Mildly Infuriating
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
view the rest of the comments
Can you elaborate on this? I've never heard of it.
I understand that each state makes adjustments to this which may grant more or less powers, but here’s a Wikipedia on the overall concept:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege
So for example during the aforementioned security theater at the doors, someone who is legally a representative of the company ownership(generally the managers making salaries are bonded to this) is doing their best to catch someone in the act of stealing, putting something in a coat, loading a cart and bypassing the register, etc, and this gives them grounds for some mild detainment. This apparently covers them stopping you at the door or firmly requesting you join them in their office to clear things up(and wait for the real authorities), and means no one questions if they grab the cart which is company property and doesn’t let you leave with it.
Of course, it's perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:
Wouldn't that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?
I think you have it right. Refusing the check is not alone sufficient grounds, and that is why if you (politely, no reason to be a jerk, they’re just cogs in a machine working for a pittance) refuse and walk away, they just turn to the next one.
It is, as many have concurred, for show. The idea that you may get asked, the anxiety that develops thinking you might get caught, deters all but the most hardened thieves. Same with exterior lights on a home; before cameras what good did a lightbulb do to stop a thief? Does a lightbulb injure or detain a thief? Call the cops for you? No. It upsets their resolve. The light may make them visible to a witness they aren’t aware of. And a witness might call the cops or hurt them. On to a darker house, then!
It’s not just about what’s legal for the store employees to do either. Were I a thief, I wouldn’t be worried the manager is going to ban me from the store, or the frail old lady they have at the door is a threat, I’d be more concerned what vigilante schmuck is going to “help” the store by taking matters into his own hands after he overhears me arguing with the greeter or manager. The store gives up after you leave the sidewalk, “hometown heroes” don’t.
Straight theft aside, I imagine it does also help them recover some losses from mistakes. Any time they catch somebody with legit missed items under the cart and guide them towards fixing it, loss averted. Start noticing it happens a lot from a particular cashier or self checkout supervisor and get them corrected, more losses averted. I imagine you’d need a fairly wide sample set to figure it out?
It’s not a…totally unfair concept in theory, but they really aught to find a way to make it feel less adversarial and it would be more tolerable.
It doesn't sound like they typically check for most items, just the expensive ones and the date on the receipt. That makes it even more theater and less practical.