3 ms·
1- the civil aspect handles part of this. It only requires equitable enforcement. 2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost.
by beerandt 7y ago
1- the civil aspect handles part of this. It only requires equitable enforcement.
2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost. What you are arguing would be more applicable if they were in a wreck, and pushed across the border. But even that is a stretch.
They may have been advised of this, hence playing up the "swerved to not hit an animal" part of their story.
- rolph 7y agoI think it was "avoiding wildlife" rather than swerving. in that region there are herds of caribou, buffalo and sometimes quite contrary pods of moose. The traffic delay can be extreme as you have to wait for them to move on, as it is a major offense to interfere with wildlife migration, even tangentially. a lot of people get lost or stranded on a fire/logging road trying to skirt around the crossing. Ive encountered such people many times and helped them out to the road. I do have to wonder if there was a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that, so im left to wonder about it. Most border agents in those areas are quite cordial and deal with hikers and hunters all the time, usually its just a matter of showing passport, explaining what your doing and where you crossed, then turn around and dont make the same mistake for a long while.
- beerandt 7y agoI don't know why I read it that way, but you're right. "Avoiding wildlife." I had a picture of an unavoidable turn in my head. Which maybe goes to show they're being a bit over-ambiguous. Or maybe I just read it wrong. >a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that If they weren't white, they almost certainly would have mentioned it, with the story being so sympathetic to their victimhood. The media doesn't pass on the chance to play up racism for stories like these.