Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Every time the customer orders something and the delivery guy has to deliver it to their home. They call and complain that their driveway is private property and that they shouldn’t be using it even to deliver their mail or packages and pizza. This delivery man is fed up...

1,100,745 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

55 Comments

TheRealCherokeeOwl 🦉's profile picture
TheRealCherokeeOwl 🦉7 months ago

@projectmagahp He’s doing the right thing - they might call the cops on him if he tries to come in the driveway

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@projectmagahp Sounds like they may already have

TheRealCherokeeOwl 🦉's profile picture
TheRealCherokeeOwl 🦉7 months ago

@projectmagahp So then he’s facing trespassing charges or if they had a restraining order put on him, he goes to jail

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@projectmagahp I wonder how that works. Are you trespassing if you are delivering? They gave you permission to be there when they had it delivered right?

NancyH's profile picture
NancyH7 months ago

@zelina2024 He just did his job!

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@zelina2024 Those people are nuts

MatrixLife 🇺🇲's profile picture
MatrixLife 🇺🇲7 months ago

He's giving the customer what they want. They don't want him driving down their sacred driveway so the only logical thing to do is to leave at the curb.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

I would be just as petty

Hatton, America is back's profile picture
Hatton, America is back7 months ago

@zelina2024 Yep, just drop it at the curb.Exactly what they deserve

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@zelina2024 Might be his only option

Blueskies's profile picture
Blueskies7 months ago

@CommanderEagle If one orders something and gives the address for delivery is that not implied approval for delivery to the address whether at the curb or at the door?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@CommanderEagle Apparently not, maybe get a P.O. Box

Blueskies's profile picture
Blueskies7 months ago

@CommanderEagle I guess.

Rick D's profile picture
Rick D7 months ago

He's doing the right thing.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

He’s not being petty about it?

Rick D's profile picture
Rick D7 months ago

If they constantly complain about their driveway being used, either offer another solution or deal with it being dropped off where it is. Can't have your cake and eat it too..

Orian Holliday's profile picture
Orian Holliday7 months ago

"Malicious compliance" in this case, is eminently "reasonable". So, 'yes' and 'yes'.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

I think it’s funny and petty

Orian Holliday's profile picture
Orian Holliday7 months ago

I salute anyone who can pull off "funny" and "petty" at the same time. That's not easy to do.

Fun2sh☺️'s profile picture
Fun2sh☺️7 months ago

he’s leaning into malicious compliance. The homeowner’s complaints about the driveway are unreasonable, but instead of calmly resolving it, the delivery guy is following the rule literally, leaving packages on the curb which may inconvenience the customer. It’s clever, but intentionally retaliatory.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

What else is he supposed to do at that point though?

Kat's profile picture
Kat7 months ago

I really feel that people are just going crazy

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

They are being difficult just to do it’s this point

Jebson doyle's profile picture
Jebson doyle7 months ago

I have been delivering for Amazon going on 10 years now and I've got 3 houses that have a sign that says something similar. I do exactly what this mailman did. If you don't want delivery vehicles on your property then stop ordering shit that has to be delivered

Abynorml62's profile picture
Abynorml627 months ago

He should have left a PS3849 notice for the customer to pick up the parcel at the local Post Office, scanned the item "No Access" The customer should install a locking parcel box at the entrance if they want parcel delivery

Suzee Q's profile picture
Suzee Q7 months ago

@wickedcece315 Sounds like a lose lose situation. I wouldn’t want to be a delivery driver dealing with that.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@wickedcece315 I wouldn’t wanna deal with it

Suzee Q's profile picture
Suzee Q7 months ago

@wickedcece315 No way not worth it!

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@wickedcece315 Nah, they would just complain and your boss might bow to pressure and side with them

Sarah Lyane🍷's profile picture
Sarah Lyane🍷7 months ago

Homeowner sucks, driver is being a smartass about it. 😏

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

@sumsul6789 The homeowner wants it both ways and is intentionally harassing the worker

Joseph Sprott's profile picture
Joseph Sprott7 months ago

The postal service can refuse to deliver and make them have to come get all their mail at post office that should solve the drama just like trash companies can ban u from their services if you keep being unreasonable so he is being nice

Lilly Simon's profile picture
Lilly Simon7 months ago

It is homeowner responsibility to inform anyone delivering their stuff where to drop it off, instead of just screaming private property

Colonel Dragasès's profile picture
Colonel Dragasès7 months ago

If someone orders a delivery, that is an invitation for admittance upon their property to complete the delivery. That sign does not apply to him as a postal carrier.

