3 ms·

Yeah, that seems legally and morally dubious. But the police have demonstrated on many many many occasions that they generally cannot be bothered to return sto

by dhosek 4y ago

Yeah, that seems legally and morally dubious. But the police have demonstrated on many many many occasions that they generally cannot be bothered to return stolen items to their owners or even, given the location of a stolen item to reclaim it from the thief.

mkaic 4y ago
(author) Agreed. I wonder if it was motivated by them not wanting to deal with the paperwork and the (potentially impossible) investigation to try to find the original owner and return them. If I ever do find out who the original owner is (and they can prove it) I'd be more than happy to hand them back over.
sharkweek 4y ago
I’m gonna try to condense a very long and very funny story down to a few paragraphs here. A friend of mine is a realtor. He once was selling a house that was empty. A random package showed up at the address (correct on the package). He asked the owners if it was theirs they said no so he threw it in the back of the trunk and forgot about it for months. Randomly while grabbing something in his trunk, he found it and was like “I should try and mail this back to the sender.” It didn’t have any return info on it so he opened it to see if there was any info inside. There was another box inside full of loose coffee beans and inside that was a metal tin. Now curious he opened the tin and found it packed full of little vials with powder in them. He called the non-emergency police line in a bit of a panic thinking he should report what he found but they blew him off saying he should file a police report online. Not wanting to be in possession of drugs he drove it to a police station where the cop at the front desk was SO confused about what was going on and basically told him to get lost. Finally he just decided to call it a day and threw it away in a dumpster.
- jkestner 4y ago
  The police will find crime when it’s convenient for them.
- M3L0NM4N 4y ago
  If it's not a distribution-level amount of drugs I think police just don't give a fuck, especially in larger cities.
  - harry8 4y ago
    And yet there are many, many people serving a decade or more in prison for possession of less. There is no case to avoid drug law reform, disagree on the nature of what is required but /something/ needs doing. This bullshit where there is nothing like the rule of law and equality before it has to go. It's a cancer that eats away at society and however bad you think it is, it's actually a lot worse.
    - jonfw 4y ago
      Do you have evidence people are doing 10+ years where their only crime is possession of recreational amounts? Not saying you’re wrong, Im just surprised to hear this and am curious about the extent
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Three strikes laws used to be really popular, so this certainly used to be the case. Can’t say if it still is.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > Do you have evidence people are doing 10+ years where their only crime is possession of recreational amounts? "only crime", a minor one at that, and three serious crimes don't match up, and is possession of recreational amounts a serious crime in any jurisdiction?
        colejohnson66 4y ago
        Yes. The whole point of three strikes laws were to make low-level drug offenses punishable by life in prison. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to do it for the first offense, so they made it happen after three, and the courts OKd it.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  The cops were doing your friend a solid. Much to the chagrin of HN, cops aren’t dumb, but can’t tell you it’s no big deal. If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. That can jam you up in a few ways. A decade later you apply for a federal job, you’ll be explaining this story to a suspicious investigator. Some jackass prosecutor or person up the chain may decide it is a big deal after all, etc. Or… they pretend not to understand you and you (and the problem) go away
  - snozolli 4y ago
    If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. Only if they choose to make a report saying so. However, it's easier just to shrug instead of doing any paperwork or taking on any responsibility whatsoever, so that's the action they choose.
  - baby 4y ago
    > If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. That's just not true
- mortenjorck 4y ago
  > It didn’t have any return info on it so he opened it to see if there was any info inside. Before reading this, I think curiosity would have gotten the better of me were I in the same situation. But the story is a good life lesson: when you come in possession of a package with no return address, there’s probably a good reason why the sender didn’t want anyone to know who sent it.

by dhosek 4y ago

mkaic 4y ago

(author) Agreed. I wonder if it was motivated by them not wanting to deal with the paperwork and the (potentially impossible) investigation to try to find the original owner and return them. If I ever do find out who the original owner is (and they can prove it) I'd be more than happy to hand them back over.

sharkweek 4y ago

I’m gonna try to condense a very long and very funny story down to a few paragraphs here. A friend of mine is a realtor. He once was selling a house that was empty. A random package showed up at the address (correct on the package). He asked the owners if it was theirs they said no so he threw it in the back of the trunk and forgot about it for months. Randomly while grabbing something in his trunk, he found it and was like “I should try and mail this back to the sender.” It didn’t have any return info on it so he opened it to see if there was any info inside. There was another box inside full of loose coffee beans and inside that was a metal tin. Now curious he opened the tin and found it packed full of little vials with powder in them. He called the non-emergency police line in a bit of a panic thinking he should report what he found but they blew him off saying he should file a police report online. Not wanting to be in possession of drugs he drove it to a police station where the cop at the front desk was SO confused about what was going on and basically told him to get lost. Finally he just decided to call it a day and threw it away in a dumpster.

jkestner 4y ago
The police will find crime when it’s convenient for them.
M3L0NM4N 4y ago
If it's not a distribution-level amount of drugs I think police just don't give a fuck, especially in larger cities.
- harry8 4y ago
  And yet there are many, many people serving a decade or more in prison for possession of less. There is no case to avoid drug law reform, disagree on the nature of what is required but /something/ needs doing. This bullshit where there is nothing like the rule of law and equality before it has to go. It's a cancer that eats away at society and however bad you think it is, it's actually a lot worse.
  - jonfw 4y ago
    Do you have evidence people are doing 10+ years where their only crime is possession of recreational amounts? Not saying you’re wrong, Im just surprised to hear this and am curious about the extent
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Three strikes laws used to be really popular, so this certainly used to be the case. Can’t say if it still is.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > Do you have evidence people are doing 10+ years where their only crime is possession of recreational amounts? "only crime", a minor one at that, and three serious crimes don't match up, and is possession of recreational amounts a serious crime in any jurisdiction?
        colejohnson66 4y ago
        Yes. The whole point of three strikes laws were to make low-level drug offenses punishable by life in prison. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to do it for the first offense, so they made it happen after three, and the courts OKd it.
Spooky23 4y ago
The cops were doing your friend a solid. Much to the chagrin of HN, cops aren’t dumb, but can’t tell you it’s no big deal. If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. That can jam you up in a few ways. A decade later you apply for a federal job, you’ll be explaining this story to a suspicious investigator. Some jackass prosecutor or person up the chain may decide it is a big deal after all, etc. Or… they pretend not to understand you and you (and the problem) go away
- snozolli 4y ago
  If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. Only if they choose to make a report saying so. However, it's easier just to shrug instead of doing any paperwork or taking on any responsibility whatsoever, so that's the action they choose.
- baby 4y ago
  > If they acknowledge the issue and take the stuff, there’s now a record that Mr. Sharkweek’s realtor friend surrendered a bag of heroin or whatever. That's just not true
mortenjorck 4y ago
> It didn’t have any return info on it so he opened it to see if there was any info inside. Before reading this, I think curiosity would have gotten the better of me were I in the same situation. But the story is a good life lesson: when you come in possession of a package with no return address, there’s probably a good reason why the sender didn’t want anyone to know who sent it.