Yes, I will ignore the incorrect merriam-webster definition of it when you’re talking about a legal distinction.
Except **it’s a crime. ** and you will pay for it if you have the means to do so.
So you think it’s preferable to commit a crime and possibly pay for the damage than to damage one’s own property? Do you not see how this is steve-buschemi-in-billy-madison type insanity?
No, you stupid sot.
Black’s Law Dictionary:
5. A pecuniary criminal punishment or civil penalty payable to the public treasury.
A fine is a punishment that goes above and beyond making the other party whole. A civil judgment (aka damages, award) is not a fine because the object is to compensate the offended party for the harm inflicted upon them.
Punitive damages might be considered a fine. They would be a fine for being a fucking tard. But since punitive damages go to the injured party, they aren’t legally a fine. All of this is, of course, a pointless aside to the fact that you are still completely off base, as evidenced here:
Well you’ve got a point there. Killing your pregnant wife is preferable to paying alimony and child support as long as you don’t get caught, I suppose. Shoplifting is preferable to paying, as long as you don’t get caught.
See how it really works is the insurance companies, in cahoots with the Bilderbergers and the Knights Hospitaler, just print money at a secret insurance headquarters, so it’s perfectly all right to do whatever harm you want as long as the insurance company pays for it.
Seriously, how do you get through life without making toast in the bathtub or accidentally deep frying your own head? On the other hand, I guess you’re a supposedly college-educated person working at Kroger’s, so there might be some justice in the world.
I wasn’t talking about a legal distinction, dumbass. I never implied my use of “fine” was a legal term; I do not pretend to be an attorney. If I did either, you had better point it out to me before making such claims. And I forgot that Merriam-Webster was not, and has never been, an authority on the English language.
Sorry, I’m not big on the whole law and order thing. In fact, I pretty much despise it. While illegal often equals wrong, it also often equals morally gray; in the latter case, it is definitely tipped in the favor of businesses which generally perform immoral actions without possible legal consequences.
So yes, I do think damaging a rental car is preferable to damaging one’s own vehicle - crime or otherwise. I don’t remember Buscemi’s character in Billy Madison so I can’t answer that question.
Ahh, here we have it. He’s an anarchist. The system is, like, so wrong, man. We should, like, totally live in harmony with each other! People would join together to build habitats and, like, farm and stuff! It would be rad!
I’m done dealing with this imbecilic vulgarian. He’s quite obviously incapable of rationality; plus it’s not worth my time to keep pandering to the attention-whoring of a stockboy.
If you want to ever be taken seriously, stop making idiotic analogies. I’m afraid you might make my eyes permanently roll back in my head.
This is an apt description; I won’t pretend otherwise.
It wasn’t a compliment.
Sorry I’m late, I don’t usually post in Pit threads, but this new guy, **The Central Scrutinizer ** has a really bad concept. I made the mistake of posting an answer to why his idea needed more thought. Because it made no sense. The basic concept of fuel octane escapes him.
It seems that The Central Scrutnizer already knows everything about all kinds of engines, all kinds of fuel, and just wants to add BTUs back in to his Pious Prius. Must be the smartest fucking mechanical engineer on the planet. Obvously a genius that no one is paying attention to.
If only someone would listen to him!!
And then, the real money shot comes! He is sooo sure of his concept that he would like approval to try it out on someone else’s car! You know, one of those evil corporations with their fleet of rentals. He wants to just ruin one while keeping his Pious Prius in the garage, nicely waxed.
I have a personal opinion that he is a sock puppet of a recently suspended poster. But that is just me.
In any case, even if you are a mad scientist who holds the answer to all the world’s problems.
Test it on your own stuff!!!
I really don’t need my personal beliefs to be complimented. Derision won’t change my mind, either.
OK I’m just going to quote this one line but my arguments are based on all of Mr. Krebbs posts.
I work for a supermarket chain. Have done for over 10 years at various ranks. Yes a company would love it if it could reduce the leakage from such circumstances as faulty merchandise, picking/packing mistakes and thieving bastards.
However if my company could reduce any of these losses, then yes the prices would go down because they are in competition with other businesses. For fuck sake are you so fucking ignorant that you don’t grasp this basic concept? I mean you’ve got a BA in English.
Oh wait, a BA in English. What in the world has that got to do with economics, other than to say you have a vague idea of what the word means.
Your entire position seems to be "Fuck the lot of you. If you’re not smart enough to milk the systems for all they’re worth, and let some other poor schmuck pick up the tab then nyah!
Well kiss my nutsack, or better yet don’t.
Yes but seeing as you were the first one to use the term “fine” in this thread, I needed to ask you what you meant by it, lets you try some weaseling.
That’s good that you can at least admit your forgetfulness, though.
so you think it’s “morally grey” to break someone else’s shit because they happen to have an insurance policy on it?
<Avenue Q>o/` What do you do with a BA in English?
What is my life going to be?
Four years of college and plenty of knowledge,
Have earned me this useless degree.
I can’t pay the bills yet,
'Cause I have no skills yet,
The world is a big scary place. o/` </AQ>
Ok, so the poster isn’t ripping off the car rental agency. No, he’s ripping off the insurance company! And he thinks the latter is ok.
Actually though, he’s ripping off both, as the insurance company will presumably raise the car co’s rates for this kind of stuff. (And to the extent that these experiments add to wear and tear, I suspect that the Hertz or Avis is practicing self-insurance.)
There’s a name for this phenomenon by the way: it’s called moral hazard or “Circumstance which increases the probability of loss because of an applicant’s personal habits or morals…” Here, our applicant fills his gas tank with a mixture of diesel and petrol, which is not exactly practicing due diligence.
Admittedly some may agree with the poster. Criminals, for example: they could argue that law breaking is ok, since the government takes this into account when they set penalties. After all, it’s not like theft, murder and mayhem are risk free endeavors. As one mass murderer put it, “As far as feeling remorse for these people, I don’t. I can’t help it. Everybody pays their way and takes their chances. That’s just the way it goes.”
Krebs, you fuckwad, you’re making me agree with ivn. Stop it.
THIS.
Well, yes. Much in the same way me using your car to experiment on it is preferable to using my own.
Mr. Krebbs is correct. Most companies incorporate what is basically an “asshole tax” in their business model. That is to say, they expect a certain degree of loss from theft, accidental damage, wear and tear and other unforseen circumstances.
Also realize they actively take steps to prevent this. If you willingly destroy a rental car, you may find yourself charged with the damages (in spite of the insurance) or banned from renting from that company again. That actually happened to a friend of mine. Something about leaving a wrecked car in the middle of the main street in Hoboken, NJ.
So, it costs what, a couple of hundred bucks to rent a shite car for the few days you need to perfect your gasodiesel mix thing, right?
Why the hell can’t you just buy a beater for a couple of hundred bucks and experiment on that? You can sell it for scrap or parts afterwards and probably recoup your investment.
I don’t know where you are, but the insurance company will then turn around and come after you for what they paid out.
Well, actually no. It is exactly an object definition of negligence. It’s a term of art. It isn’t irresponsibility, it’s negligence. Irresponsibilty isn’t a required element in tort law.
Again no. Negligence is not illegal, it is tortious (other elements being met). And flipping between reckless and negligent is poor form legally wise. They mean very different things, and may well make the difference between whether a crime has been committed or not.
Negligence can also be illegal.