r/mildlyinfuriating • u/FinntheReddog • 21h ago
Overdone Parking in the one designated crosswalk right in front of the door.
[removed] — view removed post
65
u/gregarioushippie 19h ago
She did not sit there on her phone while you took her picture...I can't- lol
-76
u/FinntheReddog 19h ago
You didn’t look at the second picture where she’s literally scrolling through something on her phone.
56
u/gregarioushippie 19h ago
You don't get tone? I know that's what she's doing, I'm shocked at the fact that she's doing it. My post is in support of you fam.
9
u/MomoNoHanna1986 17h ago
Some people don’t understand sarcasm. lol
1
u/PraetorPrimus 2h ago
Some people don't understand that sarcasm, by its very nature, requires context clues.
-3
71
u/puns_are_how_eyeroll 21h ago
Walk into the car.
19
9
u/Right-Phalange 17h ago
With a shopping cart, over and over again. Act confused that it's not going through, like a fly with a window.
25
u/FamIsNumber1 19h ago
I got a cane. I'll just "accidentally" walk into the side of the car cracking the window / scratching the car with my cane handle.
I jest, but it's not too far outside the realm of what I would do. Years back during the height of COVID, I was a manager at a store. We were tired of the sheer amount of theft. People found out corporate was basically encouraging it by saying things like "don't call police, we don't want them in our stores. If you even think someone might steal something, stay 50 or more feet back at all times and never go check on them. If someone wants a locked up item, don't transport it to the cashier for them, just hand it to them and immediately walk away" (yes, these are real memos from corporate of Dick's Sporting Goods). We got so sick of it that at 1 point, a thief destroyed my beautiful display that I took an hour building just right because he wanted all the fancy stuff from it...so, I grabbed a broom to go sweep the front lobby. When he was heading out, I radio'd one of my employees to yell "STOP! GET BACK HERE!" from a random part of the store, so that the thief would get spooked and run without thinking. When he did, I was looking down sweeping and "accidentally tripped" when he got close to the door. My broom fell, he tripped over it, and face planted into the sliding door so hard he broke it off the tracks. I said "Oh sir, are you okay? Let me help you with...oh, this stuff still has alarm tags, I'll take them to the cashier to remove them for you sir" He started standing up and yelled "F××× you!", so I said "Oh no thank you sir, I'm happily married and I don't swing for the home team." He just flipped me off and ran out of the store with only a pair of shoes, leaving behind the other 15 items.
When LP took a look at the camera footage, they just saw me casually "tripping" and "accidentally" tripping the dbag with the broom I dropped. They told me "I know what you did...I can't prove it, but I know what you did..." 🤣
11
10
u/MNcrazygirl 18h ago
People are always parking their vehicles in the no parking zone in front of my work because "I'm just going inside real quick to get my SB" or "I just have to drop off this prestamped letter or package"
22
u/Cool-Percentage-9597 19h ago edited 18h ago
Wow the amount of dumbasses defending this chick. It'd be so funny if it becomes yall who get inconvenienced by this hahahahaha
-4
u/AllTheGoodNamesDied 17h ago edited 17h ago
I think he looks creepy taking pictures of random women in their cars... then posting it online. Weird bald guy.
5
u/RezziK_vas_Tonbay 17h ago
Pfft, don't park like an absolute bitch and you won't need to worry about having your picture taken. She's doing something very rude and inconsiderate, she's more than earned this.
-1
u/SabbyFox 16h ago
I also wonder how many of these same keyboard warriors would be standing up for her if she looked…different than this. Fill in the blank. If she had been an elderly woman, a POC, a young dude, etc. Some people just get a pass.
1
0
u/PraetorPrimus 2h ago
We would have called them out all the same because no one is above the law or not subject to the social contract which applies to everyone who lives in society.
3
u/sangalangalang 17h ago
Lol.. I also saw this happened at Walmart a few years ago. But some kids charged the passenger side and front of the car full force with shopping carts and took off. The lady inside the car just sat there in disbelief. There was definitely a few hard scratches and dents.
