You can pretty much blame MADD for that. Originally it started out as an organization with the best intentions but over time it's turned into more or less a modern temperance movement.
The key was figuring out that if you pressure the federal government enough you can get states to fall in line. The federal government doesn't have the ability to set a blanket drinking age for every state. But it does have the ability to withhold federal highway funds from states that refuse to set their minimum drinking age at 21.
That still doesn't explain the age of 21. Couldn't the federal government just as easily had required states set the age at 18 in order to recieve highway funds.
The age was already 18 in most states, so that wouldn't have done anything.
The 21 age was chosen partly because there was already historical precedent in holding back certain rights or privileges until the age of 21, such as voting prior to the 26th amendment. Also, it helps that it's only 3 years from 18, so it can be written off as just a minor change.
As I mentioned MADD basically transitioned into becoming a neo-prohibitionist/temperance movement organization. Even the founder, who left the group the year after MADD succeeded in getting the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed, believes that to be the case. Shifting the drinking age is one part of that, they've also campaigned for increasing the excise taxes on alcohol to reduce consumption.
Yes, but MADD and other interests have pressured the federal government to set the age to 21 via highway funding, so states are constrained from deviating.
The biggest thing for me has been that you're old enough to die for your country -- required enlistment for the armed forces selective service ("the draft") -- but not old enough to buy a beer.
Having been in the Army, admittedly almost 20 years ago, I can assure you that those in charge will very carefully tell you not to drink, yet will be intentionally incredibly inefficient about enforcement, outside of boot camp, etc.
Note that one huge difference between Army and civilian life is enforcement of drinking might be a touch lax compared to civilian life, but enforcement of drunken-ness is absolutely draconian compared to civilian. You absolutely, positively do not want a blood alcohol level over 0.0000 when on duty or behind the wheel, even off post or in the barracks, etc. At least in that way my .mil experience was extremely European... you want a beer with that pizza, fine, you know its illegal but I'm not going to stop you. On the other hand god help you if you're caught being drunk, you may as well shoot yourself, its very draconian. You're literally better off smoking weed than being drunk, seriously, and yes I know the army is/was nuts about drug use. You'll merely get kicked out for a failed pee test... for being drunk on duty or behind the wheel you'll serve time. My European analogy is I'm told you really don't want to get busted for DWI in Germany... in Wisconsin its just a minor misdemeanor right up there with being 5 mph over speeding (seriously, WI is legendary for being lax)
Like many things in .mil, "good soldiers" get away with quite a bit more than the proverbial platoon F-up can get away with.
"Contrary to popular belief, since the act (that set the drinking age at 21) went into law, only a few states prohibit minors and young adults from consuming alcohol in private settings. As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws."
Don't forget, you can enlist in a military branch at 18 - so its conceivable you could fight and die for your country before being able to legally enjoy a cold pint at the local pub.
Yeah , the country of freedom when you're not even free to buy alcohol at 18 like in most western countries ... what a joke... and they think they are free...
I've had a similar thing happen to me (I live in Croatia). It happened a few years back so some details are hazy now. It was a rainy evening and I was picking up my brother and we were to drive home for the weekend. His girlfriend was also with him. So, I pick them up and drive to this small parking space to turn the car around. The moment I circled the car around the parking, an unmarked Octavia reverses in front of me, with two bald guys in sport jackets running towards me. I didn't know how to react, in a second or two all sorts of scenarios went thorough my mind. Were they robbers? Then I saw them moving their hands towards their hips. Going for guns? Should I put the car in reverse and try to escape? They pulled out what looked like badges and started yelling to turn off the engine and step out. I still believe t was a leap of faith on my part, trusting them to be the police and I'm afraid of what might've happened if I acted differently. They asked us to empty our pockets, patted us, searched the car and just left, no explanation, no sorry, nothing. They didn't search the girl, I guess it's against the law or something. My brother jokes how one of the officers persistently asked him if he had something in his pants, and all he thought was "yeah, shit, because I almost shat myself". I suppose they were on a stakeout, probably looking for narcotics dealers or something, who knows. It wasn't a pleasant experience at all.
I know so many ex-pats who moved to Dubai and constantly told me what a great pace it was to live, but as soon as they had a child moved (back) to the West; many of them not the country they came from, but just somewhere in the West.
Isn't that what all Americans do when they meet a stranger? I think Heinlein said something about it being good manners, or the polite thing to do, or something. Can't say the quote made much sense when I read it. I'm a Brit though, so maybe it lost something in translation from American. Over here we used to raise our hats, be we don't have those anymore either.
One sub-theme of the book is the carrying and use of firearms. In the novel being armed is part of being a man; otherwise he wears a brassard and is considered weak and inferior. Women are allowed but not expected to be armed. Duels, either deadly or survivable, may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted, a custom that keeps order and politeness. A defining quote from the book which is repeated throughout Heinlein's work is, "An armed society is a polite society," is very popular with those who support the personal right to keep and bear arms.
That's the one! We used to have duels and kill people over points of etiquette here too, but that was a long time ago. We decided hats were a better option all round, nice tall black ones, but then we got rid of the hats as well. It's all been down hill ever since. Maybe we should go back to killing each other. Does it work?
Because the law enforcement officers have to protect their own lives. This is America, where anyone could be carrying an implement that requires two seconds to kill.
I agree - the chances of a teenage girl packing heat is probably small, but it's those small chances that can get you seriously injured.
According to this (admittedly outdated) research paper [1], the high-end estimate of traffic stops resulting in the homicide of the police officer is 1:20.1 Million. This doesn't really sound like a traditional traffic stop - more like a sting (something that I couldn't readily find data for).
At first I thought this was funny and thought about following up with more sarcasm
but then it hit me how much this is sad, USA seems 100% psychotic to me these days... I honestly feel like stopping following US-related news because it's all so depressing goddamn
She had her arms full of a crate of water / "beer".
I think that if police are worried about being shot at when they approach under-age people buying alcohol the police might want to change their hyper-aggressive policing style.
Guns must be a measure of last resort. When you pull your weapon you must have the intent to kill someone. To have the intent to kill someone you must have reasonable fear that they pose a risk to you.
Under 21 year old girl buying "beer" doesn't feel to me like a deadly threat to my life.
America has a culture of glorifying police violence. Wasn't true 30 years ago; has been building for decades. Now there isn't a night goes by some cop show doesn't have the good guys beating up the bad guy, threatening to send them to Guantanamo. We're supposed to cheer? Makes me ill.
Those cops grew up watching this crap, they know what a 'good' cop is supposed to do.
If she has a gun, she can shoot at least one police officer. And as a police officer, you don't want to be the one getting hit. So human survival instinct says that you will try to protect yourself (even well trained professional could fail at times to control their basic reaction).
But I wonder if it is worth the time, money and effort of 6 police officers to prevent kids (even though she is adult) from drinking ? Drunk driving is one thing, but drinking ?
If I recall correctly, most humans freeze, not shoot. The natural reaction is to either flee or freeze. I think policemen are specifically trained to take the gun out of the holster and press the trigger in such situations.
Why did they have to jump on the front of the car, as the article says? That would completely terrify me if I was walking to my car at 10pm in the evening.
Usual stuff, she will have to plead guilty to get suspended sentence. Then permanent record and ruined life. Officers will get bonus points and salary increase. Justice always wins!
The fact that the prosecution isn't pushing harder suggests that the story here is essentially true — "a girl was assaulted by a disorderly armed mob on her way out of a grocery store and managed to escape them, but it turned out that they were plainclothes police who had mistaken her bottled water for beer and were trying to arrest her, so they put her in prison overnight and filed three felony charges (which have since been dropped)." Classy, guys.
You have to wonder whether anyone in the group who performed the arrest has any kind of remorse or has developed any sort of insight about whether they might have done things differently.
It could possibly be worse. The typical response is something like yours, but there's the outside chance they'll pile on more charges for a longer prison sentence. That's good for the economy because the US has many privately run prisons to fill.
Important as these stories are to get out, really they are handled by other news outlets quite well.
Exactly what one learns from one incident, in one state, in one country is hard to say.
The story has no round up of a greater meaning other than the one incident which leads the reader without any cause and effect.
Is this American budgets cuts? Is this the problem with counties having to much power? Is this the militarisation of the police force? What is the trend here if any?
As per news is bad for you, I think this is one of them. High stress, low information.
Budget cuts? Police did weirder things for bonus pay.
Like cause a man a heart attack, by goading him to a bet a large sum (over some federal minimum). Heart attack was caused by SWAT members assaulting his house.
Because they are power-tripping jackbooted thugs, with a paramilitary tendency, and a belief that they have ultimate authority and that citizens must comply with everything they say. An official ABC statement on the incident even says as much ("rather than comply with the officers requests...").
So, when I was 17, I bought some cases of beer. When I came out of the supermarket (with the beer visible in my cart), I walked by some (uniformed and probably armed) police officers. I greeted them and they wished me a nice weekend. Because in Germany, police officers are usually quite polite.
The whole situation is ridiculous but I'm especially interested in this bit:
"They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform"
This happened to me when I was travelling in Europe, a cop without a uniform approached to me on the train somewhere between Netherlands and Germany and asked me for my ID. I asked for his ID, he flashed something (obviously I had no freaking idea whether it was legit, no idea what was even written on it since I don't know the language).
What do you do in this case? Do you obey or challenge more? Isn't that dangerous as anyone can flash some random / fake badge and cause you to go with them, gather private information or worse?
When are Americans going to see this as essentially an infringement of their rights as adults? Yes their are adults.
At the age of 20 Americans are old enough to join the army and engage in combat duty, drive, run bank accounts, be tried as adults and even be sentenced to death.
And yet drinking at the age 20 is perceived as an imprisonable offence, and law enforcement officers consider it reason to arrest adults because of that?
Frankly Americans tolerate too much nonsense from their corrupt and hypocritical law makers.
It seems to be one the laws retained to enable their fascist state to criminalize their citizens so they can have something to hold over them.
It will be nice to take my son down the pub on his 18th, buy him a nice cold beer, congratulate him on reaching adulthood and give thanks that we don't live in a backwood shithole like the USA.
To serve and annoy. Thanks for keeping our city safe from the dangerous and out of control 20 year-old college females. They are quite the scourge on our modern surburbias.
"Thanks for keeping our city safe from the dangerous and out of control 20 year-old college females. They are quite the scourge on our modern surburbias."
I'm sure there's a "girls gone wild" joke in there somewhere.
These days, as an anarcho capitalist, I just feel like the entire world is continuously handing me ammunition to justify my position, and I have had plenty for years.
"One jumped on the hood of her SUV; another pulled out a gun": Do the girls deserve such treatment just because the police suspected they possess alcohol? Do you need firearms to handle such situation? US looks more and more like a police state.
There's something very odd about the Virginian Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. They seem to arrest people for carrying water, but they hold alcohol tasting sessions in their government owned liquor shops.
As someone who went to UVA, this isn't entirely surprising, but it still saddens me. The cops there are largely bored, and they put too much emphasis on the state sanctioned ABC monopoly over liquor.
She was lucky she wasn't male and black. Because if she were, they'd probably shoot him, and then say "they thought he was drawing a weapon...as he fled".
Not like it hasn't happen exactly like that before. There was even a video of it online. I think if more tourists knew stuff like this is happening in America, they'd stay the hell away from it.
Surely you can't let a 20 year-old get away with what might be a beer.
Law enforcement showed great mercy in dropping charges against this girl. In fact she should consider herself lucky they spared her life. But I fear other disobedient subjects may think they too can get away with no consequences for their reckless actions.
Reckless were the officers, that did not have properly recognizable badges. They should've called in Police to stop the car.
As a team they showed tremendous lapse in judgment and should be fired for endangering a group of teens.
For all it was - tour de force by people who had nothing better to do. There are safe way to do things and there are stupid ways that might make them feel empowered.
Yeah, pulling a gun on an underage buyer of alcohol seems like it shouldn't even be an option. You're essentially pulling a gun on a child. Not to mention the huge waste of money to have that many agents staked out to catch some petty criminal.
According to your legal system, apparently so. If the law says that 20 year olds are not mature enough to buy alcohol, then by definition at least at some level they are legally considered to be immature and not able to make rational decisions for themselves.
Sometimes I think the lack of Armed Police in the UK is a benefit as they take arming an officer with a lethal weapon is a serious matter and requires specific training/psychoanalysis.
What possible requirement could the " Alcohol Beverage Control Division" need to be armed?! Does every Government Official get a weapon/carry/threaten permit when they join?!
As much as I agree, the US at some point passed a tipping point: Police and the population were armed, so criminals needed to be armed, so police needs to be armed etc. Rolling that back would be incredibly hard.
In UK and other countries where police are generally not armed, using a dangerous weapon often also adds substantial amounts of time to potential sentences, and there's either low levels of private ownership of guns (UK) or tight controls on storage and use (e.g. Norway has tons of firearms, but the law requires it to be separate into at least two non-functional parts that must be kept locked down separately, so your hunting rifle is not something you'll go fetch on a whim when you hear a weird sound), and so criminals know that not only are they unlikely to face an armed response if they don't arm themselves, but they're also likely to get off lighter if caught without weapons, and so there's very little incentive for criminals to arm themselves in most situations.
It's one of those things where de-escalation is nearly impossible because of the likely public response to news of dead cops, and how widely guns permeate the culture.
I was just thinking the same thing. Unfortunately Australia was a very different environment to that in the US at present (very small hunting/sports shooting culture given an almost entirely urban population, broad public support, a parliamentary system such that the executive branch could easily pass the required legislation - although I recall it had bipartisan support, lack of a constitutional right to arms etc.)
At the core of it though, I do believe the pervasive culture of fear in the US and the media that supports it renders any progress on serious gun control nearly impossible.
We seem to have a real problem with police misusing tasers atm. They see them as non-lethal and deploy them without hesitation despite proper training. Several people have been killed by police tasering already subdued suspects multiple (sometimes dozens) of times.
I appreciate that, its about the polices training and response to "threats" as someone mentioned below pulling a firearm on a "suspect" just leads to aggravating the situation (innocent will panic and probably do something stupid, guilty will probably pull their own weapon to escape) neither ends well for anyone.
America can't undo its weapons problem even if it introduced gun control but discouraging pulling weapons out in public without serious consequences (even for the police) might stem this trend of pulling weapons at every situation.
It seems to me that the UK police, since they are not armed, generally try to defuse situations. (Of course, they can call for armed backup if it is necessary.)
Time and again, I read of US police unnecessarily escalating situations. If your immediate response to any tension is to pull out a gun and start shouting, then things are very likely to get a lot worse in many cases.
Perhaps this is just confirmation bias though. I only get to read about the US cases where things have gone wrong.
I saw on a forum, a couple of people arguing that women should not be cops, I was confused, since the argument was filled with cop jargon and seemly started elsewhere.
Then someone posted a personal anecdote that I found interesting, about escalation.
The guy was a cop, returning home after work. He saw a female cop confronting a teenager (that the male cop knew personally) that was obviously not in the right state of the mind.
The male teenager, was obviously stronger than the female cop, and started to make a imposing pose (but not threatening, just "imposing" I am bigger than you), the female cop pulled her gun and threatened the guy, that obviously got shitless scared, and started to run toward her, the male cop also as soon he saw she pulling the gun, also run toward her (unseen by both of them), he shouted, and in the confusion she pointed the gun at him, he did some evasive movement and ended tackling her before the boy reached her.
Then he took her gun, and the boy stopped (not feeling threatened anymore), then he explained the boy he was a cop and was taking him to drug exams and he was free to go, and that noone would use violence against him. Immediately the boy turned around and allowed himself to be hand cuffed.
This guy was arguing that female officers in his apartment killed way more people with guns than male officers and this is why they should not be there...
But anyway, I brought this here, because I think it is a good example of a attitude to just bring up guns whenever they feel they can use it to impose power, and obviously this many times only result in dangerous escalations (like pulling a gun on a junkie, or a scared innocent), I doubt the pair (female cop, junkie boy) would leave intact if it was not outside intervention, or the junkie would have killed the cop, or the cop would have shot the junkie.
Whilst that is a harrowing case, it is hardly the same as the routine pulling of guns first and asking questions later attitude that you were replying to?
I considered the same point before posting the link, but decided that it was appropriate considering (imo) that it is a product of the same 21st century paranoia and police culture of "shoot first, ask questions later".
These were officers who, at short notice, were staking out a suspected terrorist's flat just days after a bombing and during a national hysteria. It was a horrid chain reaction of errors, but it was hardly officers waving guns around to apprehend a girl they thought had brought beer?
I know this is a typo, but that picture in my head made me smile.
Confirmation bias is only dangerous when there is significantly more evidence against the statement. You rarely hear, "we could have saved the day if we had higher damage output!"
I did mean shouting; it wasn't a typo. I see that the way I phrased it was ambiguous though. :-)
I meant that the police generally pull out their gun to emphasise their power and to reinforce their shouts, not always with the intention of actually shooting.
I don't think this necessarily has to do with weapons. There are ten thousands of armed German police officers who (number went through the press) shot 85 bullets in 2011 and usually do not draw a weapon immediately.
That's a very small proportion of the overall police force that carry. It's got to be to do with the attitude around weapons.
There are about 7000 armed police in England and Wales. Their weapons are kept in safes in the back of their cars, they need to have a very good reason to be carrying one, let alone actually using one.
I think in the UK, despite the police closing ranks when threatened (I don't think we have this as bad as the US either) an officer that drew a weapon on a suspect that they had no reason to think was armed (and was only suspected of underage possession of alcohol) that officer would be subject to some sort of disciplinary action.
Every German police officer is armed when on duty. Attitudes are different, and the judicial investigation after the use of a weapon is anything but pleasant.
The us has approximately 80 times that many armed police officers. So, if they shot ~7,000 bullets a year they would arguably be showing similar levels of restraint.
Unfortunately, it takes less training to become a police officer than a kindergarten teacher in the US so we don't see the same level of restraint. IMO we would be better served by a smaller but better trained force unfortunately the federal, state, and local governments all do law enforcement and at the local level there often seen as a way to generate revenue making them 'free'.
Sorry for my typo, I've meant to write tens of thousands of police officers. Would have been funny if Germany has only ten thousands with a population of 80M people.
In 2010 there were 243k police officers in Germany. Could not find 2012 numbers.
In Northern Ireland, all Police Officers are armed. I may be wrong in this but in recent years it hasn't led to many shots being fired mistakingly and I don't think there has been any deaths.
Even still, why would a unit that polices underage drinking need firearms?
Yes there was a case in the UK local to me where one of the armed response team put a magazine on the roof of the car and accidentally drove off - I think some one found the mag the next day
He was suspended from the team immediately - the UK police do take fire arms training very seriously.
I have to admit that stories like that definitely factor into my travel decisions. From the outside, the US looks like a very scary place.
Perhaps it is all just overblown media stuff? But for the time being there are also other nice places to visit...
Keep in mind that stories like these are pretty rare and the US is a big place. Even if the police in the US were generally as good as you'd hope any police were there would still be the occasional story of someone abusing their power or making egregious mistakes just due to the sheer size of the US. That's not an excuse, it's just a reminder that you need to temper your judgment of a place that you might have formed based on stories of the most freakish and abnormal events in that place (like, say, imagining that Pakistan is full of terrorists or some such).
Additionally, for various reasons you don't hear reports of equivalent stories like this happening in, for example, Europe, though such things are not exactly significantly less common there.
Well sometimes I read forums like ar15.com where lot´s of security officers post, and also some police forums in Spain (I got some police friends and I like commenting with them about these issues).
I have noticed that in the USA the policemen´s state of mind is much more violent (more movie style) and "shoot first ask questions later" than in Europe.
I think is logical under their point of view, because of the long campaign of fear and violence that´s been playing on the media.
Also it´s true that american criminals are more likely to just draw a handgun and start a confrontation with police. Maybe this is due to the difference in prison sentence for the same crime. Here in Spain, most criminals just walk away after they spend a night in prison, and even a hard sentence for drugs or a kill will have great discounts that effectively make stays longer than 10 years in prison very rare. Also live inside jails is much more humane than in the States.
Oppose that to the third strike rule, that will put you for live in jail even if the last offense is minor.(I don´t know if this law is still active)
With over 300 million people, extreme things can happen to .0001% of the people any day, and that's still 300 people affected. 300 stories to choose from a day makes for lots of sensational news.
On average, it's not that bad. Yes, there are assholes everywhere (police and otherwise), but for the most part the stuff you read about is few and far between.
That being said, knowing the proper way to deal with people in authority positions is incredibly important. In this case, she should have asked for ID (yelling at them through the window if necessary). If they kept insisting that she roll the window down - and for some reason her car is unlike every other car out there, requiring the engine to be on, she should have tried to explain that through the window.
(Seriously, what cars require the engine to be running for the windows to roll down?)
I can't recall ever being in a car with power windows that would work with the car completely turned off (key out of the ignition). You can turn the key backward or partially forward in most cars just to engage the battery and operate the windows, but she may not have known about that.
Yep, the accessory setting (key turned on click forward) should do the trick - providing power for windows/radio etc.
Upon further consideration, I wonder if she had a push-button starter. Having never driven a key-less car before, how the heck does the accessory setting work (if at all)?
"how the heck does the accessory setting work (if at all)?"
In my wife's old Prius, tap the power switch without a foot on the brake and you get accessory mode. Tap the power switch with a foot on the brake and the car goes into run mode although its in park mode.
Confusing as hell precisely one time, especially if you're used to an automatic transmission. My regular tech car won't start unless its in park or neutral, why would I push on the brake? My left foot is already busy kicking the parking brake out... and the Prius does in fact have a parking brake for the left foot to kick out making the UI even more confusing. However it makes perfect sense to a manual transmission driver, because you always kick the parking brake out with your left foot and then hold the clutch in with left foot.
The confusing as hell part comes the first time you shut off the car and put your left foot on the parking brake to kick it out like you'd do with a normal car, and it boots up in accessory mode and won't move. WTF? Hopefully you try leaving the parking brake alone and press the regular brake before you ask for a tow.
This is all beside the point. If a bunch of crazy men in civilian clothes on a dark night waving guns rush my wife or daughter and start screaming at her, I want her to escape at all costs, run them over if necessary. Behaving like a pack of uncivilized wolves has consequences and she shouldn't feel sorry at all. Those officers should all be in jail.
It's all very well saying she should have asked for ID, but lets face it - if you were suddenly faced with a bunch of armed strangers yelling at you, would you be thinking straight? The story did say that she panicked, and I can't say I blame her.
shoot him, and then say "they thought he was drawing a weapon...as he fled".
Its worse than that. They wouldn't need to have worried about a gun to open fire. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. I think that if the agents thought the car was going to hit them, they'd be justified in shooting.
A teenager in (again) Virginia was shot and killed by an off-duty cop working as a security guard who thought he (the teen) would hit him with a car after the kid stole pancakes.
I'm honestly surprised that we don't have the Russian dashcam phenomenon in the US. If I were a black male, I would most certainly have a GoPro or something similar in my car running at all times.
As a bicyclist, I'm just about ready to purchase a GoPro for when drivers are reckless and endanger me.
I cannot wait for the day when you can purchase a small recording device like a GoPro and have it stream continuously over wifi or cell phone signals. When that happens, citizens will be able to record the aggressions of police officers (especially during riots) without any fear that the device and it's contents will mysteriously "go missing".
My son's a cop. He said what I was thinking. There is far more going on here than what the story states and the reporter is not asking the right questions or the agents can't say. In either case, the girl got caught up in something bigger than the writer says by mistake.
Unless you're suggesting that the girl actually was up to something nefarious, there absolutely is something to see here. Police should not be drawing weapons for anything other than an imminate danger to human life.
Watching the police in action is the one negative experience that I have had in the US. You guys really need to calm your (oversized) police force down - they're thugs in uniform.
So maybe there was some sort of bust going down on the place she bought the water, after a suspected chain of underage sales.
You still don't pull guns on people you suspect may be carrying a case of beer, then lock them up and file felony charges when it turns out they haven't done anything more than get scared by your paramilitary tactics and try to escape from unknown, out of uniform assailants.
Sure. I'll buy that - and in that case, when the cops saw that she was not part of the bigger something, then the professional thing to do would have been to apologize for the inconvenience, explain what had happened, and send her on her way.
Instead, they applied maximum governmental force in order to show her her true place in society - to bow to armed thugs.
I hope your son has better training. But there is most definitely something to be seen here, and moving on is not the appropriate response of a civil society.
All I can do is echo the other comments, that regardless of whether or not something "bigger" is going on, the response is absolutely disproportionate, and also remind you that Virginia does have actual police to handle "bigger" problems than busting underage alcohol possession.
When the FBI kicks down your door, shoots your dog, smashes every bit of technology that you own, takes all your hard drives and removable media to search for more evidence (It is way hard to distinguish that picture your mom sent you of you flopping in the pool naked to porn.), please understand that them doing this is not a mistake and there would be nothing to see here, so do not post. Move on and accept a life in prison.
That's just bs. If the cops could say anything in their defense there would have been an "anonymous source without permission to speak to the media" who would have delivered the excuse.
I don't know if there is a study or theory to support this, but it seems that the longer any two opposing sides (like the police and criminals) face each other, the stronger is the influence of one over the other.
To a point when both sides have picked up significant good/bad behavior from each other. And then the very same police looks both aggressive and distasteful to the rest of us - i.e those who were not in the loop ever.
Wait, am I understanding this correctly? At the age of 20 she's not allowed to buy alcohol but could have already owned a gun for 2 years?
The world is a funny old place.