View Single Post
Old 07-31-2009, 10:40 AM   #54
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

I certainly agree with the information requirements as SOP. But in an effort not to challenge any sacred cows, this thread has gotten so far off topic for a variety of reasons.

My primary focus is on this.

Quote:
He comes back, immediately, because of a unique detail with my address, I realize he never ran my information. I ask him just how fast I was going. He says "You came around Pitchwood and I paced you. It took me 3 minutes to catch you at 55mph, so I'd estimate you were going between 30 and 35. Wouldn't he have come up from behind me then? Not off my port side?
Some seem pretty content to dismiss any valid suggestion that many of the stops, and actions, seem to border on harassment. "Call MP headquarters and state your case", is simply not a valid statement for discussion. It's a good diversion, as is making the OP out to be someone that was mostly at fault.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote