LOL!  Where is that rule written?

Observations that are not definitive are called unreliable impressions.  Show me where you said you saw smoke of anything else that rises to the level of relevant or even of interest.

Looking at reasonable possibilities is not the same as you looking at every imaginative possibility you pick and choose to post without any evidence to support them.

Who said anything about a written rule? I made a statement based on the logic in your statement to illustrate a point.

I didn't come up with every imaginative possibility, I came up with a reasonable one. You seem to just not want to admit it is a possibility because then you can't entertain the George Soros conspiracy theory.

Who said anything about a written rule? I made a statement based on the logic in your statement to illustrate a point.

I didn't come up with every imaginative possibility, I came up with a reasonable one. You seem to just not want to admit it is a possibility because then you can't entertain the George Soros conspiracy theory.

Hahahhahaha

"logic"

Woman CHARGED WITH FELONY For Using
GUM To Damage Tesla Door Mechanism

Liberals Cry She Was OVERCHARGED

The damage the gum caused was malicious, intentional,
and involved over $2,500 in repairs to the door handle.

The car's cameras recorded the perp in action.

There's a way to protest. 

And what these stupid people are doing to people's private property is not it.  They should be held accountable and punished.

Trump was elected because people felt America was going over the edge under the retarded leadership of some very corrupt, stupid, and evil asshats.

I'm beginning to wonder if America has already gone over that edge.

There's a way to protest. 

And what these stupid people are doing to people's private property is not it.  They should be held accountable and punished.

Trump was elected because people felt America was going over the edge under the retarded leadership of some very corrupt, stupid, and evil asshats.

I'm beginning to wonder if America has already gone over that edge.

For every Tesla that gets totaled, you can assume the company sells another one to replace it.

For repairs done at the dealership and parts purchased from the manufacturer, Tesla again makes money.

And the perpetrator, if caught, foots the bill! 

Nobody ever accused Liberals/Democrats of being smart.

For every Tesla that gets totaled, you can assume the company sells another one to replace it.

For repairs done at the dealership and parts purchased from the manufacturer, Tesla again makes money.

And the perpetrator, if caught, foots the bill! 

Nobody ever accused Liberals/Democrats of being smart.

Feelings over logic sums it up.

Feelings over logic sums it up.

They're also brain damaged from messing with their DNA. The more shots the crazier you get.

For every Tesla that gets totaled, you can assume the company sells another one to replace it.

For repairs done at the dealership and parts purchased from the manufacturer, Tesla again makes money.

And the perpetrator, if caught, foots the bill! 

Nobody ever accused Liberals/Democrats of being smart.

The problem lies in insurance costs. If these people managed to damage enough Teslas to cause insurance for Teslas to increase significantly that could reduce sales thereby hurting Tesla.

The problem with recovering the cost of the vehicle through restitution is that it only works if the offender has money to begin with. Regardless I do home all these people get hit with appropriate restitution.

The problem lies in insurance costs. If these people managed to damage enough Teslas to cause insurance for Teslas to increase significantly that could reduce sales thereby hurting Tesla.

The problem with recovering the cost of the vehicle through restitution is that it only works if the offender has money to begin with. Regardless I do home all these people get hit with appropriate restitution.

Only?  Really?

I had a friend who sued his neighbor for slander and defamation of character.

The defendant knew he was about to lose, but he didn't want to pay the judgement.  So he tried getting rid of his home by transferring ownership to his daughter just before the verdict.

Courts don't like it when you play those games.  When you "sell" your house to a relative for $1.00 during the hearing in a lawsuit, it's obvious what you are doing.  I believe the judge referred him to the DA to file fraud charges on top of the lawsuit judgement against him.

My friend not only got a check for whatever cash the man had in the bank, but he also placed a lien on the man's home -- meaning the home can't be sold or refinanced unless my friend was paid first or agreed.  He also filed to garnish the man's income.

In another relative's case, he passed a couple of bad checks that were less than $300 total.  He was ordered to make restitution in 6 months.  As that time passed, he lost his job and didn't find another one.  Unable to pay, the court found him in contempt of court.  He was arrested, thrown in jail, and wasn't released until he made restitution.  My mother and i paid the amount of the bounced checks plus court costs after he spent a week in jail.

Moral of the story:  the Tesla vandal doesn't necessarily need the money to satisfy an order of restitution.  They can sell something, get a home equity loan, get a personal bank loan, have their paycheck garnished or borrow from relatives/friends. 

Only?  Really?

I had a friend who sued his neighbor for slander and defamation of character.

The defendant knew he was about to lose, but he didn't want to pay the judgement.  So he tried getting rid of his home by transferring ownership to his daughter just before the verdict.

Courts don't like it when you play those games.  When you "sell" your house to a relative for $1.00 during the hearing in a lawsuit, it's obvious what you are doing.  I believe the judge referred him to the DA to file fraud charges on top of the lawsuit judgement against him.

My friend not only got a check for whatever cash the man had in the bank, but he also placed a lien on the man's home -- meaning the home can't be sold or refinanced unless my friend was paid first or agreed.  He also filed to garnish the man's income.

In another relative's case, he passed a couple of bad checks that were less than $300 total.  He was ordered to make restitution in 6 months.  As that time passed, he lost his job and didn't find another one.  Unable to pay, the court found him in contempt of court.  He was arrested, thrown in jail, and wasn't released until he made restitution.  My mother and i paid the amount of the bounced checks plus court costs after he spent a week in jail.

Moral of the story:  the Tesla vandal doesn't necessarily need the money to satisfy an order of restitution.  They can sell something, get a home equity loan, get a personal bank loan, have their paycheck garnished or borrow from relatives/friends.

You are very correct but my point was that these people have to have something to go after. A lot of the time thieves and vandals don't have much to go after. Maybe Tesla vandals are different?

You are very correct but my point was that these people have to have something to go after. A lot of the time thieves and vandals don't have much to go after. Maybe Tesla vandals are different?

Did you even read his reply?

You are very correct but my point was that these people have to have something to go after. A lot of the time thieves and vandals don't have much to go after. Maybe Tesla vandals are different?

Funny.  I thought YOUR POINT was very clear:

"The problem with recovering the cost of the vehicle through restitution
is that it only works if the offender has money to begin with."

Maybe try posting your point instead of false, definitive comments. 

The word "only" is a qualifier, but one that's more constraining than your normal qualifiers.

Even your updated POINT is wrong.  You say they have to have something to go after.  That's incorrect.

As I illustrated, the person can borrow the money or ask friends and relatives to help pay the judgement.  They could also luck out and get a bunch of Libtards to donate to an online fund raiser to help pay it.  They may also have insurance they can file a claim under -- liability and possibly auto depending on the policy.

So, NO!!  They do not have to have anything "to go after."  You (and your insurance company if you filed a claim) can sue regardless of the assets the asshat has.  Many people who can't recover damages through the other person's insurance will file under their own policy and then sue the person for any deductible and other out-of-pocket expenses, making restitution much easier to collect.

Did you even read his reply?

Swoosh

Funny.  I thought YOUR POINT was very clear:

"The problem with recovering the cost of the vehicle through restitution
is that it only works if the offender has money to begin with."

Maybe try posting your point instead of false, definitive comments. 

The word "only" is a qualifier, but one that's more constraining than your normal qualifiers.

Even your updated POINT is wrong.  You say they have to have something to go after.  That's incorrect.

As I illustrated, the person can borrow the money or ask friends and relatives to help pay the judgement.  They could also luck out and get a bunch of Libtards to donate to an online fund raiser to help pay it.  They may also have insurance they can file a claim under -- liability and possibly auto depending on the policy.

So, NO!!  They do not have to have anything "to go after."  You (and your insurance company if you filed a claim) can sue regardless of the assets the asshat has.  Many people who can't recover damages through the other person's insurance will file under their own policy and then sue the person for any deductible and other out-of-pocket expenses, making restitution much easier to collect.

Wrong.
Originally I said money but I should have said "something of value" to be more accurate.
If I am a homeless drug addict with no property, no wealth, no income, you (or your insurance company) can get a judgement of $50,000 for torching your Tesla all day long and you will never get a dime back because I would have nothing to go after. The updated point was completely accurate because we don't have a prison system where a person works off their debt and you can't force the family members to pay the judgement either. Recovering the cost of your torched Tesla is only possible if the torcher has something of value to go after. Until then, you, or your insurance is still out that $50,000 and this, on a wider scale, can increase insurance costs.  Cars that are stolen at higher rates often cost more to insure so this notion you have that the criminals simply be charged to recover the costs doesn't bear out in reality.

Wrong.
Originally I said money but I should have said "something of value" to be more accurate.
If I am a homeless drug addict with no property, no wealth, no income, you (or your insurance company) can get a judgement of $50,000 for torching your Tesla all day long and you will never get a dime back because I would have nothing to go after. The updated point was completely accurate because we don't have a prison system where a person works off their debt and you can't force the family members to pay the judgement either. Recovering the cost of your torched Tesla is only possible if the torcher has something of value to go after. Until then, you, or your insurance is still out that $50,000 and this, on a wider scale, can increase insurance costs.  Cars that are stolen at higher rates often cost more to insure so this notion you have that the criminals simply be charged to recover the costs doesn't bear out in reality.

In your mind, you can't ever be wrong if you later say, "I should have said." 

Having intent to state one thing and stating something else doesn't make what you actually said right.  Yet, you want to deny it was incorrect.

Sad.

In your mind, you can't ever be wrong if you later say, "I should have said." 

Having intent to state one thing and stating something else doesn't make what you actually said right.  Yet, you want to deny it was incorrect.

Sad.

I never said it wasn't wrong. I openly indicated a better word choice.
You could have taken that little victory but then you go and lose it by refusing to admit someone with nothing of value can't be forced to pay a judgement. Oh oh oh but he can crowd fund. Guess you can never be wrong either huh? At least I admitted my poor choice of words.

Swoosh

A simple no would do, but here you go again and refuse to admit when wrong.

Wrong.
Originally I said money but I should have said "something of value" to be more accurate.
If I am a homeless drug addict with no property, no wealth, no income, you (or your insurance company) can get a judgement of $50,000 for torching your Tesla all day long and you will never get a dime back because I would have nothing to go after. The updated point was completely accurate because we don't have a prison system where a person works off their debt and you can't force the family members to pay the judgement either. Recovering the cost of your torched Tesla is only possible if the torcher has something of value to go after. Until then, you, or your insurance is still out that $50,000 and this, on a wider scale, can increase insurance costs.  Cars that are stolen at higher rates often cost more to insure so this notion you have that the criminals simply be charged to recover the costs doesn't bear out in reality.

Even the homeless can/has money.  Not $50K, but I would settle for the $2.83 in their pocket.  I mean, you've never heard of "settlements"?

Even the homeless can/has money.  Not $50K, but I would settle for the $2.83 in their pocket.  I mean, you've never heard of "settlements"?

A lot of homeless have no monthly bills but still receives food benefits and Social Security unearned income.

It's not uncommon for SS income to be garnished to satisfy a judgement.

Homeless have money.  Most choose to be homeless so they can have "more" money.  Many times for some bad choices.  But even bad choices cost money.

Most if not all of them are irresponsible, lazy, POS.