I am not skimming your posts. I read them through completely a couple of times before posting.
You do not get it, it doesn't matter that it was a junker, it is your attitude that is wrong. This time it's a junker, next time it might be a newer car that does have some worth. The guy deserves to have what was damaged replaced. Who are you to say because it was a junker it has no value, that does not give your son the right to vandalise something.
The decent, moral thing to do is to offer to pay replacement value for the damage YOUR son caused. Your apparent flippant attitude towards the fact he thought it was okay to vandalise someone elses property is troubling, as is the fact you seem to be annoyed at the victim of the vandalism for wanting compensation.
Now how about you read ther replies just as carefully as you have suggested we read your posts and answer the questions posed at you.
You do not get it, it doesn't matter that it was a junker, it is your attitude that is wrong. This time it's a junker, next time it might be a newer car that does have some worth. The guy deserves to have what was damaged replaced. Who are you to say because it was a junker it has no value, that does not give your son the right to vandalise something.
The decent, moral thing to do is to offer to pay replacement value for the damage YOUR son caused. Your apparent flippant attitude towards the fact he thought it was okay to vandalise someone elses property is troubling, as is the fact you seem to be annoyed at the victim of the vandalism for wanting compensation.
Now how about you read ther replies just as carefully as you have suggested we read your posts and answer the questions posed at you.
Comment