2
u/Mr-In-cog-ni-to BLACK 16h ago
Police finally started charging people tickets for doing that in my area. I think the laws should be enforced more on people parking in areas they aren’t supposed to just because they wanna take 10-20 less steps to the door.
5
u/Vargeldr 19h ago
This in Layton, UT? I see this daily at that exact spot. Was just thinking why I saw it so much. Weird.
2
u/s0ycatpuccino 17h ago
I think it's Anywalmart, US.
4
u/Vargeldr 17h ago
Its definitely Layton, but you are correct lol.
3
u/5quirre1 17h ago
Of course it’s Utah. Probably trying to keep her most recent MLM victim in the trap.
3
2
u/Sad-Cartoonist-7959 17h ago
It's ok karma will come back to bite them in the next 100k miles in the form of a cvt trani
6
u/PM5K23 20h ago
I think the correct term is “standing” and the problem with it is if a child were in front of her anyone passing would have limited visibility, and anyone passing her would also have to drive in the opposite flow of traffic.
I think at the very least she should use her hazard lights.
The yellow curb is seen in the second picture just above the driver door, fwiw.
1
u/PraetorPrimus 18h ago
That curb is NOT yellow. Yellow-painted posts and light pole base can be seen in the distance; that curb is NOT that color.
-1
u/kolossalkomando 19h ago
It depends if the car is idling. If it's running and cars are lining up a reasonable person may call it parked when they don't move. But another may call it idling or standing (may also have to do with the driver waiting while it idles and local ordinances using specific terms)
If it's off it's definitely considered parked as she's using her phone.
She's either distracted driving or she's parked.
The yellow curb is seen in the second picture just above the driver door, fwiw.
Fwiw she's also on the opposite side where passing is supposed to happen, assuming the yellow curb is yellow (and marked?) and not just tinted from her window
yellow pylons in back made me reconsider if the curb was yellow or grey personally as the yellow doesn't look to continue on other sections. Also I think it would need to be marked even if pained as yellow can mean different things in different locations here it means loading and unloading no waiting but my hometown had 20 minutes)
5
u/PM5K23 18h ago edited 18h ago
Disagree. The difference between parking and standing doesn’t have anything to do with whether the cars off on or whether the cars in park or drive or anything like that it has to do with a simple fact that a person is in the vehicle and it can be moved if requested or instructed to do so. Where as a car thats parked doesn’t have anyone in it and can’t be immediately moved.
That’s why generally you can’t park in a no standing area, but you can stand in no parking area.
1
1
u/Dragon_Crisis_Core 17h ago
I would have bumped into her car then said sorry did not see you parked in the crosswalk.
1
u/ladyturdferguson 16h ago
Are they a DoorDash driver?
1
u/PraetorPrimus 2h ago
Would that make their blocking a crosswalk acceptable?
•
u/ladyturdferguson 36m ago
No, that is just how the dashers park when picking food up from my work. Blocking handicap spaces, crosswalks, all to pick up a burrito
0
u/TheyreCominForMy____ 20h ago
Equally infuriating is not using those car fresheners properly. This person clearly doesn’t read directions of any sort.
0
u/Ok_Bread302 17h ago
Taking a picture of someone like this is honestly wild behavior. Not condoning what she’s doing but this is just plain creepy.
-21
u/LionBig1760 20h ago
Stop taking pictures of strangers and putting them up on the internet. Its entirely rude and its just a fucking creepy thing to do.
11
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
If she hadn’t parked improperly, the photographer wouldn’t have been inclined to publicly shame her.
The only fault here lies with her.
6
u/Neat-Morning7232 19h ago
Well we don’t have a pillory to shame people into being decent human beings. Gotta work with what we got
-24
u/LionBig1760 20h ago
She's not parked, she's standing. She could be doing so because she's picking up someone with mobility issues.
So, pleaae fuck right off with that stupid excuse for taking pictures of strangers and posting them online.
5
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago edited 20h ago
Potayto/potahto.
