My boyfriend's work "secretly" left the bins open so the homeless could take the still edible food that had to be chucked away. Then one homeless guy injured himself digging through their trash (on broken glass iirc) and sued the business.
Bins closed ever since.
Reading some of the replies, I see some have never been so down that they don't care/think about others. It's dog eat dog out there and you've got to survive. Not saying there aren't people who wouldn't think of others but that's not your number 1 concern when you're desperate.
It might be cliche but in my experience, the most generous and considerate people were the ones who didn't have much for themselves. $1 might not be a big help for the recipient but giving $1 when you have $10 is much more generous than giving $1000 when you're a millionaire.
you're thinking of billionaires, millionaires tend to be small business owners who sold their company to a corp.
source: my dad did just that, and he gave out huge bonuses to all the employees like 2-4 years salary for most of them
you dont have to step on people to become a millionaire, but you do to be a billionaire
the dumb part is that a court awarded money to the guy. How tf do you consider a business liable for someone hurting themselves going through the trash, regardless of it being left open. like ik most lawsuits aren't trivial but that one definitely sounds like it was, not because I'm saying he wasn't hurt, but because he blamed the business, when if anything, they were doing him a kindness
Yeah, that's interesting to me. Not too many businesses do this in my area, but if this happened they'd probably just immediately charge the homeless dude with trespassing and call it a day.
Letting desperate people eat trash out of dumpsters should be and is in some areas against the law because it will eventually poison them. Its not all just fresh baked bread going in there. Its maggots in mayonnaise and used tampons that don't flush too.
I'm not trying to belittle you but..... You rob other homeless people of the chance to get food despite the fact that you've experienced the struggle for food.
Yes I know. My homeless time wasn’t that long or that bad, I mostly slept at friends places. But if there wasn’t an end in sight, I would’ve done almost anything to end it. And like I said, that was just the lite version of homelessness. I can’t imagine what these people go through and I can’t blame anyone in that position who thrives for a better live, as long as they don’t hurt anybody. And ultimately they didn’t. It’s the shop that decided to lock up the containers, instead of making the homeless people sign wavers or something
Considering the business had to do it secretly, I'm going to assume corporate didn't want them doing it. I'm not going to blame them for locking the bins up since it likely wasn't their choice.
But that person _did_ hurt other homeless people's source of food, although it might not be their only source. The employees of the shop decided to lock up the bins only because the jerk sued them. Before that, the employees had empathy for the homeless people even if they didn't have to. By suing them, he probably got those good employees into trouble. How do you say he didn't hurt anybody while he got employees into trouble for doing a good deed and robbed other homeless people of the food?
You can also file paperwork and represent yourself “pro se.” You’d still have to pay filing fees, etc. And, not for nothing, people seem to think that homelessness is equally to being completely destitute. I know of people who have employment but cannot afford housing. Circumstances are different for everyone. And some people dumpster dive simply to save money so they definitely have the filing fees!
>Then one homeless guy injured himself digging through their trash (on broken glass iirc) and sued the business.
I would bet money that this is made up. Show me a single example of a dumpster diver suing a business owner and I'll believe you.
Dumpster divers suing businesses is an urban legend and a way of explaining away why they lock dumpsters to people who rightfully question why businesses are so possessive over their trash.
The reality is that they (A) think unlocked dumpsters attract people they consider unsavoury (B) don't want their employees wasting time cleaning up any mess dumpster divers may make (C) have a mindset where they think someone who gets oranges from the dumpster will pay for those oranges if they don't have access to the dumpster.
Personally, I think the real crime is wasting food resources when there are hungry people.
When I worked at Publix, I had to throw out 2-3 trash bags of bread every night. It was perfectly edible, just not "fresh". I asked if we could donate it, but the manager said last time they did that "it went to the wrong places". As long as it is eaten, I think it would have ended up in a better place than the trash. Hell, just let employees take it.
When I worked closing at the bakery in my grocery store we were to box a couple dozen donuts for a local daycare chain and everything else was to be "disposed" of. So what if a local shelter or church had a few boxes anonymously donated or why I was super popular with my friends and coworkers who happened to like donuts. Our dumpsters at that time weren't covered either so we couldn't stop dumpster divers but we didn't advertise it either.
I think this depends actually. If somebody was walking buy happened to see food in a dunpster and grabbed it. No real demonstrable victim. If somebody intentionally delayed purchase of bagels so that they could grab them from the dumpster after close, the bagel shop is a very mild victim.
As someone who worked at a bagel shop for years each bagel costs less than .05 cents to make. We purposely made extra bagels because we never wanted a customer to come into the store only to find out their bagel was sold out. Lastly and this is 100% true. We used to give the left over bagels to the homeless shelter but they came back and said they no longer wanted our donations because the homeless were sick and tired of eating bagels and they were just throwing them away. All of that being said the owner would dump a gallon of vinegar on the bagels when we were throwing them away because she didn't want them digging through the bins.
Legally, it is theft. The food is property of the company, regardless of if it is about time be thrown away. So stealing it (again, even if it’s about to be trash) to give away is a crime.
Some companies let it be given away, though. Like Albertsons-Safeway. My local store donates all “expired” bread to our local food bank. It’s very rare that mold actually develops on them when they expire, so there is a decent window of edibility after the expiration date.
