I thought

I thought off duty officers were armed, also I thought he was originaly charged with drunk driving, and It sounded to me like if he was not so drunk he would of fleed ( he ran a red light). If that was me I still would be in the can

I don't understand

Jim,
I'm a little confused as to what you are saying.When you say ''if he was not so drunk he would of fleed (he ran a red light)'', did you mean to say he would NOT have fled? If so, I'm not even sure if he ''fled'' just becaue he ran a red light. Perhaps being under the influence he never saw the police and he never saw the red light. There was lack of evidence for eluding the police that is why that charge was dropped.

Arresting Officer Verified It

The arresting Stg Officer Verified it to Keiko it was a snub revolver in holster in back off belt middle of back a common plce off duty arms carried.

Whats the problem? He was drunk with a loaded gun driving 80 mph it doesnt get more liberal than that!

aside...
....he might have been on his way to a city council meeting... do you think?

Re: Arresting officer verified

Of course we only have your word that this occurred just as we only have your word about officer Peterson's ''alledged'' misdoings. If I remember the Constitution properly the burden of proof is on you and so far you are sadly lacking at least to this juror.