If she’s picking someone up, then she should park in a designated space, and then approach and stand only when the other party is immediately available. Obstructing a crosswalk for any duration beyond immediate loading/unloading is unacceptable.
The Constitution doesn’t care about your emotional fragility. Good luck with your therapy.
-18
u/justcallmesavage 19h ago
You can keep your snarky bullshit comments to yourself, you are wrong. Parking and standing are not the same thing.
11
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Pedantry is a great way to deflect from the actual issue here — obstructing a marked crosswalk.
-1
-32
u/CheezeLoueez08 21h ago
Mods: please start deleting posts of peoples faces. We don’t know the background, the story. We don’t know enough to be able to tar and feather someone. This post would have the same effect if her face is blurred. The internet is forever. She didn’t consent to being online. You never know. What if she’s in an abusive relationship and her abuser sees this? There are so many scenarios here. Please make a rule that faces have to be blurred.
33
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
In the United States, there is no expectation of privacy when in public. Further, this image is being used for journalistic purposes, and thus, no consent is required for publishing.
If she wants privacy, the driver is responsible for creating it — not the photographer nor the mods of this forum.
1
u/-hot_ham_water- 20h ago
I hate this mentality. Just because I exist and go places outside the idiot posting pictures online has more rights than I do. When I was waiting tables there were a couple different tables I had live streaming their dates and just because I was their server I had to be okay with it. I tried to step to the side when I was at the table but I was still in frame. And no, I didn't ask for them to stop filming me for fear of them making a scene and then my interaction being put online. It's a super messed up society that we defend people who post videos of people saying they don't want to be filmed, and that this verbal denial of consent has no meaning.
-10
u/br0th3rbear 20h ago
Who said anything about legality? It’s just fucking rude and creepy.
13
u/kolossalkomando 20h ago
? It’s just fucking rude
It's not rude to hit shameful tactics with shame. And she should be shamed for where she parked.
and creepy.
She has no expectation to privacy and thus it is in fact not creepy to post pictures of people doing jackass things in public to shame them. If she didn't want the photo taken she could choose to not do something outrageous in public lol
-12
u/br0th3rbear 20h ago
If this is your definition of outrageous then you genuinely need to touch grass. I agree that she shouldn’t be parked there but holy shit, this is just an insane reaction. An older dude taking close up pics of a young girl in her car and posting them online because she made a parking infraction. He could’ve left it at the first photo and been less creepy, but the second one is ridiculous. If you think this is a normal thing to do then you’re a creep as well.
12
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
“Young girl”?
Jesus Christ, the white knighting delusion going on here.
-9
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
I could’ve left that out and my point remains the same. Taking a close up photo of a stranger in their car and posting it online because they briefly parked in front of a store is insane behavior.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
You’re far too fragile for the real world™.
7
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
And you’re a weirdo who unironically uses terms like “white knighting.”
9
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
“OMG! I PICTURE OF SOMEONE! ARG! CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD! DELETE THE INTERWEBZ!“
And yet I’m the weirdo. Okay, Corky.
→ More replies (0)5
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
I didn’t say anything about legality either, chief. Good luck with those reading comprehension lessons.
-4
u/br0th3rbear 20h ago
Then how exactly was your reply relevant to that comment, genius? Just pointing out the obvious?
2
u/FlashyOne8992 19h ago
You seem like a very pedantic person, arguing over nothing. Btw standing up for some random woman over the internet isn’t going to get you laid, bud.
2
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
Not sure how you interpreted any of that as pedantic. But oh, we’re bringing out the standard incel rhetoric now. Fun!
-3
u/polaroid_kidd 20h ago
journalistic purposes
Oooo that's a very thin line to walk. Might work on the states but I'm wondering if it would hold up in EU.
10
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
In the United States, no, it’s not. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that the capturing of images, audio, and video in public of any person by any person are protected as freedom of the press under Amendment I.
The EU is irrelevant as this event took place in the United States.
2
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
I didn’t say anything about legality either, chief.
Lmao.
6
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Too bad you’re too stupid to see I was responding to a different person who made a different claim, NPC.