Thresa G's profile picture
Thresa G7 months ago

@CreasonJana I don’t blame him one bit. Entitled “get off my lawn” assholes have gotten so high maintenance they’re asking to be treated like they treat people.

🇺🇸BobE G • Thank U 4 ur attn 2 this MAGA🇺🇸's profile picture
🇺🇸BobE G • Thank U 4 ur attn 2 this MAGA🇺🇸7 months ago

If they're accusing him of trespassing for proceeding past the sign, then they can walk their happy behinds to their no trespassing sign to retrieve their deliveries from that point. Can't have it both ways. The smart thing (for homeowner) to do is STOP COMPLAINING.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

I think they are being very unreasonable

Anna Maria Junus's profile picture
Anna Maria Junus7 months ago

If you order something and don't want anyone on your property to deliver it, then the only option is delivering it right outside your property. What's he supposed to do? Fly it in somehow? Abracadabra it in? Send it by cannon?

Kneckbeard's profile picture
Kneckbeard7 months ago

@Real_Ames I'm at a loss... What is he supposed to do? If he can't use the private drive, what exactly do they expect him to do? Weird... 🤷‍♂️

Jen's profile picture
Jen7 months ago

When you act like an asshole people are going to treat you like one.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸's profile picture
SonnyBoy🇺🇸7 months ago

I wonder why they have that rule, it’s so unreasonable

Jen's profile picture
Jen7 months ago

It’s very bizarre.

SA…….jd's profile picture
SA…….jd7 months ago

He’s using malicious compliance technically following their demand by avoiding their driveway, but in a way that likely frustrates them. It’s a clever but passive-aggressive response.

Matthew Paul's profile picture
Matthew Paul7 months ago

I'm 100% on the driver's side. You wanna live "off the grid" all while having threatening signs around your property, this is what you get. And don't get me started on those guys in the sticks who won't shovel their driveway or has a dog running around the front lawn.

Rakeau's profile picture
Rakeau7 months ago

If they tell him not to enter the property, the delivery driver is basically just following instructions.

Lori Abshire 🇺🇸🦅's profile picture
Lori Abshire 🇺🇸🦅7 months ago

If they don’t want him using their driveway, then they can just walk their happy ass down the driveway to get their packages by the street.

Jennifer's profile picture
Jennifer7 months ago

I'm not sure how this can even be categorised as malicious compliance. This is what they're specifically requesting, no?

Ken Abernathy's profile picture
Ken Abernathy7 months ago

Nope not retaliatory at all, the home owners complained that they don't want any delivery vehicles down the driveway, he is following the customer's wishes, now if they complain that the package was left at the mailbox, next step attempted delivery slip in the mailbox, held at PO

S.M.O.O.T.H's profile picture
S.M.O.O.T.H7 months ago

I'd just take a picture of the sign & bring the package back as no access. That way the package is accounted for & the customer has to retrieve. Poor decisions create poor outcomes.

Mike Beezley's profile picture
Mike Beezley7 months ago

As a person who's dads house has a private road going up to it, this is fucking stupid. We never cared when delivery trucks pulled up to deliver shit. Sounds like a person who likes drama, so they found an excuse to make drama.

attitude330's profile picture
attitude3307 months ago

For everyone saying he’s just doing his job, wrong. You leave a notice for the customer to pick up their package(s) at their local office. I’ve fired 3 carriers over the years for doing this. Packages go inside the mailbox or to the door, that’s it. No matter what.

Ed Shapiro's profile picture
Ed Shapiro7 months ago

The homeowner is an ignorant moron Same category as the don’t touch me idiots

*KellyWA*'s profile picture
*KellyWA*7 months ago

They want the delivery drivers to "walk" the deliveries to their door, that's not realistic, they don't have time for that and they are stupid, if they fall they have a big lawsuit on their hands. I'm with that guy, leave it at the entrance!

PanAmerican Comintern PhD/Black Belt's profile picture
PanAmerican Comintern PhD/Black Belt7 months ago

Porch pirates when they see deliveries on the curb:

Bitcoin =Peace and prosperity's profile picture
Bitcoin =Peace and prosperity7 months ago

I bought my wife a door mat that said “hide packages from my husband” as a joke. We only had it out for 3 days and found out delivery drivers didn’t take it as a joke… We had packages hid in bushes, flowers, under chairs etc. it was a problem

Related Videos

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents walked onto PRIVATE PROPERTY in Brownsville, Texas, without a warrant, with their guns drawn… and then threatened to ARREST the property owner for telling them to get off his own property. In the video, six ICE agents walk onto the property, with guns drawn, and start searching it. The property owner tells them to get off his private property, and they ignore him. Then, they start chase after a man, who starts running, and tackles him. The property owner runs over and tells them… “Get out of here. This is private property.” The ICE agent literally responds, “That doesn’t matter. He was running. Get back.” Then the agent starts SHOVING the property owner backward. The owner tells him, “I live here.” The agent tells him to back up or he’ll be arrested. ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. Then the owner asks, “Where is your warrant?” And the ICE agent says… “We do not need a warrant.” Except… that’s not how the Constitution works. The Fourth Amendment protects civilians from unreasonable searches and seizures. ICE does NOT get to just walk onto private property, guns drawn, search it, and ignore the property owner demanding to know their legal authority… because they claim they saw someone run. And what makes this even more disturbing is that when a U.S. citizen is questioning why armed federal agents are on HIS property, the response is to SHOVE him and threaten to arrest him. Because apparently telling armed federal agents to get off your own property… is now grounds for arrest. This is exactly why people need to be recording every ICE encounter. Because when the people with guns, and badges, refuse to explain what legal authority they have, the video may be the only thing showing what actually happened. The Constitution still applies to ICE. And no badge gives you the right to just assault a U.S. citizen when they demand you get off their property.

Jesus Freakin Congress

419,243 views • 29 days ago

See President wey una dey pity. Somebody that is building road on top of mountain.🤣🙆‍♀️ I told you, if you see any road that is not in good condition, happily tag the President. He knows what he came for. That Lagos–Cotonou/Badagry road, it is child’s play for him. And this is even the perfect time to fix it. Those claiming they are the ones that will save Nigeria are not going to do anything. They don’t even have the kind of time the President is dedicating to fixing roads. They will come and waste eight years and go their way. I know what I’m saying. This particular President knows what he came for. Stop pitying him on certain things,tag him with confidence and leave the rest. He will fix it. That road is a priority. It should reflect the prestige of Nigeria so that when people enter, they will nod their head and say, yes, I am in Nigeria. To those claiming to be messiahs, they dont even have any reasonable achievements, but that is a story for another day. One thing you can take home is that when it’s their turn, they will not even do anything. However, that is not the point. The point is this: now that President Tinubu is in office, if you see anything that needs fixing and it is not already captured in the plan or budget, tag him immediately and leave the rest. Because it is when he leaves that people will understand what I’m saying. Not everyone can be like him. Yes, this administration has its shortcomings, and Nigeria is a lot. But that is not the essence of this post. The Lagos–Badagry road is small thing for the President. He is doing even more than this. So with confidence, tag him and the relevant authorities. They know what to do. 📍 Gembu, Sardauna LGA, Taraba State, Nigeria 🇳🇬

Mide.O 🩷

54,101 views • 4 months ago

🚨BREAKING: In Columbia Heights, MN, ICE agents are going door to door and targeting people based on how they sound, demanding proof of citizenship, then human trafficking them when they refuse to comply with unlawful orders. In the video, a man is standing by a garage on private property. ICE agents approach him and demand identification. The man correctly states that he does not have to show ID. He is not suspected of a crime, he is on private property, and the agents have no warrant… He then asks why he is required to provide documentation. An agent then says the quiet part out loud… “Because of your accent.” The man points out the obvious, “You have an accent too.” The agent then asks, “Where were you born?” The man responds, “Where were you born?” At that point, the agent escalates. He orders, “Put your hands behind your back,” then physically grabs the man, shoves him against the garage, and restrains him without a warrant, without probable cause, and without reasonable suspicion of a crime, or even knowing who he is. Another agent steps directly in front of the camera to obstruct recording, while another joins in assaulting the man on private property. What’s illegal here is visible on video: • Detaining someone on private property without a warrant • Demanding identification without reasonable suspicion • Targeting someone based solely on accent or perceived national origin • Using force to enforce an unlawful order • Obstructing a lawful recording of law enforcement The man is then taken against his will so ICE can “prove his status.” That is not a lawful stop, it is human trafficking under color of law, seizing a person first and transporting them elsewhere to investigate their identity later, all for profit. This is not border enforcement. This is not public safety. This is government agents abducting people based on how they sound, then trafficking them through detention systems for funding, quotas, and “processing.” And the question isn’t whether this man had legal status. The question is how long Americans will tolerate federal agents kidnapping people on private property, calling it “verification,” and pretending the Constitution no longer applies.

Jesus Freakin Congress

1,415,248 views • 8 months ago

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,895 views • 3 months ago