Re: Who routinly has a cashe of weapons on them?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">If you actually read the story, the student was arrested for DUI, not weapons charges</span>.
The car was likely impounded, the weapons, as long as they were legal to own, would have been taken for safekeeping.
Why is the story about the weapons?
Don't know, to me, they are a non-issue unless state law speaks about possession of a firearm in a public place while intoxicated.
Most likely an easy headline, you know damn well in kommifornia the liberal pantywaists are wringing their hands and praising the capture of illegal weapons. </div></div>
Actually the article states clearly that it was suspected DUI which is a crock and there's been no following charges which further determines it was a crock as they would have blood tested him that same day/time if the DUI was genuine...
We can't just keep blaming 'liberals' and treating the officers who choose to enforce the laws of the liberals as hapless victims caught in the middle. There's direct complicity here between the attitude of the officers, the BS charges and the treatment of the public with the attitude and agendas of the liberals. </div></div>
Wow, you don't have a fucking clue, do you?
As quoted from the article:
"The San Diego State University student was ultimately arrested for suspicion of DUI."
A person is ALWAYS arrested for suspicion of committing a crime, it is up to the district or county attorney to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that someone is guilty of a crime. Law enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence.
The police can't forcefully remove blood from a person unless there is a warrant or, in some states, the commission of a felony. They would not have taken it by force at the scene, as it must be taken by a person licensed and certified to draw blood in a clean environment.
They would have offered a blood or breath sample, which he could refuse. If he wasn't intoxicated and refused, then he was stupid as it would have exonerated him.
At NO TIME did I defend the actions of law enforcement, I merely explained the seizure of the weapons. I also postulated on the reason that the weapons seemed to be the main part of the story.
It is the press and the libtards that drive these sensational stories.