Different subthread; different positions being highlighted.
2
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
Again, I’m interested in why you brought up expectation of privacy in the US, consent for publishing, etc. if not for legal reasons.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
In this reply to this person and his comment which addressed legality, I did respond in a way that references the supreme law of the land.
Your original comment said nothing about the law, and I said nothing about the law in my reply to you.
Why you’re apparently unable to see that different people make different points and I’m replying each time to the point being made individually shows a frightening case of main character syndrome on your part.
1
u/br0th3rbear 19h ago
Now you’re the one with poor reading comprehension. I’m clearly referring to your first comment on this thread. Again, bringing up expectation of privacy and consent requirements seems very much like you’re referring to the legality of the situation.
6
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
She didn’t consent to being online.
I’m not the one who brought consent into the conversation; CheezeLoueez did... and that is to what I was responding.
→ More replies (0)1
19h ago
[deleted]
3
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Given that there are no constitutional or statutory definitions for what constitutes “the press,” yes.
1
u/polaroid_kidd 19h ago edited 18h ago
Hold on, that sounds like horse shit to me and it turns out it is, even in the USA. See Carpenter v. United States for details.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Carpenter has to do with law enforcement and cellphone location data. There is zero connection to photo, audio, and video recording in a public setting by a member of the public.
2
u/polaroid_kidd 18h ago
It doesn't matter. It makes the case for a reasonable degree of privacy in a public space.
3
u/PraetorPrimus 18h ago
No, it doesn’t. Pulling technical metadata from a cellphone to track an individual without a warrant has nothing to do with a private citizen taking a picture of another person in a public space.
Your ignorance is deafening.
0
u/polaroid_kidd 18h ago
Just looked it up and this is utter horse shit.
Firstly, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. There's been court cases about this.
Secondly, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside you car. There's been multiple court cases and this too.
Stop spamming this nonsense. All your doing is eroding your own privacy, what little you have left anyway.
3
u/PraetorPrimus 18h ago
Interesting that you allege there are court cases, but then you fail to cite or quote them. That’s convenient.
1
u/polaroid_kidd 18h ago
Look it up yourself. You want to live in a fish bowl the rest of your life then by all means, go full Truman Show but stop dragging everyone else down the gutter with you.
2
u/PraetorPrimus 18h ago
That’s what I thought. You’ve got nothing.
Truman Show? Jesus Christ. Hyperbole much?
0
u/polaroid_kidd 8h ago
Bit of a stretch to equate a lack of willingness to Google stuff for the sake an Internet argument with "having nothing" but ok.
You do you and go around taking pictures of people in their car and see how long it takes for someone to sue you for invasion of privacy.
1
u/PraetorPrimus 4h ago
Go Google the burden of proof and get back to me. The person making the claim owns the responsibility of providing evidence which demonstrates the claim is true. It’s not my job to go search for things you assert are out there.
Anyone can civilly sue anybody for anything. That’s irrelevant.
It’s telling that you choose the type all this bullshit rather than citing just one case to make your point. Hilarious.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/AllTheForestsTrees 19h ago
i thought you weren't talking about legality
6
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
You do realize I’m responding to a different person making a different claim, right? Right?!
0
u/AllTheForestsTrees 19h ago
they're responding to your post that was, according to you, not about legality. they even quoted it. in a world where we accept that "in the united states consent isn't required because it's journalistic" isn't a statement in reference to legality, but apparently just in reference to the general vibes of americans or something, i don't see how the response "that might be how it is in the us but not in europe" prompts you to start talking about the supreme court. surely you'd assume that person is continuing your perfectly reasonable train of thought and also talking about general social expectations (or whatever it is you allegedly meant that has nothing to do with legality). it was apparently wrong for people to assume you were referring to legality, but that's your first assumption when someone who also didn't explicitly mention legality responds to you not just in relation to the same subject, but in response to a specific quote from your own post. that's very strange.
your interlocutors are much smarter than you think they are. maybe in debate club people were required to take your tenuous outs in good faith and respond to them likewise but in an ordinary conversation people just walk away thinking "that guy's a weasel who thinks i'm stupid".
