Useless Conversation

[lamaros]

So after posting in the Christmas Greed thread, I figured I'd comment here to about the "family drama" part.

So after the letter the MiL sent to us in early October, the husband hasn't called his parents on Sunday morning like he has been for the past 4-5 years.  I think part of it slipped through because of my surgery, and he did reply to an email his mom sent (How's RF? Fine, gets out of hospital on F) and kept it short and sweet.  But they've made no attempt to contact him to catch up either, which really makes me understand a comment the BiL said to his parents when they were visiting at the end of September.  Apparently MiL said something like "why can't you call more often like your brother does?" and BiL responded "the phone works both ways."  

So yeah, the whole bit about cutting off contact with family members?  I think they have to notice they've been cut off for it to be effective, and I'm not sure the in-laws really have.

Here's my tip for relationships of all sorts (that I always struggle to follow):

If you're making more drama, you're not really helping. If you don't care about the relationship, then fine, go for it, but otherwise stop having a whinge and be the bigger person. If you have real issues that are important and you want to address then talk about them, passive aggressive bullshit and snide remarks aren't going to get you anywhere.

[Samwise]

Well, the point of "cutting them off" should be to not have to deal with them.  If it's a cry for help, it probably won't work. 

If you're making more drama, you're not really helping. If you don't care about the relationship, then fine, go for it, but otherwise stop having a whinge and be the bigger person. If you have real issues that are important and you want to address then talk about them, passive aggressive bullshit and snide remarks aren't going to get you anywhere.

This.  Both of these.

You cut somebody off because you've decided the relationship is no longer worth the trouble.  If you start cutting them off and then look/hope for some kind of reaction that might lead to the an improvement in the relationship, you're doing it entirely wrong (and probably for the wrong reason).

[RhyssaFireheart]

Actually, I'm not looking for drama.  I'm rather indifferent either way if the husband ever talks to his parents again, it's his call since I rarely talk to them at all, tbh.  I was more interested that they've not seemed to have any reaction to the fact that the husband stopped doing something he's done regularly for the past 6+ years (calling them on Sunday mornings).  It's not as if there was a huge blow-up/argument.  He just stopped calling them.  Now, I'm guessing the MiL has either figured out that the letter was the cause he stopped calling, but without any other input, wouldn't you wonder if you were in that situation?  I'm just sort of perplexed is all.

[ghost]

Well, you've insinuated in the past that they really don't seem to care about him as much as his sibling.  Maybe this is just proof positive.

[Paelos]

Don't poke the bear.

The next move in the manipulator's handbook is to act wounded and pretend it's your fault. Just wait for that and be prepared when it comes.

[Sand]

I leave for Disney World in T minus 3 hours! 

(What does "t minus" mean anyway?)

[Xanthippe]

I always thought it meant "Take off" minus.

[Abagadro]

Heh. Just got picked to serve on a jury.

[Rasix]

My officemate has been gone for over a week on jury duty.  My trial only lasted a couple days luckily.  I was last picked after a lawyer dismissal. 

[Sand]

Heh. Just got picked to serve on a jury.

Murder? Wall Street Tycoon?
Have you found a book agent or PR firm yet?

[Paelos]

Heh. Just got picked to serve on a jury.

It must have been due to your official law-talking-guy mustachio

[ghost]

[WayAbvPar]

Heh. Just got picked to serve on a jury.

You are actually on the jury or just in the pool? I would assume that your profession would make most attorneys shy away from you during voir dire. Or is that not the case? I can see the other side too, where you would make an excellent juror since you understand the process far better than the average citizen.

[Johny Cee]

Heh. Just got picked to serve on a jury.

You are actually on the jury or just in the pool? I would assume that your profession would make most attorneys shy away from you during voir dire. Or is that not the case? I can see the other side too, where you would make an excellent juror since you understand the process far better than the average citizen.

Ab is the dual threat of attorney plus city employee, and may or may not actually be Monstroso.  If he was picked, must be a civil case?

[bhodi]

Didn't you get picked for Jury Duty a few years ago, walked in and knew the defendant or one of his relatives from a previous trial?

[Merusk]

I always thought it meant "Take off" minus.

Yes.  And then events are counted at T+ after lift-off.

At least that's what the Official Shuttle Pilot's Guide we bought at Cape Canaveral told me when I was 11.

[Rasix]

AC just went out in the lab.  FUN TIMES.  Ambient temp in there feels like about 100 F.

Rushing to shut shit down before millions of dollars worth of equipment just fucking melts.

[WayAbvPar]

That is what happens when people try to settle the front lawn of Hell.

[ghost]

Maybe it's just your natural heat.

[Rasix]

I am now sitting by a door playing security guard because we have to vent the lab.  Fantastic. They're going to bring me some pizza.

[schild]

That sucks, didn't know you were just making lunch in there.

[Abagadro]

On lunch break now. Will give a full run down tonight once it is over.

[Engels]

On lunch break now. Will give a full run down tonight once it is over.

I wonder if being a lawyer increases or decreases your chance of being kicked during voir dire.

[Xanthippe]

On lunch break now. Will give a full run down tonight once it is over.

I wonder if being a lawyer increases or decreases your chance of being kicked during voir dire.

I had a lawyer friend who, during voir dire, was asked if she had any preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  (She did not want to serve on the jury, particularly). She said, "well, he must have done something to be sitting there."  Surprisingly, she was not excused.  The jury found the guy guilty.

I have served once and been excused twice.  The last time was because I remembered reading about the defendant 10 years ago, when he broke into an apartment to molest a toddler - the father chased him and fired a shot but unfortunately missed.  (He had recently been returned after serving time in Oregon for molesting a kid.) Or maybe because my brother works as a research attorney for the court.  Both things were mentioned by the judge when he excused me.  Too bad, I wanted to hang that asshole.  Lucky for society, the jury convicted him even without me serving.

[Ingmar]

It is quite unusual for a lawyer to make it through, is my understanding. I don't think any of my lawyer friends have ever even been reserve jurors, they always get cut early.

[Abagadro]

Okay back.  Yes it is extremely rare that a lawyer serves on a jury, especially in a criminal case for a lawyer who works for an entity that prosecutes people (as I do even though my side of the office has nothing to do with that)  This was a DUI case in another city.  The judge actually did a double take when he got the final jury list and I am sure it was because my name was on it.

I know why I was picked though.  DUI cases in Utah are a bitch for defendants because of the religious aspects of alcohol consumption for Mormons. I was one of I think 3 people in the whole pool who said they didn't think it was 'wrong' to have a drink and drive as long as you were under the legal limit. For most Mormons, they think any amount of alcohol makes you into a slobbering idiot.  So that's why the defense was willing to let me on while the prosecutor probably thought I would be pro-prosecution because of where I work.  That's my guess.

It really surprised me as I was bitching to a colleague who is involved with the Bar here that they should have a rule excluding lawyers from the pool because they NEVER get picked so it is a big waste of time to show up for voir dire. She said they did sometimes and I jokingly challenged her to find one. Well, that's me now.

We convicted him as the defense really didn't have much to work with considering how the law is written even though I felt kinda bad for the guy as he didn't seem all that impaired.

[Abagadro]

Didn't you get picked for Jury Duty a few years ago, walked in and knew the defendant or one of his relatives from a previous trial?

Ya, one side was two guys I had litigated a big case against for a couple of years. They were being sued for pretty much the same thing to. Was hilarious.

It must have been due to your official law-talking-guy mustachio

It is indeed possible that the defense thought that someone with a mustache this bad wouldn't be able to convict someone.

[Engels]

Over the limit is over the limit. Even if he can drive ok if everything goes well, even a slight misshap by one driver can cascade to a serious accident because another driver is just a wee bit 'tipsy'.

[Abagadro]

Ya. The defense's argument was that the breathalyzer machine result was wrong because the evidence was that his actions/conduct/manner didn't show he was that drunk.  Based on the video he sorta had a point, but the law doesn't really let you challenge the results in that way. Plus, some people can appear pretty normal even when their BAL is fairly high.

[Engels]

What are the statistics on wrong or inconclusive breathalyzers machine results? If its like 3 percent, then ya, guy was probably a high tolerance drinker, which again, means nothing in the middle of the quick reflex action to avoid an accident. If its like 30%, then I'd probably have voted not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt and innocent till proven. 70% chance of guilty is still not guilty, in my book, but I'm a flaming pinko bastard.

[Reg]

Any driving after drinking is just plain dumb even if you're sure you're under the limit. I honestly don't know anybody who would even consider it anymore.

[Abagadro]

Dunno.  No evidence on reliability was presented and in Utah you are very, very constrained on how much you can challenge the machine results so long as it has undergone checks within a certain period of time.  There was actually a judicial finding in the instructions that the machine was basically working accurately so I'm actually not all that certain why we had the trail at all.

[Samwise]

My understanding is that if you consent to a breathalyzer you're going to have a hard time disputing its results.  Even though it's a pain in the ass for all involved, the smart thing to do (or so I'm told) is to request a blood test since those don't have the same tendency toward false positives.

[Merusk]

He was hoping for a soft jury.  Why he was hoping for that in Mormon country is a mystery, but I know that based on what you've said about the vid. and appearing sober he'd have a shot locally.   Particularly if were able to bring the results into question by saying he'd burped or something.   Based on other people's experiences around here, anything short of a blood test has a chance.

[Johny Cee]

My understanding is that if you consent to a breathalyzer you're going to have a hard time disputing its results.  Even though it's a pain in the ass for all involved, the smart thing to do (or so I'm told) is to request a blood test since those don't have the same tendency toward false positives.

Yah, but then you have a DNA sample floating around and they might tie you to all those murders....