this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
1194 points (99.3% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

45781 readers
148 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don't want to help anyone. They don't want to protect anyone. It's in their job description and their training not to.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's in their job description and their training not to.

Chat, is this true?

[–] greenhorn@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Warren v. District of Columbia "is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine." And Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

Batshit crazy and ruled 7-2 too not even a slim majority

load more comments (2 replies)

In most circumstances, police officers do not owe a personal duty to protect specific individuals from harm. The dominant principle comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)

Also see: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973)

As you can see from reading through the cases mentioned above, the law doesn't require police to protect you or even to enforce the law. Combine this with precedent set by police unions and qualified immunity.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 286 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Perfect example of policing in America. Their primary mission as a force is to protect themselves at all costs just like any other gang or criminal organization.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 149 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Fun fact! The police are the largest gang of armed robbers in the country, collectively stealing more money than all other armed robberies and burglaries combined, and it's totally legal for them

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 92 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those things where when you hear about it your first reaction is that it must be some fringe conspiracy theory because there's no way the police could get away with something like that, right? But no, it really is that bad and it's done completely in the open. Cops can just steal your shit out of "suspicion" and the process of getting it back is deliberately labyrinthine and difficult.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago

Can you prove your inherited grandmother's engagement ring actually belongs to you? Receipt please! Oh you don't have one. It's ours to auction off now!

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

And the father of civil asset forfeiture was DNC centrist darling and father of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians himself, Joe racist-dipshit biden, who belongs in prison along with trump and many other american politicians.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/joe-biden-father-drug-wars-asset-forfeiture-program

[–] TheGoldenV@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

Well that’s sadly educational. Thanks for the info.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's their secondary mission. Their primary mission is to terrorise the populace into submission.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 38 points 3 days ago

Well if I may be a bit pedantic, that's merely a consequense of their real primary mission. To safeguard the interest of the capitalist elite. It's really just a coincidence that terrorising the populace into submission achieves that mission.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Receiving 547 fines in the mail over 4 years means he's treating speeding as a paid subscription. Strange that they don't cancel his driving licence. In Canada, we have points, so this wouldn't stand. I don't think we could have even 5 tickets in 1 year without losing our licence.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

License points are a thing in some US states too

[–] MiwAuturu@pawb.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even in Canada, tickets from traffic cameras don't cost points. The vehicle owner is responsible for paying the fines, but without being able to prove that the owner was the one driving they can't add demerits.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 95 points 3 days ago (17 children)

Tell me again how traffic cameras make us safer and we can totally trust them to be applied objectively for public safety and no other purpose?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 57 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

They aren't for safety...they are totally for revenue.

With regards to school zones, specifically, if they cared about safety, they would be putting in mechanisms to slow traffic naturally. Raised crosswalks. Rotaries. Narrower lanes. Crossing guards.

They don't put any of those in.

A couple towns over from me, they just put a brand new highschool right on the intersection of two major state highways, about 1/4 mile from the interstate. If they cared about the kids, they've put the school in a less busy area to begin with.

But instead, they demo'd an old pedestrian bridge that was keeping kids off the road for crossing, and set up a speed cam and issuing tickets in the spring before the school even opened.

And of course the school zone creates a bottleneck for people exiting the highway in rush hour, with ripple effects well down the freeway.

Fucking assholes.

But at least Theil gets paid. Most of the money doesn't even go back to the city. What a ducking ripoff.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Rothe@piefed.social 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If I was American, I would be a lot more than mildly infuriated about the pedocratic police state that is the US. But I am not American, so mildy infuriated fits perfectly for me I guess.

[–] Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

As an (US)American, I wake up every morning screaming into the Void.

Then the Void requests a subscription fee.

I'm not legally allowed to sleep until I've paid the Void, one way or another.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 105 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's always exactly who you expect

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I bet that cop abuses their spouse.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

there's a polymarket for that.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

truck drivers are synonymous with speeding and drunk driving, and usually driven by meatheads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

2 times each 5 days over 4 years. How come he still has a license?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 18 points 2 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crozilla@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 34 points 3 days ago (17 children)

Without reading, I'll read it after this, but I'm zero percent surprised. Only people I've seen buy ram trucks are ones who do not care about others and want to be seen as big and tuff.

Hell the vast majority of truck drivers too, sorry not sorry folks but you do not need a truck to drive to your office daily, or to drive the family around, you got it as a status symbol. RAM drivers are just the worst of them all.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] fira@lemmy.today 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait, hold up. In the picture, is that the actual size of that truck? Or has the size been exaggerated?

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 43 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I live in a small town so I'm sorry to say, that is exactly how big pickup trucks are now. What isn't clear from the angle of that photo is the bed is most likely less than 6 feet long, meaning it can fit less in the bed than a minivan with only rearmost row folded down.

The best part is, in rural America there's folks who look at that stock truck, say it isn't big enough and get a lift kit and extra large tires installed so it rides 2 feet off the ground and the wheels extend multiple inches past the fenders (sometimes they're further out than the mirrors even) and the illegality of such mods on public roads goes entirely unenforced. Oh and those are the folks who don't also make their trucks roll coal

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oh god, the rolling of coal. So help me these fuckers literally give people cancer and think it is funny.

[–] corodius@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I bet the coal rollers are loving the modifications to use a crapload more fuel at the moment lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 38 points 3 days ago (12 children)

This highlights some pretty lax road traffic law tbh.

Not being able to suspend a licence because they were caught on a camera is fucking moronic.

[–] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

After over 500 times it seems more appropriate to revoke and never allow reapplication

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Here, after that many proven violations, the car itself would've been impounded.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] cmeu@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Don't normalize automated driving enforcement, ALPRs and police surveillance tech. I get the spirit of this story that the watchers should be held accountable, but when the electric eye is on us we're all criminals. The surveillance state needs to die

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We could not determine whether Giovansanti has ever harmed someone by speeding. But the circumstantial evidence is not reassuring: The right side of his truck is visibly damaged, and he refused to answer a straightforward question about his collision history.

If it was his car being damaged while parked it would be the left side, so probably not that.

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 18 points 2 days ago

Have you never parked on a one-way? Or literally anywhere other than the right shoulder of a road? That said, it's literally unbelievable this person still has a license (until you learn they are a fascist pig)

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hopefully one day a fully loaded semi truck explains to him the error of his ways.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 3 days ago

This is comedically on the nose, absolutely ridiculous. How is reality so heavy-handed in its lessons

[–] ductTapedWindow@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

An average full size truck sits at 6'. This short king is the height of a 12 year old

Edit: 6' not 6"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

He’s paid all of them too?! If a cop has a spare $36k to spend on being a reckless driver, he’s being paid way too much.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

And if he causes an accident, his victim goes down for it. That's NY.

load more comments
view more: next ›