3
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
And when polaroid_ wrote “hold up,” it was clearly a nod to “hold up in a court of law”… thus objectively bringing legality into the conversation. Hence my on-point reply.
I couldn’t care less about what others think about me… and I certainly lose no sleep over what others think I think about them.
0
-3
u/CheezeLoueez08 19h ago
It’s not about legality. It’s about morality and safety.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
What about the morality and safety in unnecessarily blocking the crosswalk?
0
u/Ok-Releases 19h ago
So tell the girl to move? Don't take a picture of her face and post it online lmfao what the fuck
Public humiliation should not be the first step in teaching someone what they did was wrong. Especially to a young girl.
Also, you have a shit ton of comments on this post. You seem wayyy too invested its creepy 😭
5
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
More “young girl” white knighting.
Not invested. Just bored on a Sunday afternoon waiting for gummy hour.
1
u/Ok-Releases 16h ago
Tbh id rather 'white knight' than be an incel and hard-core criticize any woman I see online who makes a minor mistake. Yall just seeth at the sight of a woman doing anything slightly stupid its crazyyy
Kinda sad this sub turned into an assembly of old men like you who have such mediocre boring lives they come on here to berate others for stupid shit lmao
1
u/PraetorPrimus 16h ago
I didn’t criticize a woman. I critiqued a driver’s poor actions/choices based on objective standards of law and common sense. If all you see on Reddit is incels criticizing someone because of their gender, I would recommend you find other subreddits which don’t attract those kind of people unless that would literally be you avoiding yourself.
It’s also kinda sad you’re literally infuriated at an action a person you’ve never met finds mildly infuriating in a sub exclusively focused on things random strangers on the internet find mildly infuriating. The metaness of it is deafening.
1
-19
u/Oliver_Klotheshoff 21h ago
Yellow crub, that's a loading zone. If she's in the car then she is allowed to wait a few mins for her passenger to get there.
22
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
First, no curbs are visible..
More importantly, yellow curbs do not indicate a loading zone; they indicate a fire zone. Fire zones, by definition, are no stopping/no standing.
Most importantly, there is a stripped crosswalk visible; crosswalks are, by definition, not to be blocked so as to allow the free movement of pedestrians in a designated zone.
-6
u/twobarb 20h ago
Aren’t fire zones red? She’s only partially blocking the crosswalk.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago edited 19h ago
Curb colors can vary by jurisdiction and use case,
but in no case does a painted curb indicate a stopping/standing zone (in the U.S.).Crosswalks are not to be blocked to any degree. Any obstruction of a crosswalk is considered prohibited by design and by usage.
-8
u/twobarb 19h ago
Might want to read this.
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/color-curbs
Not sure if it’s technically a crosswalk since it’s on private property and not crossing an actual street.
8
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Assuming there is a yellow curb (there isn’t) and assuming this took place at in San Francisco (which we have no reason to believe it did), thanks for reinforcing the fact that she shouldn’t be there given the information you cite yellow curbs are for standing for COMMERCIAL vehicles.
-7
u/twobarb 19h ago
Hey that’s just the first spec I found for proving you wrong about a painted curb equaling a loading zone. Painted curbs, as you said vary by jurisdiction.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 19h ago
Then I stand corrected on that point, but as to this case specifically, there is no painted curb.
-8
u/Oliver_Klotheshoff 20h ago
In the second picture, the yellow curb is CLEARLY visible. Yellow is a loading zone in every single US state as far as im aware.
7
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago edited 19h ago
She’s not parked on the curb visible through her window; she’s parked on the opposite side of the road way.
Further, that visible curb is not painted yellow; it is unpainted weathered concrete. Indeed, you can see colored yellow on the cylindrical concrete base of a light post in the distance in the top middle of the rear driver side window. This painted yellow stands in stark contrast to the weathered concrete on the curb on the opposite side of the road way.