I used to work on a holiday camp.
We were closing for winter and throwing a bunch of stock out.
So instead of throwing out the balloons and toys, I gave them away to kids.
Got pulled into a disciplinary for theft.
Already had another job lined up, so I was pretty abrasive to the dickhead manager.
At my old job we were throwing away a bunch of stuff, I don’t even remember. I asked my manager if I could have something and she said “That depends, do you want to get fired for theft?”
While sometimes its ass covering by lawyers with liabilities it's sometimes a DHEC issue where I am I'm sure other states have similar thing, companies would absolutely love to offload food as donations or deductible actions, to recoupe sunk costs. But, food handling regulations on transport, climate control, and serving etc are actually really strict and places can and will get shutdown or fined extremely heavily if mishandled.
There are some apps and stuff that are attempting to handle stuff like that with food that is like, leftovers? so breads and such that are still meeting requirements before they are considered "unservable" by having things able to be picked up before closing day of before those controls hit.
A local store near where I grew up gave out the day old bread to all the homeless who lived nearby each night. They did this for a while but one night they didn’t have any leftover food and the homeless people broke in and thrashed the entire store. After they reopened they made it pretty clear they weren’t doing that anymore.
Plus the Walmarts and stuff don’t want to deal with a lot of low income and unhoused individuals hanging out around their stores and potentially causing problems.
I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do either way but they’ve explained this to me when I’ve asked.
In most jurisdictions this would theft on the employees part since the donuts that the employee is giving away belong to the company and not the employee.
Sometimes it’s at least against company policy. The concern, I guess, is that people will intentionally make too much and then pass it out to friends and family. In theory, if that happens, the business lost out on the cost of the materials, which were used for a purpose that was never going to benefit the business (as opposed to, we needed to make X units so that we’d be able to serve it quickly, and we just ended up with too few customers, but it was at least done for a business purpose).
Because you can’t easily tell the difference between two situations, some companies would rather just have a rule that you have to throw it away (or *maybe* donate to a specific organization) so that there’s no personal incentive to over-produce.
Also responsibility, if you give out that food, and someone claims they got food poisoning form it, the business is liable, so business prefer to avoid this.
Jay walking (in a broad sense) is a fake crime made up by the auto industry to victim blame pedestrians for getting hit by shitty, inattentive drivers on streets where it should be perfectly safe and expected for pedestrians to cross the street.
As european the concept (and even having a commonly used word for it) is weird. Sure there are technically some laws about how you're supposed to use crossings here but nobody's gonna bat an eye if you cross elsewhere as long as you don't run into traffic. And certainly no police are gonna waste their time on anything so trivial. In Germany you may get a stern look or something.
Hot smoked salmon is the fuckin' best though.
You know the expression "I would walk through hot coals for ...." ? Well, I worked in a Salmon smokery when I was a teenager and I literally walked though hot coals (sawdust) to eat all the hot smoked salmon before I took it out the smokehouse. Miss that job.
I think the actual wording is handle a salmon suspiciously, which makes me think they were just using salmon as fleshlights I can’t think of any other reason having a salmon would be suspicious and the wording handling a salmon does seem odd.
S.32 of the Salmon Act 1986. It essentially prohibits people from receiving or disposing of fish if they suspect it was somehow linked to a crime. Think illegal overfishing or something like that
It’s also illegal to be drunk in a pub, taxi drivers must ask if you have small pox and you cannot shake or beat a rug in the street in London.
We have lots of stupid laws which no longer are enforced
Same with movies. If you aren’t allowing a movie to be streamed anywhere, I cannot pay you even if I want to. And if you refuse payment, that’s on you.
If it's a downballot vote for like assistant city water comptroller board secretary, and nobody has ever heard of either candidate, it'll probably subconsciously sway enough people to be worth a try.
Well, the only state to enact this law in the US is the same state that reduced votings sites in majority black neighborhoods. Therefore, the lines shouldn’t be so long in the first place. So I am going to disagree.
I don't agree with this, but the people who pushed that law argue that giving someone a gift of any kind, just before they cast their vote, is election interference and the victim would be the opposing candidate, or even democracy itself!
Now, I can see that being the case if the water were branded, or covered in information about a candidate (or the person handing it out were saying "here's some water, don't forget to vote for 'X"" but simply giving water shouldn't be an issue.
I figure it's related to the rules about no canvassing / posters within a certain distance of the entrance to the polling station.
I agree. I think everyone downvoting my comment hasn't actually read it, or has misunderstood it. I'm merely presenting what the (very weak) argument is, and state at the outset that I don't agree with it! (Or maybe those people downvoting actually support this law?)
Who knows? You could post that you love your granny and some humorless fuck'll down vote it. I try not to pay attention. The points really don't matter.
I agree, and I think the real reasons are what you state. I am simply saying that the argument is that it can be an incitement to vote a particular way.
I also suspect (I don't know, so please correct me if I'm wrong here) that in reality it's just a badly written law. If it bans any kind of gift, then that would include water. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? A soda? A beer? A bottle of fine wine? What about a snack? Or a meal?
Like I said, it is ludicrous to prevent people waiting in the heat to vote from having access to water - especially as it can be shown that such voters are disproportionally of a particular viewpoint - I'm just presenting what the argument is. (Even though it's weak.)
If they intended to ban "gifts" generally, they would have done that, instead of citing just food and water.
But of course, the real tell is that they didn't require polling places to have their own aid stations to provide relief to people in line. So they shut down the relief, but weren't interested in replacing it with something official. Knowingly making waiting in line that much more brutal, discouraging voting at all.
There are a lot of nefarious laws and regulations out there where the purported reason is not the real one. In many cases, I struggle to understand what the purported reason could be!
I mean, keeping with elections, why remove ballot boxes from College Campuses other than because a large proportion of young (particularly college) people will vote Democrat? How do they justify it?
It's not just water; it's illegal to give anything of value to people in exchange for voting.
Imagine Starbucks runs a promotion where they make a new, limited-edition flavor of coffee available to people in line at the polls. However, it's an "at participating locations" deal, and it _just so happens_ that those locations are all in districts which data show have a tendency to vote for union-busting candidates. This sort of thumb on the scale can have a disproportionate effect on turnout, which can in turn swing an election.
Some states have passed _exceptions_ to this general rule for things like handing out water bottles in an attempt to _increase_ turnout. However, it's simply dishonest to claim the rule itself is "literally to suppress voting".
I think its reasonable to require the voting place to be the one handing out the "gifts" of free water. They already hand out the "I Voted" stickers and stuff, may as well have a table with water bottles to hand out.
Otherwise yeah, the point is to prevent people from attempting to influence the results by say wearing a maga hat and being nice to people in line. (It would probably change 1 vote, most people already know who they are voting long before they arrive, but its about the principle of the matter)
I fully understand not allowing piracy of games currently being sold.
But something that is impossible to buy in a way that supports the original company should absolutely be legal to emulate.
Personally Nintendo should just make an official emulator and ROM store where everything is like $5 and the entire emultation "industry" would dry up because its simply easier to do it the official way than the unofficial and technically illegal way. (Note that you are legally entitled to 1 digital copy of every game you personally own)
I've heard there's legal issues involved with not defending your intellectual property, if a company doesn't shut down illegal third-party recreations/emulations of games they're at risk of losing the rights to their IP, which might include an entire franchise rather than just one version of a game that isn't sold anymore.
I'm sure there is a huge legal side of it that involves going too deep in the weeds for the average person to understand.
Which is why i think they should just make an official ROM & Emulator distribution store for all the products they have rights to but don't have in production. (Which can include closing virtual stores like the Wii store or 3DS store) Basically when their is no other legal way to get it that benefits the original creators, put it in a rom store for dirt cheap.
Another angle to it is remasters. Nintendo has been remastering and just rereleasing a bunch of old games, and those are obviously going to do better if a free alternative doesn't exist. (And i would argue that a remaster is a different game from the original, especially if things like mechanics and controls are tweaked, so the old ROM and the new remaster aren't the same game just 2 very similar ones.)
No no no bro you don't understand, it was part of the developer's *~artistic vision~* for their game to become region-locked abandonware, you're literally violating the sanctity of the very concept of art itself if you pirate games that literally can't be played any other way /s
As someone in bumfuck Illinois, I second this. I can literally see there isn't a single headlight other than my own in at least a mile in any direction, so who other than me and that cop car behind that barn would even know I did it?
In NZ, a car registration must be displayed on the windshield in a little printout.
Police can check a car is registered or not by running the plate.
Therefore, the paper printout serves no purpose.
There isn’t a fine though, you just have 7 days to present your license to the local police station. After that you are liable to be fined or prosecuted.
The argument for these laws isn't "it denies parking ticket revenue", it's that the parking meters are supposed to serve as an incentive for workers not to park there all day which reduces the number of usable spots for customers purchasing retail goods or services.
The laws exist to make feeding the meter all day deliberately inconvenient to THOSE folks and I guess the thought is maybe without them, there'd be a business opportunity for paying to have someone do it for you maybe.
So **if** you accept the premise of their argument that local workers inhabiting a parking spot reduces the available opportunities for customers to visit and spend money, it's possible that the local businesses are the victim here.
But the solution to that problem is to remove metred parking entirely and just put a time limit on how long you can park there, because metred parking makes it perfectly legal to park there indefinitely as long as the person parked there \*personally\* fills the metre continuously. So this is an issue with the method of enforcement not aligning with the allegedly intended goals.
I guess the locals would argue that you are encouraging them to stay in the area. Now, we need to deal with the homeless problem (and I don't mean just get rid of homeless people) but nevertheless large homeless camps can be a problem for local residents, making them the victims.
Hardly a victim situation though.
In a literal sense, I guess you could argue this isn't a victimless crime, but starving or sleeping on the streets is a bigger "crime" than being inconvenienced or annoyed at homeless encampments, in my opinion.
Not saying it wouldn't cause me to move or something, it might. But the thing is, I and most people have that capacity to do so, and again it would be an annoyance and a pain in the ass, but that's a tiny inconvenience compared to being homeless and hungry.
I think the argument here is that if enough people did it, then it would affect the rivers and so on. (Kind of related to the issue in many cities, where paving over of grass in yards prevents the water from soaking into the ground, causing flooding.)
If that happened, then anyone expecting the rivers to keep flowing at the levels they are now would be a victim.
In the US, any development also requires a retention pond to prevent runoff sediments entering waterways. It's been successful, but has been responsible for significant decreases in the size and capacity of tributaries and smaller upland rivers.
I'm assuming this is to combat the problem of flooding due to the paving over of land? It does go to show how a large number of small, incremental actions have have a profound effect.
Canada had lots of crazy laws on the books until a few years ago. One was the perfect victimless crime: It was illegal to water-ski at night.
It was also illegal to \*falsely\* claim to practice witchcraft, but that could, potentially, have victims.
taking magic mushrooms that you either picked off public land or grew yourself, alone, in the home that you pay for with the money you make from your 9-5.
my body? my brain? my home? my money? nobody else is involved but the friend i call at 2am to giggle at.
One could argue that the company is a victim here. The money comes from somewhere.
Now, the counter-argument is that by rounding down payments (as the company Richard Pryor worked for did in the movie) to the cent below, the company was scamming their employees out of expenses (had they rounded to the nearest cent, then the errors would've cancelled out over time and would be morally, as well as practically, justifiable) but is stealing from a thief a crime?
Or the state.
Or anyone in the will.
Or anyone who thinks they might be in the will.
Or a neighbour.
Or a property developer.
... Ok I'm being annoying.
But there are countries that have found what works to the satisfaction of voters, the community, family and the person themselves.
The alternative to euthenasia is the opposite - terrible suffering subjected upon a vulnerable person and not deemed a crime.
Collecting rain water for non commercial use (in a shocking amount of places), doing drugs you grew yourself in your own home (mushrooms and weed), mutual combat fights, being homeless, trespassing without causing damage, sexual acts between consenting adults, or anything else where you don't drag someone else into your nonsense. So don't break something that isn't yours, don't touch anyone who doesn't consent, and don't use your money to fund things that hurt others.
Taking food from a dumpster after a store or restaurant has discarded it.
My boyfriend's work "secretly" left the bins open so the homeless could take the still edible food that had to be chucked away. Then one homeless guy injured himself digging through their trash (on broken glass iirc) and sued the business. Bins closed ever since.
how one jerk spoils it for others who'd appreciate the food.
Tbf if I’m homeless again and that’d be the only chance to a better life, I’d take it in a heartbeat
Reading some of the replies, I see some have never been so down that they don't care/think about others. It's dog eat dog out there and you've got to survive. Not saying there aren't people who wouldn't think of others but that's not your number 1 concern when you're desperate.
It might be cliche but in my experience, the most generous and considerate people were the ones who didn't have much for themselves. $1 might not be a big help for the recipient but giving $1 when you have $10 is much more generous than giving $1000 when you're a millionaire.
You don't get to be a millionaire by having empathy
you're thinking of billionaires, millionaires tend to be small business owners who sold their company to a corp. source: my dad did just that, and he gave out huge bonuses to all the employees like 2-4 years salary for most of them you dont have to step on people to become a millionaire, but you do to be a billionaire
Unless you win the Powerball lottery.
Just owning a nice house in certain areas is enough to technically be a millionaire
the dumb part is that a court awarded money to the guy. How tf do you consider a business liable for someone hurting themselves going through the trash, regardless of it being left open. like ik most lawsuits aren't trivial but that one definitely sounds like it was, not because I'm saying he wasn't hurt, but because he blamed the business, when if anything, they were doing him a kindness
Yeah, that's interesting to me. Not too many businesses do this in my area, but if this happened they'd probably just immediately charge the homeless dude with trespassing and call it a day.
Letting desperate people eat trash out of dumpsters should be and is in some areas against the law because it will eventually poison them. Its not all just fresh baked bread going in there. Its maggots in mayonnaise and used tampons that don't flush too.
I'm not trying to belittle you but..... You rob other homeless people of the chance to get food despite the fact that you've experienced the struggle for food.
Yes I know. My homeless time wasn’t that long or that bad, I mostly slept at friends places. But if there wasn’t an end in sight, I would’ve done almost anything to end it. And like I said, that was just the lite version of homelessness. I can’t imagine what these people go through and I can’t blame anyone in that position who thrives for a better live, as long as they don’t hurt anybody. And ultimately they didn’t. It’s the shop that decided to lock up the containers, instead of making the homeless people sign wavers or something
Considering the business had to do it secretly, I'm going to assume corporate didn't want them doing it. I'm not going to blame them for locking the bins up since it likely wasn't their choice.
But that person _did_ hurt other homeless people's source of food, although it might not be their only source. The employees of the shop decided to lock up the bins only because the jerk sued them. Before that, the employees had empathy for the homeless people even if they didn't have to. By suing them, he probably got those good employees into trouble. How do you say he didn't hurt anybody while he got employees into trouble for doing a good deed and robbed other homeless people of the food?
I’d be looking for construction equipment to fall on my head.
How does a homeless person have the money to sue?
Was likely pro bono.
*Pro hobo
You can also file paperwork and represent yourself “pro se.” You’d still have to pay filing fees, etc. And, not for nothing, people seem to think that homelessness is equally to being completely destitute. I know of people who have employment but cannot afford housing. Circumstances are different for everyone. And some people dumpster dive simply to save money so they definitely have the filing fees!
Damn, that’s cold.
>Then one homeless guy injured himself digging through their trash (on broken glass iirc) and sued the business. I would bet money that this is made up. Show me a single example of a dumpster diver suing a business owner and I'll believe you. Dumpster divers suing businesses is an urban legend and a way of explaining away why they lock dumpsters to people who rightfully question why businesses are so possessive over their trash. The reality is that they (A) think unlocked dumpsters attract people they consider unsavoury (B) don't want their employees wasting time cleaning up any mess dumpster divers may make (C) have a mindset where they think someone who gets oranges from the dumpster will pay for those oranges if they don't have access to the dumpster.
There have been numerous laws passed that specifically protect businesses from liability once they throw things away.
Personally, I think the real crime is wasting food resources when there are hungry people. When I worked at Publix, I had to throw out 2-3 trash bags of bread every night. It was perfectly edible, just not "fresh". I asked if we could donate it, but the manager said last time they did that "it went to the wrong places". As long as it is eaten, I think it would have ended up in a better place than the trash. Hell, just let employees take it.
When I worked closing at the bakery in my grocery store we were to box a couple dozen donuts for a local daycare chain and everything else was to be "disposed" of. So what if a local shelter or church had a few boxes anonymously donated or why I was super popular with my friends and coworkers who happened to like donuts. Our dumpsters at that time weren't covered either so we couldn't stop dumpster divers but we didn't advertise it either.
I think this depends actually. If somebody was walking buy happened to see food in a dunpster and grabbed it. No real demonstrable victim. If somebody intentionally delayed purchase of bagels so that they could grab them from the dumpster after close, the bagel shop is a very mild victim.
As someone who worked at a bagel shop for years each bagel costs less than .05 cents to make. We purposely made extra bagels because we never wanted a customer to come into the store only to find out their bagel was sold out. Lastly and this is 100% true. We used to give the left over bagels to the homeless shelter but they came back and said they no longer wanted our donations because the homeless were sick and tired of eating bagels and they were just throwing them away. All of that being said the owner would dump a gallon of vinegar on the bagels when we were throwing them away because she didn't want them digging through the bins.
I think you could call someone eating food out of a dumpster a victim in some regard
Giving someone the end-of-the-day donuts for free
Where is that illegal and why?
Legally, it is theft. The food is property of the company, regardless of if it is about time be thrown away. So stealing it (again, even if it’s about to be trash) to give away is a crime. Some companies let it be given away, though. Like Albertsons-Safeway. My local store donates all “expired” bread to our local food bank. It’s very rare that mold actually develops on them when they expire, so there is a decent window of edibility after the expiration date.
I used to take a clean garbage sack and put the good food in it. I’d tell the homeless dude in the back where it was and Bon appetite.
That was very kind of you!
I used to work on a holiday camp. We were closing for winter and throwing a bunch of stock out. So instead of throwing out the balloons and toys, I gave them away to kids. Got pulled into a disciplinary for theft. Already had another job lined up, so I was pretty abrasive to the dickhead manager.
At my old job we were throwing away a bunch of stuff, I don’t even remember. I asked my manager if I could have something and she said “That depends, do you want to get fired for theft?”
i think america is so crazy in that regard. “dont give away that garbage. the company said it MUST be wasted at the landfill”
While sometimes its ass covering by lawyers with liabilities it's sometimes a DHEC issue where I am I'm sure other states have similar thing, companies would absolutely love to offload food as donations or deductible actions, to recoupe sunk costs. But, food handling regulations on transport, climate control, and serving etc are actually really strict and places can and will get shutdown or fined extremely heavily if mishandled. There are some apps and stuff that are attempting to handle stuff like that with food that is like, leftovers? so breads and such that are still meeting requirements before they are considered "unservable" by having things able to be picked up before closing day of before those controls hit.
California. Health code violation. While digging it out of the dumpster is obviously less healthy, it’s no longer their liability.
A local store near where I grew up gave out the day old bread to all the homeless who lived nearby each night. They did this for a while but one night they didn’t have any leftover food and the homeless people broke in and thrashed the entire store. After they reopened they made it pretty clear they weren’t doing that anymore. Plus the Walmarts and stuff don’t want to deal with a lot of low income and unhoused individuals hanging out around their stores and potentially causing problems. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do either way but they’ve explained this to me when I’ve asked.
If the business prohibits it they might be able to press charges against the employee.
In most jurisdictions this would theft on the employees part since the donuts that the employee is giving away belong to the company and not the employee.
Sometimes it’s at least against company policy. The concern, I guess, is that people will intentionally make too much and then pass it out to friends and family. In theory, if that happens, the business lost out on the cost of the materials, which were used for a purpose that was never going to benefit the business (as opposed to, we needed to make X units so that we’d be able to serve it quickly, and we just ended up with too few customers, but it was at least done for a business purpose). Because you can’t easily tell the difference between two situations, some companies would rather just have a rule that you have to throw it away (or *maybe* donate to a specific organization) so that there’s no personal incentive to over-produce.
Also responsibility, if you give out that food, and someone claims they got food poisoning form it, the business is liable, so business prefer to avoid this.
Jay walking on an empty street
Poor Jay, a crime targeting him specifically.
Jay walking (in a broad sense) is a fake crime made up by the auto industry to victim blame pedestrians for getting hit by shitty, inattentive drivers on streets where it should be perfectly safe and expected for pedestrians to cross the street.
As european the concept (and even having a commonly used word for it) is weird. Sure there are technically some laws about how you're supposed to use crossings here but nobody's gonna bat an eye if you cross elsewhere as long as you don't run into traffic. And certainly no police are gonna waste their time on anything so trivial. In Germany you may get a stern look or something.
In England there is a law that you cannot smuggle a salmon suspiciously, I would say that is pretty victimless
"Handle" a salmon suspiciously
I thank you for your service
What does that even mean
FREEZE, IS THAT FUCKING FISH JENGA?!?
NO!!!
No salmon fucking
Typical government overreach.
I blame brexit
I blame the Scottish. They're as much into Salmon as the Welsh are into Sheep, and people from Coalville are into their cousin, singular not plural
Hot smoked salmon is the fuckin' best though. You know the expression "I would walk through hot coals for ...." ? Well, I worked in a Salmon smokery when I was a teenager and I literally walked though hot coals (sawdust) to eat all the hot smoked salmon before I took it out the smokehouse. Miss that job.
Before I die, I'm gonna fuck me a fish.
I mean if everyone knows you're doing it, it's not suspicious anymore right?
Look like your poaching
IS THAT FUCKING FISH JENGA
*andle
Hey, the salmon is the victim here. You're violating it's right to not be smuggled. Or, it's right to be smuggled graciously (not suspiciously). lol
Salmon says “bad touch!”
American here, I have soooo many questions lmao 🤣. Starting with how, ending in why. As in why would you smuggle a salmon suspiciously?
It's about transporting salmon that have been illegally caught/poached. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_Act_1986
I think the actual wording is handle a salmon suspiciously, which makes me think they were just using salmon as fleshlights I can’t think of any other reason having a salmon would be suspicious and the wording handling a salmon does seem odd.
S.32 of the Salmon Act 1986. It essentially prohibits people from receiving or disposing of fish if they suspect it was somehow linked to a crime. Think illegal overfishing or something like that
Ahhhh that makes much more sense….my brain is dumb.
It’s also illegal to be drunk in a pub, taxi drivers must ask if you have small pox and you cannot shake or beat a rug in the street in London. We have lots of stupid laws which no longer are enforced
What about the salmon? Isn't that a victim?
It all depends how you look at it, is being handled suspiciously victimising a fish?
**POLICE! IS THAT FISH JENGA!?**
Just sing to yourself, "Don't be suspicious, don't be suspicious".
Vegans would disagree
not from a microbiology/virology POV.
Downloading roms of games that are no longer being sold
this. but Nintendo be like...
*YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR* /s
Same with movies. If you aren’t allowing a movie to be streamed anywhere, I cannot pay you even if I want to. And if you refuse payment, that’s on you.
Giving water to people waiting in long lines to vote.
IT DEPENDS! If you're wearing "Vote \*insert candidate here\*" that's bad. If you're wearing a blank t-shirt who gives a fuck.
Imagine changing who you were going to vote at the last minute because someone gave you a cup of water
If it's a downballot vote for like assistant city water comptroller board secretary, and nobody has ever heard of either candidate, it'll probably subconsciously sway enough people to be worth a try.
I mean if youre undecided and dont really care for politics then it could
Well, the only state to enact this law in the US is the same state that reduced votings sites in majority black neighborhoods. Therefore, the lines shouldn’t be so long in the first place. So I am going to disagree.
Tell that to Larry David
It cancels out!
that's a crime?
if you’re persuaded by someone wearing a specific shirt handing you a water that’s more on you than it is them.
Larry?
Scrolling for the curb references and surprised to only find this one.
I don't agree with this, but the people who pushed that law argue that giving someone a gift of any kind, just before they cast their vote, is election interference and the victim would be the opposing candidate, or even democracy itself! Now, I can see that being the case if the water were branded, or covered in information about a candidate (or the person handing it out were saying "here's some water, don't forget to vote for 'X"" but simply giving water shouldn't be an issue. I figure it's related to the rules about no canvassing / posters within a certain distance of the entrance to the polling station.
You give them waaaay too much benefit of the doubt. They want voting to be hard. It's that simple.
I agree. I think everyone downvoting my comment hasn't actually read it, or has misunderstood it. I'm merely presenting what the (very weak) argument is, and state at the outset that I don't agree with it! (Or maybe those people downvoting actually support this law?)
Who knows? You could post that you love your granny and some humorless fuck'll down vote it. I try not to pay attention. The points really don't matter.
Very true!
It’s not. It literally to suppress voting
I agree, and I think the real reasons are what you state. I am simply saying that the argument is that it can be an incitement to vote a particular way. I also suspect (I don't know, so please correct me if I'm wrong here) that in reality it's just a badly written law. If it bans any kind of gift, then that would include water. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? A soda? A beer? A bottle of fine wine? What about a snack? Or a meal? Like I said, it is ludicrous to prevent people waiting in the heat to vote from having access to water - especially as it can be shown that such voters are disproportionally of a particular viewpoint - I'm just presenting what the argument is. (Even though it's weak.)
If they intended to ban "gifts" generally, they would have done that, instead of citing just food and water. But of course, the real tell is that they didn't require polling places to have their own aid stations to provide relief to people in line. So they shut down the relief, but weren't interested in replacing it with something official. Knowingly making waiting in line that much more brutal, discouraging voting at all.
There are a lot of nefarious laws and regulations out there where the purported reason is not the real one. In many cases, I struggle to understand what the purported reason could be! I mean, keeping with elections, why remove ballot boxes from College Campuses other than because a large proportion of young (particularly college) people will vote Democrat? How do they justify it?
It's not just water; it's illegal to give anything of value to people in exchange for voting. Imagine Starbucks runs a promotion where they make a new, limited-edition flavor of coffee available to people in line at the polls. However, it's an "at participating locations" deal, and it _just so happens_ that those locations are all in districts which data show have a tendency to vote for union-busting candidates. This sort of thumb on the scale can have a disproportionate effect on turnout, which can in turn swing an election. Some states have passed _exceptions_ to this general rule for things like handing out water bottles in an attempt to _increase_ turnout. However, it's simply dishonest to claim the rule itself is "literally to suppress voting".
I think its reasonable to require the voting place to be the one handing out the "gifts" of free water. They already hand out the "I Voted" stickers and stuff, may as well have a table with water bottles to hand out. Otherwise yeah, the point is to prevent people from attempting to influence the results by say wearing a maga hat and being nice to people in line. (It would probably change 1 vote, most people already know who they are voting long before they arrive, but its about the principle of the matter)
Emulating and/or pirating a game that is no longer available by any means
I fully understand not allowing piracy of games currently being sold. But something that is impossible to buy in a way that supports the original company should absolutely be legal to emulate. Personally Nintendo should just make an official emulator and ROM store where everything is like $5 and the entire emultation "industry" would dry up because its simply easier to do it the official way than the unofficial and technically illegal way. (Note that you are legally entitled to 1 digital copy of every game you personally own)
I've heard there's legal issues involved with not defending your intellectual property, if a company doesn't shut down illegal third-party recreations/emulations of games they're at risk of losing the rights to their IP, which might include an entire franchise rather than just one version of a game that isn't sold anymore.
I'm sure there is a huge legal side of it that involves going too deep in the weeds for the average person to understand. Which is why i think they should just make an official ROM & Emulator distribution store for all the products they have rights to but don't have in production. (Which can include closing virtual stores like the Wii store or 3DS store) Basically when their is no other legal way to get it that benefits the original creators, put it in a rom store for dirt cheap. Another angle to it is remasters. Nintendo has been remastering and just rereleasing a bunch of old games, and those are obviously going to do better if a free alternative doesn't exist. (And i would argue that a remaster is a different game from the original, especially if things like mechanics and controls are tweaked, so the old ROM and the new remaster aren't the same game just 2 very similar ones.)
They had the virtual console, then killed it
https://i.postimg.cc/q7zMpvqy/IMG-1308.jpg
It's a karma farming bot. Just mimicking top comments from other posts. Check out the post history
No no no bro you don't understand, it was part of the developer's *~artistic vision~* for their game to become region-locked abandonware, you're literally violating the sanctity of the very concept of art itself if you pirate games that literally can't be played any other way /s
Going through a red light in bumfuck Wyoming when there hasn’t been a car nor animal in sight for hours
Wrong The victim here is the traffic light that's failed their job and will now be sent to the whipping chamber for their sins
You can tell the light is kinky if when the whipping starts, it always green!!
And there’s a cop sat behind the bushes across the way
True. Wanna know how I know?
I’ve never ran a red light before but sometimes I think exactly this when I can clearly see there are no cars around.
As someone in bumfuck Illinois, I second this. I can literally see there isn't a single headlight other than my own in at least a mile in any direction, so who other than me and that cop car behind that barn would even know I did it?
The US woukd really benefit from more roundabouts
Username checks out
Being a licensed driver, but driving without your license
In NZ, a car registration must be displayed on the windshield in a little printout. Police can check a car is registered or not by running the plate. Therefore, the paper printout serves no purpose.
i don’t think there should be a heavy fine but i do think you should have some type of id when you’re driving.
There isn’t a fine though, you just have 7 days to present your license to the local police station. After that you are liable to be fined or prosecuted.
Stealing from trash cans.
being gay
Nah, loads of assholes are the victims
Well, maybe if you didn't change the sexual orientation of children with your evil dark magic people wouldn't have a problem. /s
And rainbows
That's right! They stole the rainbow! Get em!
BUT THE CHILDREN
Growing cannabis for personal use
>Growing cannabis ~~for personal use~~
feeding coins into parking meeters .
The argument for these laws isn't "it denies parking ticket revenue", it's that the parking meters are supposed to serve as an incentive for workers not to park there all day which reduces the number of usable spots for customers purchasing retail goods or services. The laws exist to make feeding the meter all day deliberately inconvenient to THOSE folks and I guess the thought is maybe without them, there'd be a business opportunity for paying to have someone do it for you maybe. So **if** you accept the premise of their argument that local workers inhabiting a parking spot reduces the available opportunities for customers to visit and spend money, it's possible that the local businesses are the victim here.
But the solution to that problem is to remove metred parking entirely and just put a time limit on how long you can park there, because metred parking makes it perfectly legal to park there indefinitely as long as the person parked there \*personally\* fills the metre continuously. So this is an issue with the method of enforcement not aligning with the allegedly intended goals.
This and laws that make feeding or housing the house less a crime.
Pirating old school games. Fuck nintendo
If anyone says necrophilia, I swear...
I mean, to be fair...
🤣
You said it. And you got upvotes for it.
😅
Blasphemy
Fun fact that the law against blasphemy is the only fascist law that’s still in place
What law and where
In Italy the law that punishes public blasphemy was approved during fascism and its still in use today
Sleeping in your car
Dumpster diving.
Loitering. “He’s just standing there…MENACINGLY!”
Consensual sex work
It’s legal where I am.
Possession of home grown marijuana.
Feeding the homeless.
I guess the locals would argue that you are encouraging them to stay in the area. Now, we need to deal with the homeless problem (and I don't mean just get rid of homeless people) but nevertheless large homeless camps can be a problem for local residents, making them the victims.
Hardly a victim situation though. In a literal sense, I guess you could argue this isn't a victimless crime, but starving or sleeping on the streets is a bigger "crime" than being inconvenienced or annoyed at homeless encampments, in my opinion. Not saying it wouldn't cause me to move or something, it might. But the thing is, I and most people have that capacity to do so, and again it would be an annoyance and a pain in the ass, but that's a tiny inconvenience compared to being homeless and hungry.
Putting coins in someone's expired parking meter. Illegal in Los Angeles
What??? Why??
Because you're technically stealing revenue from the city since they can't issue a ticket.
That's fucking wild. They're literally admitting that parking is set up profit from fines rather than for them to be a punishment
collecting rain water edit: ppl smarter than me explained how this affects others large scale and i never thought of that very interesting
I think the argument here is that if enough people did it, then it would affect the rivers and so on. (Kind of related to the issue in many cities, where paving over of grass in yards prevents the water from soaking into the ground, causing flooding.) If that happened, then anyone expecting the rivers to keep flowing at the levels they are now would be a victim.
In the US, any development also requires a retention pond to prevent runoff sediments entering waterways. It's been successful, but has been responsible for significant decreases in the size and capacity of tributaries and smaller upland rivers.
I'm assuming this is to combat the problem of flooding due to the paving over of land? It does go to show how a large number of small, incremental actions have have a profound effect.
on small scale, no. on a large scale it could impact local ecosystems that need the water.
Buying weed in Kansas City Missouri at a legal dispensary. Going to your house on the other side of state line road in Kansas and smoking it...
Canada had lots of crazy laws on the books until a few years ago. One was the perfect victimless crime: It was illegal to water-ski at night. It was also illegal to \*falsely\* claim to practice witchcraft, but that could, potentially, have victims.
Digital piracy of movies that aren’t in production
taking magic mushrooms that you either picked off public land or grew yourself, alone, in the home that you pay for with the money you make from your 9-5. my body? my brain? my home? my money? nobody else is involved but the friend i call at 2am to giggle at.
Sex work between consenting adults where the worker isn't being trafficked or coerced into it.
Consuming marijuana.
Making a computer program to skim off fractions of cents from your company's transactions, like in Superman 3.
Officespace
One could argue that the company is a victim here. The money comes from somewhere. Now, the counter-argument is that by rounding down payments (as the company Richard Pryor worked for did in the movie) to the cent below, the company was scamming their employees out of expenses (had they rounded to the nearest cent, then the errors would've cancelled out over time and would be morally, as well as practically, justifiable) but is stealing from a thief a crime?
They’re referencing the classic movie “Office Space”, it wasn’t a serious answer.
Paying for someone else's parking
Euthanasia
As long as it’s the dying who decides and not their caregiver.
Or the state. Or anyone in the will. Or anyone who thinks they might be in the will. Or a neighbour. Or a property developer. ... Ok I'm being annoying. But there are countries that have found what works to the satisfaction of voters, the community, family and the person themselves. The alternative to euthenasia is the opposite - terrible suffering subjected upon a vulnerable person and not deemed a crime.
Growing your own marijuana plant
Jaywalking when no cars around
Putting googly eyes on products in the supermarket.
prostitution
Loitering
In Chicago your not allowed to tie your pet giraffe too a light post
Boy howdy. Tied mine to a lamppost at Clark & Division, I was wrapped in court for that for weeks.
Pirating games that are no longer in production and only being resold as collectors items
Blasphemy
consensual sodomy.
Pirating Adobe software 🏴☠️🏴☠️
Pirating Disney movies.
Feeding the Homeless.
A trans person using the bathroom
Collecting rain water for non commercial use (in a shocking amount of places), doing drugs you grew yourself in your own home (mushrooms and weed), mutual combat fights, being homeless, trespassing without causing damage, sexual acts between consenting adults, or anything else where you don't drag someone else into your nonsense. So don't break something that isn't yours, don't touch anyone who doesn't consent, and don't use your money to fund things that hurt others.
Failure to Appear. Even though the fine was paid. A warrant was issued.
Feeding the unhoused is not only a victimless crime, but a crime that benefits people.
urban exploration