> > arrested on... another [count] of suspicion of possession of a firearm:

> That's not how it works. You get arrested on suspicion, the cops figure out if you actually did it or not, once they know you did it they charge you with counts of actual offences (not suspicions).

Isn’t that literally what the quote, which was from the article, says? It didn’t contain the word “count”. You added that. The quote says he was arrested on suspicion.

▲

someonebaggy 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"account" appears to be a simple autocorrect typo of "count" since the other half of the sentence is about "count"

▲

Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No, I'm saying the word "count" doesn't appear in the quote in the article.

This is the quote from the article:

> > A week later, on August 23, the officers returned and arrested him on suspicion of possessing a firearm

You falsely added "[count]" to the quote and then argued about the count, which isn't in the quote.

	▲	someonebaggy 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Actually, here's what you said and I quoted: > The article I linked clearly says he was arrested for one count of stalking and another account of suspicion of possession of a firearm: