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…
Comment on Diabolical
vateso5074@lemmy.world 17 hours agoThey 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.
IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
vateso5074@lemmy.world 11 hours 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.
IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.
FarmTaco@lemmy.world 16 hours 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.”
ttyybb@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
“Here’s a note that I promise they left”
vateso5074@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
It’s not “I say so,” it’s “He said so.”