4 ms·
From the actual decision: > According to Berkheimer, he estimated the chicken bone was between one and one-half inches and two inches, but he had no reason to
by BadHumans 2y ago
From the actual decision:
> According to Berkheimer, he estimated the chicken bone was between one and one-half inches and two inches, but he had no reason to dispute the doctor's note describing the chicken bone as five centimeters long.
I just found this funny because it makes it sound as if Berkheimer believes 5 cm is much bigger than 1.5 to 2 inches when 5 centimeter is just about 2 inches.
- giantg2 2y agoHow do you properly chew your food and not notice a 2" bone? Honestly, that's the most interesting part of the article.
- silisili 2y agoThis was my first thought. I don't want to victim blame here, but more curious how in the world this person eats? Is he just swallowing them whole? I have so many questions.
- giantg2 2y agoI am curious about the mechanics. But also, in order for victim blaming to take place, one has to actually be a victim. I'm not sure they were in this case, given the circumstances. It seems the courts have also come to that conclusion.
- eropple 2y ago[flagged]
- Mwurk 2y agoNo, it's not. 5 cm = 1.97 inch
- eropple 2y agoWow, I had a hell of a moment there. I think I multiplied 25mm-per-inch (woodworker rule of thumb, I work in metric in the shop and .4mm isn't a big deal) and flipped it around in my head. This is why you measure twice, cut once. Gonna go walk into the sea now.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lionsdan 2y ago1 cm = 0.3937 in 5 cm = 5*(0.3937) = 1.9685 ≈ 2 in