He Swore at My Wife and Blocked Our Garage—So I Sent His Resume to Every Fast Food Job in Town
This post recounts a bizarre and escalating encounter in downtown Vancouver between the OP and an aggressive man named Christopher, who blocked their private garage while making a liquor store stop. When asked politely to move, Christopher responded with verbal abuse, mockery, and eventually physical provocation—pushing OP and trying to escalate the situation into a fight. Police intervened swiftly and deescalated the scene, backing the OP after learning Christopher had parked illegally and had an open alcoholic beverage in the car. Though no charges were filed, the situation left OP frustrated and humiliated—particularly because it played out in front of his then-fiancée and future mother-in-law.
But OP didn’t let it end there. Discovering Christopher’s business card tossed at the scene, OP learned he was a freelance graphic designer and located his professional resume online. What followed was a petty masterpiece of non-violent revenge: OP began applying to minimum-wage jobs on Christopher’s behalf, sending his resume to fast food chains, grocery stores, and entry-level retail positions—all using his real contact information. While the exact fallout is unknown, Christopher’s website later disappeared from the internet. The tale closes with a moral twist: “Don’t mess with me in front of my family—or I’ll get you a job at McDonald’s.”
Limited parking spaces in cities often ignite arguments
Case in point is this story, in which a man blocked a garage and blatantly refused to move
Harassment, Legal Boundaries, and the Art of Petty Justice
1. The Initial Incident: Parking Violations and Public Intimidation
Blocking someone’s private driveway or garage, even for a short time, is a violation under Vancouver’s Street and Traffic Bylaw No. 2849, which prohibits obstructing a driveway or lane. In this case, the offense was compounded by the aggressor’s confrontational behavior—drinking alcohol in public (against local bylaws), using intimidation tactics, and instigating physical contact.
OP’s response—calling the police rather than engaging—was legally and strategically sound. Vancouver Police prioritize “escalation avoidance,” and their quick arrival and handling of the situation likely prevented potential assault charges. Importantly, the fact that Christopher shoved OP, unprovoked, placed him at risk of criminal liability even if charges weren’t pursued.
2. The Legal Gray Area of Petty Revenge
After the event, OP’s creative retaliation sparked admiration—and raised ethical questions. Submitting real resumes on someone’s behalf is not explicitly illegal, but it exists in a gray zone of impersonation. Since the applications were sent using Christopher’s real information, not falsified credentials or fraudulent claims, it would be difficult for him to pursue legal action unless harm (financial or reputational) could be proven.
In Canada, identity theft laws focus primarily on fraudulent uses of someone’s personal information (e.g., opening bank accounts, obtaining credit). What OP did was closer to prank application abuse, a growing phenomenon in digital culture where online users submit real resumes to jobs for humorous or retaliatory purposes.
Though morally debatable, the act was technically harmless: no fake information was used, no illegal activities were performed, and no data was stolen or misused beyond its original public context. It’s what some legal scholars term “non-malicious mischief”—annoying, perhaps reputation-tarnishing, but not criminal.
3. Petty Revenge as a Cultural Phenomenon
What makes this story so compelling is its alignment with the cultural archetype of “petty revenge.” From Reddit to TikTok, stories where individuals nonviolently but creatively push back against rudeness or injustice dominate online engagement. The appeal lies in control reclamation—turning humiliation into humor, and helplessness into clever retaliation.
Revenge of this kind often garners positive attention because:
- It avoids physical violence or legal entanglement.
- It serves as a social consequence for antisocial behavior.
- It’s funny—and cathartic—for people who’ve faced similar disrespect.
This mirrors popular Reddit threads like r/pettyrevenge or r/justiceserved, where users share tales of satisfying, morally grey payback. One famous post featured a man reporting hundreds of spam mail signups using the email of someone who bullied him years earlier. While not legally actionable, such stories offer emotional closure in a digital age where “getting the last word” often happens through keyboards, not courtrooms.
4. Public Image and the Risks of Oversharing
Christopher’s initial mistake—throwing his business card in a fit of ego—reflects a modern hazard: overexposure online. Freelancers and self-employed creatives often list resumes, portfolios, and contact info publicly to attract clients. But these same details can be used against them if they behave badly.
The OP capitalized on this digital transparency. In a post-Google era, real-world actions can have virtual consequences. For professionals, especially those whose brand is personal (designers, influencers, consultants), being a public jerk can have real repercussions—damaged reputation, job loss, or in this case, a mysterious barrage of interview calls from fast food chains.
It’s a reminder that branding starts offline. Acting with impunity in public, especially with documentation like a business card, is risky when your online persona can be weaponized by others. Christopher’s website disappearing after the prank may not be a coincidence—it might reflect an attempt to erase the digital breadcrumbs that linked him to the incident.
5. Humor, Ethics, and the Line Between Justice and Cruelty
Was the OP’s prank cruel? That depends on your perspective. From a utilitarian lens, no real harm was done—just inconvenience. From a retributive standpoint, the punishment fits the crime: Christopher tried to bully someone, then got embarrassed via harmless but relentless prank applications.
The story hits a unique moral balance:
- No escalation to violence.
- No harm to finances or safety.
- A poetic reversal of power.
If revenge is a dish best served cold, then this one was served with fries and a resume.
Commenters approved of the petty revenge and even suggested more things to add to it
✅ Final Thoughts
- Legal but cheeky: OP’s actions danced on the edge of impersonation without breaking Canadian privacy or identity laws.
- Petty but justified: The revenge targeted arrogance, public disrespect, and mild physical aggression—not some minor faux pas.
- Lesson learned: Be careful whom you insult in public. They might be a bit more resourceful—and vindictive—than expected.
Similar Posts
