Woman sues 13 year old for 150k dollars

[ArmorPierce]

Now to back up my claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD_Vh3GR ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cw5D9mg8a4

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

Note untrained woman (the average woman) bench press... 138 pound adult woman is one bench press max at 70 pounds. Even at advanced level it only reaches these trained boys at 11 and don't get it twisted, getting to past advanced level for males you get to the point you needing steroids to increase the weight if it's anything like the mens.

You really are a stupid fuck. Do you honestly think this proves anything? Remember, you said:

Firstly a 11 year old boy is probably as strong or stronger than the average adult woman especially if the boy is an athlete.

You are implying that an 11 year old boy on AVERAGE is going to be strong or stronger than an adult woman. You haven't proved anything with what you posted above. Oh, wait ...

It by itself doesn't but the posts that continues does.

You are an idiot. When I was 11 I was already stronger than the average adult woman and I didn't go through puberty early anything compared to my peers dumb ass. I doubt that an adult woman is much stronger than they were when they were 11. By the time I was 12 I was stronger than my father, which to be fair, he is a pretty frail guy but still stronger than the average woman. The fact that I was already stornger than the average woman at 11 shows you to be wrong.

You are just an internet tough guy trying to impress us with how super jacked you are. Yeah, dude, you can totally beat up our moms when you were 7, and this rambling arm-flexing rant of yours DEFINITELY constitutes proof that the average 11 year old is stronger than an adult woman. [/quote]

Pointless comment from u just looking for a way to lash out since you are wrong. Do continue.

[/quote]

A 11 year old high to athletic boy is MORE than an 17 year old ATHLETIC girl.

Which proves ... what about adult woman? Oh, right, exactly nothing. Also, do you not understand why those numbers are not actually representative of anything? You probably don't, but you have already proven you are an unmistakable dumbass. Especially with this comment ... [/quote]

Are you really that dumb?

A. Girls reach full adult size around 16 to 18. Their strength is not going to continue increasing unless they are working ou which the normal adult woman does not do.
B. The numbers shows that further increases in strength levels off at age 10 for women.
C. Even in men strength levels off in into the early 20s and begins dropping after 23

Bull shit. This is another myth that is perpetuated by people who have no clue what they are talking about. Pound for pound men have stronger EVERYTHING including legs. Women have equivalent sized legs but that's made up by a large percentage of fat which does not contribute to strength in any significant way outside of having extra weight to throw around.

This is laughably wrong. I expect you to provide evidence of this remarkably ignorant claim. Muscle is muscle is muscle, there is no difference between male muscle and female muscle. Pound for pound, there is no difference between men and women. Men, on average, are larger than women, with a higher lean mass-to-fat ratio; however, this has nothing to do with muscle strength, and bulk =/= strength. Do a quick Google search for studies on the subject, like this, and they all disagree with you. What a surprise. [/quote]

Wtf are you showing me? This study says nothing about stength and has to do with how strong people think they are. Really do you have any clue what you posted?

No bulk is not a 1 for 1 measurment of strength and I never suggested it was.

How about u post something backing up ur claim dumb as.

But just to continue demonstrating how much of a fool u are I'm going to leave this link validating everything I said about leg strength. Untrained 200 pound woman squat is equivalent to untrained 114pound man

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

Please continue making unsupported assertions based on your gut feeling.

As Block said, I know you want people to be impressed that you can rep 225. Good for you. No one cares. So shut the fuck up unless you actually have a damned clue what you are talking about.

[ArmorPierce]

What the hell are you even arguing about?
Are you saying this woman's injuries didn't happen because statistics..?

If that is addressed to me, I'm arguing that the injuries are very easily possible especially given that the medical report. Then some fools jumped on one of my comments which stated that if a regularadult woman can crack someone in the face and cause damage, then a 11 yr old should. They take issue with the fact that a 11 year old boy can have equivalent strength to an adult woman.

[LaCroix]

What the hell are you even arguing about?
Are you saying this woman's injuries didn't happen because statistics..?

If you're addressing me, my point was that I doubt the woman's age (in regards to possible massive osteoporosis) is a big factor.
Imho, the main factor ion how she received the seemingly extensive injuries she suffered must be a combination of unlucky hit placement and maybe secondary damage during falling down. (I seriously can't see a possibility to have a 150k reconstructive bill from getting a ball in your face, unless it broke the nose and the cheekbone, knocked a majority of teeth out and almost ripped off her jaw...)

[Terralthra]

This is laughably wrong. I expect you to provide evidence of this remarkably ignorant claim. Muscle is muscle is muscle, there is no difference between male muscle and female muscle. Pound for pound, there is no difference between men and women. Men, on average, are larger than women, with a higher lean mass-to-fat ratio; however, this has nothing to do with muscle strength, and bulk =/= strength. Do a quick Google search for studies on the subject, like this, and they all disagree with you. What a surprise.

Dude, your link doesn't even begin to address muscle types. It's a comparison of muscle strength to perceived muscle strength by gender.

Anyway, what ArmorPierce is trying to explain, but can't because he's retarded, is the difference between fast-twitch and slow-twitch skeletal muscle. Slow-twitch is aerobic and has better endurance, but slower response times and contraction speed. Fast-twitch is anaerobic, but contracts with much more force and speed than slow-twitch fibers. It can't work for as long as slow-twitch, but while it is working, it is much more powerful, kg for kg.

Men and women differ in their muscle-mass to body-mass ratio significantly, however, in terms of slow-twitch muscle, the ratio of muscle-mass to body-mass is similar. This means that much of the difference in muscle mass is made up of fast-twitch muscles, making men stronger than woman even once body weight is taken into effect. Additionally, even where muscles are similar in size, males tend to have muscle fibers with larger cross-sections within the muscle, and cross-sectional area is key to muscle strength as well.

Research supporting: "Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle". Supported by studies which indicate that in the upper-body, females are less strong compared to males than in the lower-body. This supports the above explanation of male/female strength ratios, as upper-body muscle tends more toward fast-twitch than lower-body.

[ArmorPierce]

Anyway, what ArmorPierce is trying to explain, but can't because he's retarded, is the difference between fast-twitch and slow-twitch skeletal muscle.

Excuse me dipshit, but I was factually correct despite getting the pile on from dumb asses running their mouths. Not my job to properly educate them, only to show that I'm right.

[KhorneFlakes]

What the fuck is even going on here anyway? I can't even understand the last quarter of posts in page 2, where it looks like ArmorPierce starts arguing with himself or something.

[Kon_El]

I took a look to the article at APP.com which gave more information plus pics of the area where the hit took place and a couple of pics of the kid himself. He doesn't look stringy or weak. Looks tough for his age.

And I found out why the woman wants $500K, it is the max that the kid's family insurance would cover. Still, I want her to lose because this would set a very bad precedent.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... 2306210092
Link for the interested.

[CarsonPalmer]

Ah, Manchester. They were the traditional year-end rival for my high school football team. Even though it's in south-central Jersey, it is nonetheless a hick town.

Nice to see them in the news.

The lack of support by the league to the family beig sued is fucked up.