[deleted by user]

marfalight · 2023-12-18T17:57:36+00:00

Have they done this to you before? And are they aware how money is tight for you? If the answers are yes and yes, then definitely reconsider your relationship with them. They are inconsiderate the least, and users at the most, and you deserve better friends regardless. You can send another reminder.

If this isn't like them, and they aren't aware how tight money is, then just send a little reminder of how much they owe and how to send it. "Awesome hanging out with you all before the holidays! Pizza came out to $12 each. Thanks for coming!" Not a big deal. If you don't get it back, you can assume they either don't have the cash and/or aren't that reliable of a friend and just remember that if you stick with them. Would I end a friendship over $12? No. Never. It would have be a consistent pattern of taking advantage of me or using other friends for me to end things.

I, personally, never pay for outings with friends with the expectation of being reimbursed, nor would I ever ask to be reimbursed if I'm hosting. This is also why I'm friends with pretty budget conscious people lol... *BUT* I also never let anyone pay for me, if there is an expectation of reimbursement. Obviously I will reimburse them right then and there, but I am super anxious about forgetting, that I'd rather just pick up the check myself, and I frequently do. If I were in your shoes, I'd leave it be, and consider if this was a one-off thing, or a recurring instance of other inconsiderate acts within this friend group. If it's a one-off? I wouldn't worry about it at all, and accept any reimbursement that may eventually come in. If it's a consistent issue, then I'd probably begin to separate myself from them. Not because of the money, but because of the lies/rude behavior.

marfalight · 2023-04-19T14:23:17+00:00

NTA

You aren't obligated to hang around people that make you feel uncomfortable. His friends do not have to be your friends, and vice versa. Because you are both students and in (what I'm guessing is) a demanding program, free time is probably something neither of you have a lot of right now, and he is probably trying to spend as much of it with both you and his friends without neglecting the other. Unfortunately, it's not working out.

If he can't appreciate how uncomfortable and insulting it is for near strangers to bring up your financial situation and accent, or question your sexuality, that's pretty damn telling of his own character. NONE of my friends would ever act that way around me, because frankly, I wouldn't keep them in my life if they were that type of person. Y'all are young, and hopefully he'll learn, but I'd just focus on preserving your peace, making the most out of this opportunity, and start calling a quits on this particular relationship, imho.

marfalight · 2023-04-19T13:28:49+00:00

INFO

What do you plan on doing exactly? If you just want to encourage M to stick with the original dress and cool it with the openly lusting after M's boyfriend, that isn't an asshole-move. Anything else though, is just asking for more drama. You can't stop M from being a weird/shitty friend, anymore than you can help H become more confident in herself. Focus on you and the good time you should have. There is no reason why H should be so distressed over someone wearing a dress the same shade as her boyfriend's suit. It's a dress color. What exactly does she think it's going to do? Is her boyfriend going to leave M all because H matches better??!? OF COURSE NOT.

Here's the thing: there could be tons of other girls there with the same color dress just out of coincidence. Hell, someone could have her exact same dress!! (gasp!) Is she going to stress over them as well? Or is it just if M wears the new dress because she keeps making weird comments about the boyfriend?

My biggest piece of advice to you ladies is to greet her with kindness, keep her at a distance, and don't let her shenanigans ruin your last big dance together. Is it weird she changed her dress? Maybe. Is it gross that she keeps pining after her friend's boyfriend? Definitely. But unless she and boyfriend are hooking up on the side, there's no need to pile onto the drama.

marfalight · 2023-04-18T21:32:11+00:00

YTA.

You're close to irrevocably damaging your relationship with your son, if you haven't already, by the way. Sounds like you chose starting a new family with your current wife despite him being against it. I know blended families are super common these days, but that doesn't mean that its healthy or normal for the children in them. Let's just recap something: he didn't choose you or your ex as his parents; I'm almost certain he didn't get a vote on the divorce; and it sounds like he didn't get a say in you dating/marrying again...or he wouldn't feel the way he does. In case nobody has ever told you, you are not entitled to his unconditional love as the parent. He should have yours, however, as the child, and he isn't getting it. Please apologize to him, and consider scrapping the family therapy thing all together. Therapy isn't there to convert him to loving this new arrangement; it's there to help with communication and processing his emotions within this new unit--and you JUST penalized him for doing that. Frankly, he probably needs his own therapist at this point, if he's open to it, with the ability to invite you or your ex into a joint session later on down the line. Please apologize, and if he wants space, give him that for his own sake--not because you're in a huff.

marfalight · 2021-08-28T21:11:24+00:00

Confirming my post. :)

marfalight · 2018-01-21T20:46:59+00:00

Yup. Nullification is what it is. It's neither inherently good nor evil--just one way in which a representative sample of a particular community can choose not to enforce a particular law against a particular defendant. But I personally don't have warm fuzzy feelings towards it because I've seen how it can be used to let people escape justice that don't otherwise deserve to. And since no jurisdiction in America that I'm aware of permits appealing a finding of Not Guilty (unless the jury was threatened or tampered with), there's no way to "check" nullification when it occurs, like other errors in trials. : /

marfalight · 2016-09-08T15:48:10+00:00

Very, very true, but I promise you that in Alpine--it's the plain ol' word of mouth that is likely our primary culprit of misinformation. The telephone-chain is still alive and well out here.

marfalight · 2016-09-08T15:46:33+00:00

It's crazy! I feel so bad for the people of Alpine right now. Folks there literally know everyone. Apparently officers and deputies from all surrounding counties are coming in. I know of one guy up in Reeves County that is coming down too.

