Comment

If they had an existing ding on their car from smacking into a guard rail or opening their door into a post.

The malicious angle is they see an opportunity to blame someone else for their own fuckup and extract money from it. Or the stupidity angle is people honestly forget but will suddenly have the synapses in their brain cross to associate existing damages with this confession they just received.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?

source
- vateso5074@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  They confessed. Unless there’s verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing, there is a case to be made.
  
  In the US at least, this is in civil court, so there’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” expectation when making a judgment. Person A claims someone damaged their car, presents evidence of damage, a confession, and a visual connection to the confession and Person B.
  
  source
  - FarmTaco@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes
    
    “Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case.”
    
    source
    ttyybb@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    “Here’s a note that I promise they left”
    
    source
    vateso5074@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    It’s not “I say so,” it’s “He said so.”
    
    source
  - IzzyScissor@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing that the note leaver could somehow provide
    
    Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm…
    
    source
    vateso5074@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    If they had an existing ding on their car from smacking into a guard rail or opening their door into a post.
    
    Reading comprehension.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments