There is a difference between actual physical damage and compensable damages. They are two entirely separate issues. There is absolutely no actual damage done by releasing the air from a tire. Suggesting there is would mean you could never buy a new not damaged tire since they are all without air when purchased. (Have you been buying damaged tires all these years?) The actions of letting the air out of another’s tires can result in financial costs to the owner. Those are (generally speaking) compensable damages but obviously not physical damage.
I don’t understand why I’m the bad guy when I’m grilled on a matter, which by the way was only used to make a point of comparison and wasn’t a suggested action, and I defend myself, especially when I’m correct.
This is a legal board, not a board for semantical precision. For some reason, for the last few months, if people do not use words exactly the way you want them to, no matter how obvious their point or how many shades of grey there may be to the word's meaning, you dig and dig and argue and try to wear people down until everyone wants to hit you over the head to make you stop. If they don't use the words in PRECISELY the way you want them to, you're right and they're wrong and you won't stop until they agree. Even if their use of the word is valid as well.
Well, in this case, regardless of whether you are talking about physical damage or compensable damages, and Yes, I agree that they are different things, letting the air out of the tires is still vandalism either way and there are laws about that too. So why don't we all agree that the OP look up the laws about putting flyers on windshields, since that is evidently in your eyes (speaking not just of this thread, either) one of the most heinous crimes out there and deserving of ten years in prison, and then let the rest of us move on?