SACair Forum

http://univisionsacramento.univision.com/noticias/video/2011-05-19/mujer-fue-arrestada-con-una

Oh Baxter, you know I dont speak spanish.

Video did not load for me. I have heard stories of this type of event happening. Without seeing the video I would guess that the gun was found during the search prior to booking. If there is not a female officer available to do a thorough search prior to transport and booking then you advise the deputy that a thorough search was not conducted. The S.O. always has a female available. This is the case for my office, we have 1 female officer who works the road and she works the weekends so I have to do a watered down search and advise the booking deputy. Either way its embarrassing and the officer may catch paper for it.

it's pretty bad Ukau...

You should be able to find the video somewhere.

Watch the video again: Time 4:15-4:30. Maybe not "flirtatious" in its purest sense... But maybe the fuzz should have been paying attention to the gun in her pants as opposed to her hair.

So with the officers clearly not noticing it there, why didn't the camera crew say something? I know it's not the best idea to bug an officer while they're doing whatever, but "Hey man, there's a gun in her pants." might have been useful.

WOW.....I'm thinking it was actually in her pants in a location in which a male officer can't search a female. Um...no comment.... :shock:

shes got what looks to be a small-mid frame glock sticking out of her waist band!!!!!! how the fuck do you miss that!!!!! i mean seriously....come on sac(no offense to the sac chp and sheriffs..... but seriously)Its not even like they were distracted oogling(yes its a word) her because shes not even that hot...... i am disappointed by this video

[quote="TrippleJayZ"]they were distracted oogling(yes its a word) her[/quote]

Well at least they can't charge her with carrying a concealed weapon as it was clearly visible to everyone else in the world.

@nic: i said you couldnt say it was because they were oogling her. not that they were. and as for handling it well. the officer with the gun in his hand flagged himself and at least two fellow officers. and one of the other officers reaches around to grab it from him.... not smart when you dont know if its a hott weapon or not. plus your suppose to treat every weapon as if it was load...

[quote="TrippleJayZ"]i said you couldnt say it was because they were oogling her. not that they were.[/quote]

[quote="TrippleJay"] and you cant even say ti was because they were distracted oogling[/quote]

I'm lost.

[quote="TrippleJay"][quote="TrippleJay"] and you cant even say ti was because they were distracted oogling[/quote][/quote]

And also the gun was holstered the entire time and the trigger guard was cover until the officer inspected it.

@nic: the entire point i was making is that they WEREN'T "oggling"(even though im getting a bit tired of that word now) her.

[quote="Special_K"]Well at least they can't charge her with carrying a concealed weapon as it was clearly visible to everyone else in the world.[/quote]

[quote="shadow61"][quote="Special_K"]Well at least they can't charge her with carrying a concealed weapon as it was clearly visible to everyone else in the world.[/quote]

Anytime we contacted someone out there tonight, it was...