Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[j.h.christ]

Is 180lbs really considered average weight for anyone under 6ft?
That is fucking fat.

Americans have a poor perception of weight per height.

your perception of weight/height isn't a fucking issue. the facts are that the average american male was 191 pounds in 2002, so 180 pounds was being generous.

i'm sorry, but you are wrong. if they were at .06% BAC they were over the legal limit.
i'm not sure what their BAC % was, but if it was .01 or higher they were over the legal limit.

also when i was 170 lbs @ 5'10" i was not fat at all. 190lbs was fat though. not obese or anything, but fat.

actually, it's .02 for those under 21, and that's a law of possession/consumption rather than actual intoxication or impairment, you mongoloid fuck. i thought it was obvious that i wasn't referring to whether they should recieve an MIP, but apparently i needed to spell it out. when you turn 21, your tolerance/reaction time/motor skills don't magically improve 400% overnight.

you need to stick to dollar store specials and buying shitty cars that don't run instead of yapping about shit about which you have no idea.

[Passenger]

Is 180lbs really considered average weight for anyone under 6ft?
That is fucking fat.

Wrong sir, i weigh 172 and im 5'9" and look VERY average. the other 8 pounds would not be noticed by any means if i were to pack it on.

I guess average is a perception thing, I am 5'9" and 155 and I would say I am about 10lbs over weight. The only way I can see being 170lb at my height is being a muscle head, or a fat ass. But I guess its a lot to do with the frame size of your skeleton and stuff, I dunno never really thought about it too much just jumped out to me as being a bit much.

[Joseph Davis]

I liked 145 @ 5'10" best, anything else is loose skin.  At 180 I'm a lot stronger than I ever was at 145, going to start dropping weight until I feel like I have a good mix of the two.

[j.h.christ]

also according to connecticut's dmv

You are legally intoxicated if your BAC is .08 or above.  If you are under 21 years of age, you are legally intoxicated at a .02 BAC or higher.

.02 is dui not mip
fuck tard

apparently you fail to understand the difference between the two laws. .02 on the day before your 21st birthday= DUI. on your 21st birthday, .02= no DUI. it's not a matter of being impaired in the eyes of the law, it's about being underage and drinking.

[ryan89crx]

I am 5'9" and 155 and I would say I am about 10lbs over weight. The only way I can see being 170lb at my height is being a muscle head, or a fat ass

hatchbox is neither, he is actually very average looking

Cop should be convicted of vehicular manslaughter.  Should lose his licenses for a long time(5+ years), big fine, community service, and spend a year in jail

agree, he should be treated like any other person in that situation

[Jorsher]

The way I see it -- it doesn't really matter what the fuck the kids did and if they were/weren't drunk/high/whatever.  The LEO was going 90-FUCKING-4mph in a 40mph zone.  If the LEO was going 40mph -- or fuck, even 60mph -- the kids would have made it through the intersection, and even if they didn't they would have had a much higher chance of surviving.

I can see why the kids went anyway.  The second car was possibly obscured.  If it wasn't, maybe it didn't appear like two vehicles because usually looking directly at headlights you can't see much else at night.  I think I have good depth-perception skillz, however I can admit that judging speed based on two "2D" lights at night as opposed to a full-sized 3D object is a bit more difficult.  I doubt they expected a car to go 94mph down that road either, even if 60mph is the "normal" speed to go on that stretch.  54mph above the 40mph limit is excessive no matter how you cut it.

I've almost had an accident on the interstate, 565 west, I'm going a reasonable speed (70-80mph, speed limit 70), and want to change lanes.  I look behind me, see a couple pairs of headlights in the distance.  They aren't close enough to tell what lanes they're in, and I wasn't going to stare for a few seconds to try and calculate their speed...they were a far distance back and I assumed they were going a reasonable speed.  I looked in my side mirror, it looked clear, so I started to put on the turn signal...and two cars fucking fly by me, one on each side.  So, if I did change lane, and got nailed, it would have been my fault?  They traveled a huge amount of distance between me checking the rear view mirror and side mirror, and if I hadn't spent another second or two putting on the turn signal there would have surely been a ricey mess on the highway (not my car).

The kids fucked up, they paid the price, and IMO they paid a larger price than they should have.

The cop, without any good reason, was going more than double the speed limit.  Now it's his turn to pay the price for his fuck up.  Part of proper driving is leaving some leeway for reacting to surprises while driving, which means not going 94mph on a public street.

Someone that is supposed to uphold the law should not be breaking it.  In my opinion they have less of a right to break it, although they frequently have the opposite belief.  A law-breaking cop is as bad as a virgin prostitute.

This 'kids shouldn't have went" argument is stupid.