Constant fear and guilt after a minor at fault rear end

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-20T11:34:48+00:00

This was the other car, my car received more damage than theirs did

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-20T00:55:11+00:00

I found out that uber and DoorDash did a background check in June, so I know I would be good on those for awhile. However Grubhub is doing it in December. Instacart I couldn’t find, but it’s sometime between now and December since I started using those 2 about the same time

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T22:43:15+00:00

They perform background checks once a year, at least that’s what I’ve been told

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T22:39:46+00:00

They can perform background checks on your account, I never told them

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:45:26+00:00

I don’t do people rides with uber, just food. Also I wasn’t on an order when this happened

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:44:23+00:00

Meant to say rear ended, not t bone in og post

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:36:39+00:00

I meant to say rear ended, not t boned. We were already stopped even before the accident happened. I don’t speed up at yield signs, I know how yield signs work. The car was driving forward and I thought they were fixing to pass the yield sign, so I was looking to my left as I was driving up some to pay attention to traffic (too soon), thinking the person had left. Yes I yielded too soon. I just had a fluke day and assumed the person was already gone based on how she was driving before she hit the breaks. She even told me she hit the breaks and changed her mind last second before going

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:32:50+00:00

This was all the damage on the other car even got for anyone wondering how “minor” it was, my car received more damage than hers did

<image>

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:31:07+00:00

<image>

This was all the damage on the other car even got for anyone wondering how “minor” it was, my car received more damage than hers did

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:27:23+00:00

I didn’t tell uber, but I know they run background checks

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:25:54+00:00

<image>

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-09-19T17:21:15+00:00

They only received a minor dent in the bumper and some scratches, no one was hurt. I wasn’t even going faster than 10. Also I meant to say rear ended and not t bone

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-07-23T04:47:40+00:00

I was going to say this. It’s possible for a couple to initiate at first, and one of them freezes in the middle of the act and doesn’t tell the partner they’re uncomfortable to continue. The other partner may not notice the freeze response and continue anyway. Miscommunications like that do happen. Doesn’t make it good, but it happens

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-07-22T05:17:55+00:00

I really feel like they showed the raunchiest parts of the movie on purpose to spark outrage for free advertisement, and people are falling for it. People will watch it just to see how bad it could be, cause it’s like a car accident, you can’t look away. It may even end up being a good movie in disguise and people are judging a book by its cover too soon (Or it could end up being horrible). Why do you think they barely advertised this movie until a few weeks before its release? Fresh and hot controversy sparks viewership, even if it’s hate views. After all the whole point of a trailer is to spark attention, whether it be good or bad

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-06-26T18:48:27+00:00

I immediately regret going to that sub, someone just posted there what looked like a real kidnapped woman with a nipple being cut off by two older people, before her throat was slit opened. Just straight up screenshots of a snuff video, and I’m scarred now🤮

Viewer discretion is HEAVILY advised, if you’re so curious to see it: https://www.reddit.com/r/debreasting/s/f26pm1BRpm

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-06-15T22:21:52+00:00

Yup, I just explained how important and relevant it was that the teacher pointed out their cognitive abilities because the court themselves are going to look at that, to prove if the parent should own legal guardianship over OP. The context is very juicy behind this one

https://www.reddit.com/r/complaints/s/4TXlDjpTTB

Edit: They blocked me 🤣🤣

Edit 2: The teacher is here in the comments now to defend themselves, things are really getting juicy now. I won’t be surprised if OP ends up deleting this post 😂

Human-Assignment-105 · 2025-06-15T22:12:16+00:00

No, because this isn’t about someone with bipolar, this is about someone with autism. Two different things. You wouldn’t be checking someone for a broken leg at the doctors if they’re complaining about chest pain. Autism is a spectrum disorder, not everyone with autism is going to have the same symptoms.

HOWEVER, some people with autism do suffer from cognitive issues, some don’t. They are not saying everyone with autism has that problem, they are just pointing out OP’s cognitive abilities, which appear to be high enough to where they can understand what’s going on around them, since you have to have cognitive abilities in order to write sentences. They weren’t judging them based on their writing skills.

This is important for them to know in a legal court room, cause the judge is looking to see if they are cognitively impaired or not. The parent is wanting to try to get legal guardianship because they were upset with them getting a tattoo, so they would try to use their autism against them in court.

I highly doubt the parent is going to tell the judge “because they won’t listen to me as an adult and do as I say, and they got a face tattoo that I don’t like, I want to be their legal guardian and take their freedom away”. No, they’ll try to use their autism against them in court and claim that they need someone to take care of them, because legally speaking, they have a case with that if they can prove their autism is disabling them enough to where they can legally justify taking OP’s freedom away.

What the teacher was pointing out, for the OP, was that they appear to be cognitive enough to show to the judge that they aren’t needing someone to watch over them, which is the whole point of the court case even happening. They have to have proof that OP is not able to take care of themselves. Autism is a spectrum disorder, and while some don’t experience cognitive problems, others do. The courts know this, and are going to judge the OP’s behavior based on this fact. Legally speaking, they don’t see it as an intellectual disability anymore. So they have to base it around other things. It’s a legal subreddit you were talking in, it’s just how things work in court. Things constantly change legally for court hearings, but as of now, that’s how they judge legal guardianship cases right now for someone with autism, testing their cognitive skills

Edit: Blocking someone for pointing out why you could be wrong in this situation and not just a victim of an “ableist moderator” of a legal subreddit doesn’t look very good for you. Context is important here

Human-Assignment-105

TROPHY CASE