News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Most (proper laws) laws require intent. Unless they purposely exposed themselves… Peeing in a corner exposes nothing and doesn’t fit any definition of “intent”. Why would this suddenly be any different?
These blanket laws are usually to get vagrants being in an alley.
It’s not a double standard, it’s a blanket law that shouldn’t exist to begin with lmfao.
Pissing in public shouldn’t net you a sex offender list ANYWHERE, where is the intent to expose to someone else or a minor? But bloviate about double standards I guess… yeesh lmfao.
It's not illegal to piss outside in California. It's illegal to create a nuisance to public health like leaving a puddle of piss on a paved playground, and it's illegal to piss "lewdly" which doesn't just mean sexual it includes when you did it right in front of the security camera trying to offend the liberal teachers who won't let you in the building and show them how above the law you are.
Some laws are "strict liability". I think some sex crimes are, for example
This is the same place that charges criminals for murder that police do yeah…?
Maybe the issue is the basis of the laws in your country to even begin with…?
These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.
The idea originated in Britain, per Wikipedia. This isn't a uniquely American problem
You can make an argument that we shouldn't have inherited Britain's legal system, but that's a pretty big argument
If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.
I can actually make that argument, and a very good one that intent is very important.
A 30 second search revealed that Canada has some strict liability laws.
Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. My point was strict liability exists. Also the most famous instance of strict liability is sex crimes, I'm told.
You mean the link you provided that doesn’t talk about sex crimes at all? Thats what you want to support that strict liability applies to sex crime? The link that says it doesn’t? You sure?
Your point was strict liability should apply here in This case, when asked why, you provided strict liability. Now the at we hopefully found out why, you can educate yourself, that it usually doesn’t apply for sexual crimes… that’s the topic.
Should someone pissing in the trees have a blanket law applies to them, we know they exist, I’m laughing and pointing out how stupid it is to apply it in situations like pissing in a corner.
Zero, zero results for sex in your link you claim specifies it. Fucking amazing lmfao.
So crotches are considered inherently “ultrahazardous” since that’s the metric it says applies. Good take away.
You said that most laws require intent.
I said that strict liability exists. This was admittedly, a nitpick.
You did an on sequitur about how the US has a police problem, and said "These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.". I took that to imply the concept of strict liability doesn't exist in other laws, but maybe you meant something else. Maybe you meant it's not common?
I then pointed out that the concept originated in Britain. You said "If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.", which is factually incorrect as far as I can tell. Canada has a concept of strict liability.
You then said,
Ignoring what feels like a moving goal post, maybe this reveals where we diverged. Maybe you thought I was saying all laws are strict liability? I wasn't.
The most famous example of strict liability is statutory rape. This is off topic from guys pissing in a parking lot (though I wouldn't be surprised if ICE goons do other crimes). https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html
The link I provided was a wikipedia article is clearly not an exhaustive answer of all things on the topic. If you do click through to the criminal article, it does mention a case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
Anyway, this is a pointless, unpleasant, argument.