Quote:
Originally Posted by xenigo
Your reasoning makes no sense, DEA. I think you're implying that since I was over the speed limit at the time I witnessed an accident, it somehow creates a conflict of interest that would nullify the accuracy of my account.
That would be incorrect.
My estimate of speed wasn't based on opinion, it was based on science. If you're both here at one point:
|--------------------------------------
|--------------------------------------
And then a few seconds later you're here:
----------|----------------------------
And the other guy is here:
----------------------------------|----
And you look at your speedometer, and you're already well above the speed limit, that means the other guy is doing probably double your speed.
Now, maybe if my judgement was somehow affected... for instance, if I were drunk or high... then maybe the accuracy claim could be debated. But that's not what we're talking about. Trust me when I say I'm pretty good with speed estimates.
|
Thats where our opinons are different.You may not think the fact you were speeding at the time of the accident means anything but that doesnt mean whoever questions you in court will feel the same.
i dont doubt your esitmations at all..All im saying is you already admitted to breaking the law..then after i pointed that out you withdrew the part about you speeding...then i ponted the fact your story was changing and how if that happend in a court of law you would lose all credibility..
Then 2 non-reading comprehension fuckers (cheesefrog & canyflip)stepped in and now look like dummies lol
like i said before i was just playing the devils advocate..you inserted yourself into an investigation wich may show the SFPD at Fault ..be prepared to have some tough questions thrown at you ..thats all..peace
