[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 43 KB, 492x493, ohyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11085844 No.11085844[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Supermarket stories thread?
Supermarket stories thread.

>> No.11086020
File: 6 KB, 203x241, 1501579707393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11086020

The other day I needed to fart so I looked around, then aimed my fart down an empty aisle. It was really loud, pretty sure there was an audible echo.
I looked around again to make sure there weren't any eye witnesses, but to my horror an employee was walking up the previously empty aisle right into my enormous fart cloud.
Poor fella.

>> No.11086048

dropped my ice coffee this morning inside of walmart, did a immediate 360 and walked away

>> No.11086050

The only notable thing that happened to me in a grocery store was a 45ish woman approaching me because she needed cash "for a hotel room". She offered to pay for my food with her EBT card and in exchange I would give her the balance in cash.

Obviously she was wanting drugs and her pissing away her EBT money would by no means help her.

>> No.11086057

>>11086050
But that money could have contributed to the profits of Mexican drug cartels. Are you some racist in favor of border control?

>> No.11086058
File: 51 KB, 700x700, grizzy wintergreen longcut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11086058

>new to chaw
>think i can handle a small wad in my mouth while grocery shopping
>it's too potent
>nicotine poisoning kicking in
>getting nauseous and disoriented
>need to spit, but swallow instead
>really disoriented now
>puke near a little girl. she gets some splash.
>ditch my cart and make a run for it
>never return to that store again

>> No.11086063

>>11085844
I went to supermarket
I bought a couple premade pie crusts
I did strawberry and rhubarb
Peach too
It was nice. I made whipped cream as well.
I only got one piece. I thought it was bit too sour. More strawberry next time. Everyone's mean :(

>> No.11086074

>>11085844
>>11085555

>> No.11086120

I thought this shart-in-mart stuff was just a meme but I was in Kroger last week and noticed a fatass woman in front of me with an enormous dark wet spot spreading around her asscrack, I kid you not. Almost took a pic but felt like it could be an invasion of privacy so I didn't. It was disgusting to see irl.

>> No.11086121

>>11086048
That's a 180 you fucking mongoloid.

>> No.11086306

>>11086058
Fucking kek

>> No.11086341

>>11086121
Pretending to be new/stupid is still being stupid.

>> No.11086371

>>11086050
shgould have told her you'd give her 60% cash of what the groceries cost. they will go for it everytime.

bonus points when they're too stupid to do math and you undercut them even worse

>> No.11086717

>>11086058
I don't know how people use that shit. Fucking gross

>> No.11086740

>>11086120
>invasion of privacy
>in a public place
Nope. Next time we better see some sharts young man.

>> No.11086753

>>11086058
hahaha, been there lad. not exact same situation, but nicotine sickness is the worst.

>> No.11086761

>>11086740
Unless the government has taken over Kroger, I assure you, that is a private space, not public.

>> No.11086789

>>11086761
>not shopping in a government-run Kroger
Found the running-dog lackey of the bourgeoisie.

>> No.11086837

>Woman in line in front of me
>Casually wads up a napkin and lobs it up in the air
>Falls on the floor miles away from nearest garbage can
>As she goes to leave I see that her face is painted in so much makeup that she looks like a clown

I get that people dont give a fuck about wage slaves, but shit.

>> No.11086887

>>11086120
For reference, in general with non-commercial photography the laws are shaped around 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. This person, being at a grocery story, has no expectation of privacy, therefor snap away.

That being said, I think Kroger could make a case that the image belongs to them, but... why would they want it?

>> No.11086914

>>11086887
>being at a grocery story, has no expectation of privacy
On what basis are making this claim?

>> No.11086915

My wife is always dragging me to the grocery store on the weekend. I usually make sure we hit up a diner before shopping. The eggs & coffee lead to some brutal crop dusting. I once saw a woman check her shoes like she’d stepped in shit as she walked down an aisle I just let loose in.

>> No.11086922

>>11086915
I do this same thing

>> No.11086928

>>11086914
The basis that you are going to a place into which everyone is permitted, and not making use of privacy devices (e.g. bathroom stall, fitting room).

>> No.11086970

>>11086928
Everyone is not permitted, only those who are there are the behest of the Kroger corporation.
If they ask you to leave, and you do not leave, the police will come and arrest you for trespassing.
That does not sound to me like a public place into which everyone is permitted.

Do you perceive it to be possible for someone to conduct their shopping exercise from, for example, a bathroom stall? I would not think it to be reasonable, therefore the idea that someone should do so is also unreasonable.

My expectation is that the store will have specific policies barring the use of photographic equipment on their premises,and that if you breach these conditions they will remove you.

This is where my expectation of privacy comes from, and why we are all in court with me suing you for invading my privacy.

>> No.11087009

>>11086020
Slippery wet dog poop

>> No.11087022

>>11086970
>That does not sound to me like a public place into which everyone is permitted.
That's because you're not a lawyer and you're talking about fiction in your head as opposed to the law.

Everyone is allowed in until/unless you are asked to leave. Courts have found multple times that there is no expectation of privacy in a shop or store, unless it is inside a special space, like a bathroom or changing room.

>>This is where my expectation of privacy comes from
Too bad your expectation of privacy only exists in your spergbrain. This isn't up for debate, the case law is pretty clear. Google it.

>> No.11087025

When I was a kid and they had those motion detecting coupon dispensers I would always be sure to set em off.

>> No.11087029

>>11086970
>t. Bootlicker

>> No.11087038

>>11087025
holy fuck I miss those

>> No.11087062

>>11087022
Case law is merely interpretation of the legislation and, as is implied, will be changed as judgements are issued.

The expectation of there being no privacy only exists for you in your little bubble. Many stores have policies which expressly forbid photography, and Kroger is indeed one of them.

Enjoy ur ride to the police station while you bang on about your 'case law', tard.

>> No.11087078

>>11087062
>, will be changed as judgements are issued.
So why would things magically be different for you, sweetie? As I said, there is a lot of precedent here. Things don't work the way you want them to.

>>The expectation of there being no privacy only exists for you in your little bubble.
Countless court decisions suggest otherwise.

>>Enjoy ur ride to the police station
I'm not the one who wants to take photos of you, you triggered fuck. I just think it's funny how naive your views happen to be.

>> No.11087090
File: 238 KB, 400x350, 1473144896256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087090

>>11086058

>> No.11087105

>>11087078
>there is a lot of precedent here

Yes, and it supports the stores who all have signs up saying "no photography", of which Kroger is one, brainlet.
Good luck arguing against the contract you entered into when you entered the store.

>> No.11087251

>>11087105
I'm the one that set off this shit storm by being afraid to pic the woman with the shart in her pants and fwiw I can assure you I've not seen a sign prohibiting photography at the entrance to that Kroger and it's the largest in the midsouth. I think based on the arguments I've read, I would have been within my rights to snap the pic and the sharter would have no legal recourse. I'm in the south so the opportunity will most definitely arise again and I'll snap and post it next time. Thx for setting me straight pseudo-lawyers.

>> No.11087288

>>11087251
you better friggen deliver. I'll be waiting.

>> No.11087302

>>11087062
You don't understand anything about law. Case law isn't "merely an interpretation," that changes every time there is a new judgement.

Every case on a matter is considered precedent for the cases that follow. Look up stare decisis, and stop spouting off about shit you don't know anything about online Ameridipshit.

>> No.11087309

>>11086058
I lolol'd

>> No.11087347

>>11087302
I have no idea who the fuck you believe yourself to be addressing, but I should advise you that I am, in fact, resident in the United Kingdom currently, and would postulate that I have more capacity to provide legal advice in a professional capacity than yourself.
You quote clearly do not understand the elementary principles of legal practice. It is not my job to explain them to you.
Feel free to carry on with your strawman arguments.

>> No.11087349
File: 1.45 MB, 288x198, 1513760340678.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087349

>>11087062

>> No.11087381

>>11087347
LMFAO @ this post

Listen you abject pseud, you don't even understand the concept of stare decisis, this is something law students learn in the very fucking first week of classes.

Whatever you're qualified for, it sure as fuck isn't "provid[ing] legal advice in a professional capacity."

Hahaha you didn't even fucking use "strawman" right. Did you even finish whatever bottom tier high school you went to?

>> No.11087414

>>11087381
O rly? When I done my degree the first week was spent discussing how modern day law came to be, from where it descended, and how various legal systems around the world differ and how they are in concordance with each other.
My usage of strawman is perfectly correct, I suggest you take remedial English lessons, Jose.
I should advise you that the concept you refer to is known only a such in your own legal system. Perhaps when you learn that a world exists outwith Bumfuck, Nowheresville, USA, this will prove to be useful information for you to know.

>> No.11087440

>>11087414
>when i done my degree
lmfao

Kiddo. I'm Canadian. Here's something else they should have taught you at whatever dumpster of a university you went to: Canada, the US, and the UK all have the same legal system, it's called the Common Law.

The fact that you don't even know that, and you think stare decisis isn't a principle in UK common law.... jesus christ. I mean I knew legal education was a joke in the UK compared to North America, but I had no idea they we're turning out retards like you.

Why don't you email one of your professors and ask them whether stare decisis is a thing in UK law. Then blow your brains out, because you are absolutely hopelessly retarded.

>> No.11087460

>>11085844
>Go to supermarket
>get my shit
>pay
>go home and masturbate alone

>> No.11087470

>>11087414
Why do I get the feeling that you are a C grade student at best?

Oh you’re on 4chan that’s why.

>> No.11087475

>>11087414
By the way, in Canada and the US we filter out sub-100 IQ mongoloids like you from getting into law school with something called the LSAT.

Your "legal education" is community college garbage. It is truly fucking remarkable that you can say
>the first week was spent discussing how modern day law came to be, from where it descended, and how various legal systems around the world differ and how they are in concordance with each other
>the concept you refer to (stare decisis) is know only a such in your own legal system

with no trace of irony.

You are truly an idiot of baffling proportions.

>> No.11087481

>>11087440
>Canada, the US, and the UK all have the same legal system
Mate, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't even have the same legal system.

Once more, you may continue with your strawman arguments if you like.

I have no idea why tyou are being so bumsore about this.
You cannot go around taking photographs in stores on the basis that you believe that there is somehow no expectation of privacy among its clients.
Try walking around a bank taking photographs, let me know how that works out for you champ.

>> No.11087494

>>11087481
He’s not using a strawman he’s just insulting you.

>> No.11087499

>>11087481
You absolutely can use photography in stores. People do stupid selfies and annoying vlogs in supermarkets all over.

>> No.11087501

>>11087494
The strawman argument he is making si that I am somehow unaware f what he terms 'stare decisis' in US law.
I advised that this wasn't a term used in any of the UK's legal systems, and he somehow uses this as the strawman to argue that it is the concept, not the term, which is alien to the UKs legal system.
In short, he is either a troll, or a brainlet.,

>> No.11087510

When my sister and I were kids we would wall down the meat isle and poke holes into the ground beef. Started off poking one and walking away, escalated into poking every single package. Store setup a camera and pulled our mom to the side to show her what we did.

>> No.11087511

>>11087499
People do lots of things, it doesn't mean that they are all permitted.

>> No.11087514

>>11087501
That term is absolutely used in the UK system as it s one of the basic tenants of common law. You are actually incorrect in this. Seriously where did you study law?

>> No.11087524

>>11087514
>That term is absolutely used in the UK system
What do you not understand about there being no 'UK system', and England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all having separate legal systems?

>> No.11087526

>>11087510
I wanna poke a hole in your sisters beef if ya know what I mean