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.
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.