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.

Most of the homeless have better sense than to vandalize an expensive car for no reason other than "Trump!! Musk!! Hitler!!"

So, the argument that the homeless would not be able to pay a lawsuit judgement is irrelevant and merely a red herring.

Most homeless probably have no idea what the protest involves, and they sure as heck don't want to get caught breaking the law for some drive-by Liberal's cause.

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.

Regardless of homeless or not, with money or not, an insurance company recouping their loses still rely on the criminals getting caught. So even if 25% of Tesla vandals get caught and pay full restitution, the insurance companies are still going to lose a lot of money and may raise insurance premiums for Teslas.

Regardless of homeless or not, with money or not, an insurance company recouping their loses still rely on the criminals getting caught. So even if 25% of Tesla vandals get caught and pay full restitution, the insurance companies are still going to lose a lot of money and may raise insurance premiums for Teslas.

That's got nothing to do with your original position -- that:

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

Now the problem is in catching the vandal, not how able they are to make restitution on their own.

Has anyone seen the goal posts?  I could have sworn they were right here.....

 

That's got nothing to do with your original position -- that:

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

Now the problem is in catching the vandal, not how able they are to make restitution on their own.

Has anyone seen the goal posts?  I could have sworn they were right here.....

 

Don't worry, I will install another one.  But it will be moved at a later time and date selected by EEF.

That's got nothing to do with your original position -- that:

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

Now the problem is in catching the vandal, not how able they are to make restitution on their own.

Has anyone seen the goal posts?  I could have sworn they were right here.....

 

You understand that there are two sides to the same coin right? Recovering the cost necessarily relies upon catching and convicting the vandal.

Funny that you only quote part of what I originally said. Here is the other part you forgot (purposefully left out) to quote.
"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."

You understand that there are two sides to the same coin right? Recovering the cost necessarily relies upon catching and convicting the vandal.

Funny that you only quote part of what I originally said. Here is the other part you forgot (purposefully left out) to quote.
"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."

What I understand is that you focused on the vandals WHO WERE CAUGHT as being unable to pay.

Now that you realize that is a losing position, you pivoted to being unable to catch and identify all the vandals.

Those are NOT two sides of the same coin.  They are completely separate issues.  You can't get a judgement against an unknown vandal, so you can't now include all the vandals that were not caught in your arguments.

In your mind, i'm sure this somehow makes you right, but all you're doing is employing a diversionary tactic to distract from your losing comments.

In your mind, i'm sure this somehow makes you right, but all you're doing is employing a diversionary tactic to distract from your losing comments.

Like usual.

What I understand is that you focused on the vandals WHO WERE CAUGHT as being unable to pay.

Now that you realize that is a losing position, you pivoted to being unable to catch and identify all the vandals.

Those are NOT two sides of the same coin.  They are completely separate issues.  You can't get a judgement against an unknown vandal, so you can't now include all the vandals that were not caught in your arguments.

In your mind, i'm sure this somehow makes you right, but all you're doing is employing a diversionary tactic to distract from your losing comments.

You clearly misunderstood.
I covered both in my earlier post and now you are pretending I am pivoting because you illustrated that sometimes costs are recouped from vandals.

If you can't debate honestly what is the point?

If you can't debate honestly what is the point?

Hahahhaahha

Another one caught, and this time it's Minnesota's state government financial policy analyst Dylan Bryan Adams, age 33.  i guess his parents liked Bryan Adams and Bob Dylan.   

He was arrested for several incidents of vandalizing Teslas causing approximately $20K in damages.

This happened just weeks after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz celebrated publicly the recent drop in Tesla stock even though state employee pensions are heavily invested in that stock.   

It's a cult, but unlike those cults that made the news for mass suicides, this one doesn't appear to have a purpose.  They aren't trying to get to heaven or catch a ride on a comet.  Instead, they are happiest doing stupid stuff for no apparent reason other than feelings and clicks.

Tampon Tim's staffer damaged multiple Teslas totalling $20K and the prosecution has declined to file charges.  Good thing there's civil court so insurance companies can try to get their money back (sarcasm).

Tampon Tim's staffer damaged multiple Teslas totalling $20K and the prosecution has declined to file charges.  Good thing there's civil court so insurance companies can try to get their money back (sarcasm).

Was that the state's prosecutor?  if so, he's not free and clear yet.

3 people face federal charges for Tesla attacks.
Are such acts domestic terrorism?

The Department of Justice announced charges Thursday against three
people it says are allegedly responsible for violent incidents targeting
Elon Musk's Tesla cars, showrooms and charging stations across the
country.

The Justice Department says three people — in Charleston, S.C.,
Loveland, Colo., and Salem, Ore. — are facing criminal charges that
carry a minimum penalty of five years and up to 20 years in prison for
a range of violent acts. They include using Molotov cocktails to set fire
to Tesla cars and charging stations and possessing other "incendiary
devices" and a suppressed AR-15 rifle, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi
said in a statement Thursday.

"The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended,"
Bondi said. "Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic
terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put
you behind bars."

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5333315/tesla-attacks-ag-bondi-domestic-terrorism-trump-musk

#Consequences

Was that the state's prosecutor?  if so, he's not free and clear yet.

3 people face federal charges for Tesla attacks.
Are such acts domestic terrorism?https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5333315/tesla-attacks-ag-bondi-domestic-terrorism-trump-musk

#Consequences

Yes.

Seeming how he just keyed them, I won't hold my breath that he would be charged federally.

Yes.

Seeming how he just keyed them, I won't hold my breath that he would be charged federally.

I don't know.  Seems a case could be made for being part of a plot to terrorize Tesla owners and sellers.  if sales decline due to their vandalism, who would Tesla sue for damages?  My first instinct would be to sue prosecutors who refuse to prosecute Tesla vandals but not for damage to other car brands.

I don't know.  Seems a case could be made for being part of a plot to terrorize Tesla owners and sellers.  if sales decline due to their vandalism, who would Tesla sue for damages?  My first instinct would be to sue prosecutors who refuse to prosecute Tesla vandals but not for damage to other car brands.

Tesla would have to show that their sales are down, but I think their sales increased during all of this. Not 100% sure.

Maybe since this guy is getting national non-fake news coverage, Pam will look into it.

Tesla would have to show that their sales are down, but I think their sales increased during all of this. Not 100% sure.

Maybe since this guy is getting national non-fake news coverage, Pam will look into it.

I believe the car lots that were fire bombed probably missed more than a few sales.

But, i could be wrong.

This should be automated and included as standard equipment ...

These attacks aren't real complicated, I don't think they require funding. What would it be, $5 for a gallon of gas and a lighter?
From what I have seen they really just seem more like unhinged individuals acting out.

The FBI and ATF both said they haven't found any evidence of coordination.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/tesla-vandalism-not-coordinated-trump-musk-claims-rcna197369

protesters were paid to be there, and in some cases, busses were provided to take them there

This should be automated and included as standard equipment ...

Hilarious but a very risky prank.