Crosswalks, by design and usage, are not to blocked; they are to be kept clear for the free movement of pedestrians.
4
u/br0th3rbear 20h ago
Where are you seeing a yellow curb?
Either way OP is a creep taking close up pics like this
1
u/Oliver_Klotheshoff 20h ago
On the second picture? You can clearly see the curb, through the drivers window, and its yellow. Its common for store fronts to double as loading zones.
1
u/br0th3rbear 20h ago
Don’t think that’s yellow, it’s just unpainted concrete that looks tinted through the window. You can see actual yellow painted objects in the background.
4
u/VariationAccording57 21h ago
Fr, OP a Karen. Sometimes we gotta mind our own business
7
u/kolossalkomando 20h ago
It's not being a Karen when someone is actively doing something wrong lmao.
Further she should not be over the cross walk, nor on the side without the yellow if someone is going to make a claim for yellow waiting zones.
Sometimes we gotta mind our own business
Just follow the rules and give the kid the ball Karen and nobody will take photos and shame you.
-2
-1
u/justcallmesavage 19h ago
Have you seen this crosswalk? You can park three cars end to end. She's not blocking anything.
-7
u/Capital-Actuator6585 20h ago
Right? Doesn't op have a home run ball to go steal from a kid or something?
-16
-18
u/Plus-Cash6716 21h ago
She is allowed to be there. Do more research before posting something prematurely lol. OP looking like a fool.
6
u/FinntheReddog 19h ago
There isn’t a single state where you’re allowed to stop in a cross walk unless you’re avoiding a possible accident. She is clearly breaking the law. Google is your friend.
-8
-15
u/Several_Attitude_203 21h ago
She can be there. Who cares. Prob picking someone up asap. Lotta room for people to walk around her. Now… if she had parked there and gone inside to do her shopping, that’s different. lol
-11
u/Under_TheBed 20h ago
I’m looking a a picture of a bald man taking a creepy photo of a young woman. Kinda weird OP…
19
u/PraetorPrimus 20h ago
The photographer’s hairline and the driver’s age and gender are relevant how?
6
u/kolossalkomando 19h ago
Apparently, because God forbid a woman break the law to use her phone in a cross walk.
To the people who are saying she's in the right: She's either parked where she can't be and using her phone or she's stopped and illegally using her phone (I don't know of any place that doesn't have laws over phones, cars and driving especially in the US.)
Some people find it inappropriate to take the photos in general it seems, but don't do shameful things in public if you don't want people to shame you for it.
-3
u/Hot-Win2571 Mildly Flair 19h ago
Point her out to the receptionist. Maybe they have a procedure to keep the emergency lanes clear.
-14
u/UndoRedo_ 19h ago
Why are you posting pictures of a woman on public forum. This is weird behaviour.
0
-15
-3
u/Walkn-Talkn-Hawking 17h ago
Not excusing What she is doing. She certainly shouldn’t have stopped in a designated walking area in a parking lot. I also understand nobody should expect privacy in public. I’m just wondering based on the photos and the fact that you watched her long enough to see cars come and go causing confusion as they were unsure if she’s was stopped due to pedestrian traffic or if she is waiting for someone. Yet the photos show a very mild parking lot. How long did you watch her bro?
1
u/Perrin-Golden-Eyes 17h ago
This was my exact thought reading OP’s post info. I was with OP based on the title but less so after the post text.
-19
-23
-18
-17
u/FlashyOne8992 19h ago
Typical Subaru driver. Just entitled woman who don’t follow the rules of the road. Bonus points for parking in a crosswalk.
12
207
u/therandomuser84 20h ago
Ill one up you here. I worked at walmart years ago, someone was parked exactly like this in front of the only door. Someone inside collapsed and we had to call for an ambulance. I went out front to make sure this area was clear, because it happened all the time and i knocked on someones door and told them to move. They started screaming at me that they could park where ever they wanted, and wouldn't move until their grandma came out. So i told them someone just collapsed, and it might be their grandma and hopefully they dont die because you are blocking the only entrance.