Trey Songz destroys property: Should a person be allowed to destroy property if they compensate the owner?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • Destruction, sabotaging property of others is a crime

    To start it shows the intent already and shouldn't be allowed to roam freely on the streets. Doesn't matter if they can replace it completely. There are things people hold sentimental value too as well as the fact that someone destroys your property can have intentions that are dangerous to you and others is the problem. Plus they could destroy property that you need right now and could put you on a major setback costing you money, time, opportunities etc.

    Like if someone destroyed your car, you wouldn't be able to go to places, unable to go to places in time can make you miss very important opportunities, doesn't matter if they'll get you a new car, they won't be bringing that new car right away.

  • Compensation doesn't overcome lawlessness

    Just because a person compensates somebody does not make it okay to willfully destroy their property. In the moment, there is no guarantee of remuneration, and situations can escalate. Further, laws designed to protect private (or public) property should not be subject to a cash-based circumnavigation. The laws should be the same for everybody, regardless of available cash.

  • A person should not be allowed to destroy property if they compensate the owner.

    A person should not be allowed to destroy property if they compensate the owner because people have a right to property. By allowing someone else to destroy it, it infringes on the owner's rights, and thus security and safety. Also, the compensation may never be equal. If something has sentimental or historic value, financial compensation cannot make up for it.

  • They might want the property.

    Sometimes, a person owns property that is very sentimental. Or, they might own property that the person want to immediately use, such as a boat. The person can use their right to enjoy the property if someone else destroys it, even if the person ultimately replaces the property in the end.

  • If they consent, it's just a contract.....

    The whole problem with this thinking is that the rightful owner of the property didn't give you the right to damage his stuff. If he had agreed beforehand, as some sort of publicity stunt, that's fine. But the rightful owner should be entitled to more than the simple replacement value of the property in question.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.