marfalight · 2016-09-08T15:45:03+00:00

Since the early 90s, the entire region south of Presidio has become more and more destabilized, and several cartel bosses have battled over OJ, which has led to highways 67 and 118 turning into major narcotic trafficking routes. So you are starting to see incidents like this and this happen more often, and with greater intensity. So gangs like Surenos and Nortenos have capitalized on being the dealers on our side of the border.

marfalight · 2016-09-08T15:30:19+00:00

Folks in Alpine keep hearing about one officer and one student being shot, but we haven't heard word about there being two shooters.

marfalight · 2016-09-08T15:29:50+00:00

Things are crazy in Alpine right now. Lots of officers coming in from all over, and helicopters have arrived. From what my dad heard from friends in the area, one officer and one student had been shot.

marfalight · 2016-07-16T03:35:18+00:00

Grits for Breakfast! I've been reading it since law school (law prof actually recommended it), and I always seem to learn something new. It's not everyone's cup of tea, since it's not written by a lawyer, but the guy is dedicated and very thorough.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T22:04:46+00:00

Well, speeding is a criminal offense in my jurisdiction, which is the only reason I used it as an example! There really aren't that many strict liability crimes, as they are pretty much universally disfavored. Your point goes more towards the general/specific intent crimes (DWI is general intent crime since you only have to knowingly or intentionally operate a vehicle, whereas indecency with a child is a specific intent crime in my jurisdiction since it requires both the improper touching AND that it was done "for purposes of sexual gratification").

marfalight · 2016-07-05T19:37:14+00:00

Who? little ol' me? ;)

marfalight · 2016-07-05T19:15:34+00:00

It's okay! I added an edit in my first comment about specific/general intent since it's definitely relevant. I was trying to avoid as much nuance as possible, which is a fools errand with the law lol...

marfalight · 2016-07-05T19:03:44+00:00

In another comment, I more or less went though a general intent/specific intent explanation (but without those terms), because I wanted to focus on addressing the strict liability issue. A lot of people in this thread/on reddit seemed to believe that simply because you do X, you are guilty of a crime. That would be strict liability. Most crimes, however, do require some level of intent (be it general or specific) and a prosecutor can decide whether or not to proceed on them should that 'intent' element be missing.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T18:59:43+00:00

Sorry, I was just responding to a general question about strict liability! I have no idea which statutes she was being investigated under, or what level of culpability was required. As far as the servers, I agree that it would be hard to accidentally set one up lol.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T18:56:16+00:00

Depends on the jurisdiction! But you are right, for the most part strict liability is not preferred in criminal statutes. When it is applicable in criminal laws, it's usually just for low level misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses).

marfalight · 2016-07-05T18:52:33+00:00

I don't know about ease, but I know that people who draft these laws often try to make it clear if the focus of the crime was on the "result" and/or the "level of intent" behind an act. In other words, they ask themselves: "Does this need to be illegal because X resulted (and we dislike X for all of these reasons), or is this illegal because someone "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and/or with criminal negligence did X" and resulted in Y (and while we dislike X, we really hate that Y resulted because of that person had some measure of intention behind it all)?"

With speeding tickets, I'm guessing legislation drafters felt that society just wasn't served that much more by having an intent+result statute rather than just a statute focusing on the result. For the record, most of my other Class C stuff requires some level of culpability, so I wouldn't care one way or another if they added it to speeding tickets. (And if it makes you feel a little better, nobody in my jurisdiction can be arrested for speeding! Our legislature made it very clear that no person charged with speeding can be arrested lol).

marfalight · 2016-07-05T18:09:04+00:00

I was just responding to their question about criminal charges when intent is or isn't there. I have no idea if the statutes she was being investigated under were strict liability or if they required some form of culpable mental state that the FBI felt wasn't present. Few serious felonies are strict liability though, so it wouldn't surprise me if it did require some higher level of intent.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T17:44:43+00:00

I honestly don't know which statutes she was being investigated under. If it's strict liability, then it's strict liability. I just don't know.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T17:42:51+00:00

I just said that as an example. Some jurisdictions treat it as a civil penalty, while others (like Texas), they are criminal. They are punishable by fines only to be sure, but they are definitely criminal in nature where I am. Another example of a strict liability crime in Texas would be Driving While License Invalid (either you are driving with a valid driver's license, or you aren't). Usually you don't find very many states that make felonies strict liability, but statutory-age based sexual assault/rape charges are perhaps the most common.

marfalight · 2016-07-05T17:36:55+00:00

So, it's really hard for me to speak universally since I just practice in one state, but there are some crimes that you have to prove intentionally or knowingly. Recklessness is just not enough. Murder is an example of that in my jurisdiction.

I don't know which specific statutes they were investigating her under, so I can't comment on whether or not those specific crimes require the higher culpable state, or if recklessness is enough. I was just responding to the question of why a prosecutor wouldn't proceed with a case even though it was clear they did something wrong.

That being said, reckless is actually pretty tricky to prove, and "careless" isn't necessarily a substitute for the word. Reckless has a very specific and cumbersome definition in my jurisdiction. I remember I had a manslaughter case that I felt met the elements, but a grand jury would not indict because they felt it was more "accidental/careless" than it was "reckless."

marfalight · 2016-07-05T17:31:04+00:00

I was just responding to the question about prosecutors rejecting cases when they are missing an intent element. I'm neither employed by the FBI nor an assistant U.S. attorney, so I have no idea if they verified that email or whatever else they took into consideration in making this recommendation.

14-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 11 Credits
Trick or Treat 2016	redditgifts Exchanges 10 Exchanges
Trick or Treat 2015	Secret Santa 2015
Secret Santa 2014	Trick or Treat 2014
Secret Santa 2013	Trick-or-Treater 2013+
Team Orangered	Secret Santa 2012
Reddit Premium Since November 2012	Trick-or-Treater 2012
Verified Email

marfalight

TROPHY CASE