boost-arrest-quotas-escapes-jail-after-sobbing-in-court/

42 posted on 03/01/2013 3:42:59 PM PST by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

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.


43 posted on 03/01/2013 3:50:18 PM PST by zipper ("The Second Amendment IS my carry permit!" -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Definitely a NOT GUILTY here...


44 posted on 03/01/2013 5:18:05 PM PST by BobL (Look up "CSCOPE" if you want to see something really scary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
nobody gets threatened by rumrunners seeking their stealthily-shipped hooch, because there's no incentive to stealthily ship hooch.

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.

45 posted on 03/01/2013 5:33:43 PM PST by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Sounds like you might be either: (a) postal eployee or (b) a G-man...: )


46 posted on 03/01/2013 6:12:00 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Former prosecutor, did a lot of drug trafficking prosecution.


47 posted on 03/01/2013 7:42:40 PM PST by henkster (I have one more cow than my neighbor. I am a kulak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: zipper

lol......


48 posted on 03/01/2013 11:12:07 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Captain Rhino
Very interesting, thanks.

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!

49 posted on 03/02/2013 10:34:02 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zipper
She was an innocent victim of drug gangs who are playing the system.

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 they’re 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

50 posted on 03/04/2013 7:56:23 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson