this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
496 points (100.0% liked)

News

30736 readers
3205 users here now

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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the video, several marked and unmarked Customs and Border Protection vehicles can be seen pulling into the parking lot as several apparently armed agents got out of the vehicles.

School officials in Pico Rivera are calling for a federal investigation after immigration enforcement officers were seen on surveillance video appearing to urinate in the campus parking lot.

The incident happened on the morning of June 17, at Ruben Salazar High School in Pico Rivera. The El Rancho Unified School District shared surveillance video from the school parking lot on YouTube on Wednesday.

Over the next few minutes, nearly a dozen agents are seen walking to a part of the parking lot, near a couple of shipping containers. The agents seem to reach for their pants while walking to covered areas, stand still for several moments, then walk away. The district says school staff saw the agents peeing.

ICE agents exposed themselves to staff in a parking lot next to a preschool playground and an in-session elementary school. These agents need to be identified and prosecuted just like anyone else would be in such circumstances.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A 30 second search revealed that Canada has some strict liability laws.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago

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,

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.

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

As most statutory rape laws appear as "strict liability" offenses, this limits the amount of legal defenses available to someone accused.

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.