See other National News Articles
Title: (Dallas) Police Deny Excessive Force In Bloody Arrest (black cop, white girl)
Source:
NBC5i.com
URL Source: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/6158812/detail.html
Published: Jan 16, 2006
Author: NBC5
Post Date: 2006-01-16 20:18:09 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: Excessive, (Dallas), Police
Views: 13672
Comments: 855
POSTED: 5:16 pm CST January 16, 2006
DALLAS -- E-mails and pictures circulating the Internet tell the tale of a Dallas woman's bloody run-in with police after a roller-skating outing escalated into an arrest with excessive force, but officers and some witnesses Monday told a different story.
The incident happened early Saturday morning in Deep Ellum after police attempted to speak with Michelle Metzinger, 25, who, according to a police report, was intoxicated and weaving through traffic on roller skates.
Images: The Arrest & Other Slideshows
The pictures that stemmed from the events that followed are dramatic. They show an officer arresting Metzinger. Her face is covered in blood and there is a puddle of blood on the sidewalk.
"Very excessive. Uncalled for, you know. We're talking about a 250-pound guy and a 100-pound girl. It was just over the top," witness "D.C." said. "All I saw were her feet in the air and disappearing behind a cop car."
However, Dallas police and other witnesses tell a totally different story.
They said Metzinger was drunk and that she not only ignored officers who asked her to stop skating in the street, but also shouted profanities.
According to reports, an officer then tried to arrest Metzinger for public intoxication.
She resisted and attacked the officer, Lt. Rick Watson said.
"The officer attempted to turn her around, at which time the suspect then reached up and grabbed the officer's -- right part of his face -- trying to gouge the officer's eye," Watson said.
Despite the interest that the story has generated online and in the media, Metzinger said she would not comment on the incident until she had consulted with a lawyer.
Metzinger also had not filed a complaint report, so Dallas police were not conducting an internal investigation.
When I worked concert security and someone got bloodied, it was always proper for us to "get our stories straight." Or, as Eddie Murphy said in that movie, "You were lying your asses off." That LT is a lying piece of shit and so is the black cop who LIED in his report.
I'll tell you one thing for certain, this bastard needs to be caught and given a damn hard ball-batting. And then a WHITE magic marker taken to his forehead and the words BAD COP inscribed thereon. What was done was brutal, inexcusable and unjustified.
Police Deny Excessive Force In Bloody Arrest
Dramatic Pictures, Rumors Circulate Online
UPDATED: 6:11 pm CST January 16, 2006
Poster Comment:
Pictures taken by a witness clearly show the cops are LIARS!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-83) not displayed.
.
.
.
#84. To: Richard (#77)
You are attributing statements to me that I have not made, and using reductio ad absurdum arguments as well. These are hallmarks of those who wish to bludgeon, not argue. For the record, driving too fast and/or driving drunk or high is wrong and should be against the law. But the drunk driving laws have turned into a moneymaking industry, and are now so vigorously prosecuted that people like myself no longer go out to clubs and bars for fear of getting a DUI even when we are not even close to impared. Of course robbing a bank is wrong, because there is a victim once money has been forcibly extracted by someone via threat of violence (duh!). As far as you having sex with your daughter, the fact that you even bring up that argument is rather, well, disturbing...
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#85. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
Funny Richard is a brand new poster, who just happened to be there, assures us the Dallas police, with their culture if violence, assures us the poor men did nothing incorrect. Remarkable, isn't it?? Looks like all the Homeland security is busy protecting the reputation of the Dallas police. And Richard has no credibility with me.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#86. To: Richard, all (#81)
OMG! It's true. It's true. Maybe
LOL...
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#87. To: tom007 (#85)
We really need to rename the Department of Defense with their original name of "Department of War", and then rename Homeland inSecurity with the name "Department of Peace", and then we need to sic them on each other. That'll keep them out of our hair...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#88. To: Elliott Jackalope (#84)
Elliot, Driving Drunk has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident. Driving fast has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident. If I rob a bank and don't harm anyone, there is NO VICTIM. Simply holding a gun is not a crime, nor should it be. If I don't fire it... it is just something in my hand. The supposed "THREAT" is presumed, not real, until such time as I fire the weapon. As for having sex with my daughter... well, in YOUR world of "No Victim, No Crime", I should be able to do so without a problem. You should find YOUR argument disturbing.
#89. To: tom007 (#85)
Tom, I am a new poster, who LIVES in Deep Ellum, and was coming out of July Alley (across the street) when this incident happened. I don't assure you of anthing about the DPD and their culture, nor am I affiliated with them. However, I was an eye-witness to the event in question, and you were not. I am not protecting anyone, I am simply speaking as someone who was there and saw the events unfold. You are just a reactionary looking at photos of a girl who is bleeding and you dont care that she brought that upon herself due to her violent actions. I don't care if I have "credibility" with you. I don't need it.
#90. To: Richard (#88)
You may think you are clever, but in case you have yet to notice nobody else is buying it...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#91. To: Elliott Jackalope (#90)
Elliot, I am using YOUR RULES. No Victim, No Crime. Perhaps now you see how stupid your rules are....
#92. To: Richard (#88)
uh, Richard..where did Elliott say that your having sex with your own daughter was a victimless crime? no one has said that but you.
As for having sex with my daughter... well, in YOUR world of "No Victim, No Crime", I should be able to do so without a problem.
#93. To: christine (#92)
Christine, Elliot asserted that because there was no "victim" to Michelle's actions, that this should not have happened in the first place. He is proposing a "No Victim, No Crime" system of law. According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so. No victim... so no crime. According to Elliot.
#94. To: Richard (#72)
Richard, if you're on the level, then you're the kind of a guy that goose- steps. It's not a good thing.
#95. To: Red Jones (#94)
Red, I don't goose-step by any means. I just understand what happened with Michelle and what did NOT happen with Michelle because I WAS THERE. It is easy for you to slam the police when you don't know the facts. I know the facts, and they did their job. Michelle made her bed and has to lie in it, blood and all. You don't fight with the police.
#96. To: christine (#92)
As I see it, there are only two kinds of guy that would introduce the concept of having sex with their daughter into a discussion for the sake of winning an argument: 1. Those that really don't have a daughter and 2. Those that really do have sex with their daughter
#97. To: Richard (#93)
goose-steppers frequently have trouble discerning things that the rest of us have no trouble seeing. and I am to explain basics of human life to you apparently. and the mind- numbed robot goose-stepper would argue with me on these basics. Maybe I shouldn't explain to you as it is a waste of time, but others might want to read the reasoning. Let me start at the beginning for the mind-numbed robot goose-stepper who loves jack-booted thugs that beat up women. God made us. and he made us so that we are prepared for a family relationship where a man is the husband a woman is the wife. When a man has sex with his daughter he disrupts this preparation. Because he teaches her a different pattern than that which our creator prepared for us. And this may destroy her ability to have a normal relationship. It will certainly harm her. She is a victim. I would not expect a mind-numbed robot goose-stepper to be able to see these things. All you can do is say 'seig heil' and goose-step. NAZI skinheads are not normal people either.
According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so.
#98. To: Red Jones (#94)
To misquote Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue." I'm one of those liberty freaks, I deeply resent those who are willing to surrender inalienable rights to others simply because they brandish symbols of authority. Picking fights with cops is just stupid, but mindlessly obeying cops simply because they are cops is downright cowardly...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#99. To: Sonovademocrat (#96)
Christine, I was introducing it to illustrate (and you are the perfect example of this) that Elliot's concept of "No Victim, No Crime" just does not work. Thank you for bolstering my point.
#100. To: Red Jones (#97)
Red, How is using Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime making me a goose stepper? God did not make us, Elliot... if you choose to believe in the Boogeyman, that is fine wtih me, but there is no evidence of this. If I have a daughter and she is 17, in the state of Texas, she is of the age of consent and can have sex with whomever she pleases. She is NOT a victim, she is a volunteer. No Victim, No Crime, says Elliot. The officer in question did not "beat up" the woman, he simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her. Red, it is clear you have never been in a fight in your life, or you would know the difference. If he wanted to "beat up" Michelle, she would either be dead or in the ICU at Baylor. He just wanted to arrest her, and she resisted. WOW... you have introduced Nazis into the conversation... it is clear that you have run out of things to contribute. I am not a nazi, a skinhead, or even a conservative. It is clear that your emotions have gotten the better of you, Red... you have lost the debate and now resort to childish namecalling.
#101. To: Elliott Jackalope (#98)
Elliot, You got one right! Picking fights with cops IS indeed just stupid! Well done! You CAN learn! I am excited for you. Not sure what you mean by "mindlessly obeying cops" in this instance... she was warned, and after being warned she chose to break the law again.
#102. To: Richard, All (#100)
Once again, reductio ad absurdum. Here's the deal, at no point did I make the absolute statement "no victim, no crime". However, I did state that once you accept the idea of victimless crimes, then the door has opened to an endless escalation of laws and supposed "crimes" that eventually results in de facto tyranny. That is a door that is better kept closed, because once opened it is rather hard to close again. My concern is that there are so many laws on the books now that for all intents and purposes the police have become mere tyrants, able to arrest and punish anyone anytime whenever they feel like it. This is a bad thing. Once upon a time this country believed in certain ideals, such as "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man". Sadly those ideals have gone the way of the dodo bird, largely because of people such as yourself who are willing to mindlessly obey those in positions of authority. Since you really cannot defend said argument as stated, you resort to hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum arguments in an attempt to make your point. It is to the credit of everyone else on this forum that nobody else here is buying it.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#103. To: Richard (#47)
If you are trying to say that it is "ok" for her to take a swing at a police officer, then you lose from the start. I never said this, nor implied it. (Though it is lawful to resist and unlawful arrest, so there are some circumstances when it's okay).
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#104. To: Richard (#88)
Tell her to leave my dog alone.
As for having sex with my daughter..
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#105. To: Elliott Jackalope (#102)
Elliot, It is clear you don't work in the law or you would not have said "Once upon a time this country believed in certain ideals, such as "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man". Sadly those ideals have gone the way of the dodo bird, largely because of people such as yourself who are willing to mindlessly obey those in positions of authority." You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority. When am I mindlessly obeying? Is it when I choose not to get drunk off my ass and go rollerskating in the middle of a busy street? Is it when I stop rollerskating in the middle of the street because an officer told me it was illegal? Is it when I choose NOT to attack a police officer? Which argument can I not defend, Elliot? Do tell.
#106. To: Richard (#49)
Not necessarily true. People have been shot dead by police for no good cause, and the homes of innocents raided in the night and so forth. You can't tell me all cops are good cops. Plainly they are not. Some are good and some are bad. Same is true for people in all walks of life.
Your stepfather was right, if you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#107. To: Neil McIver (#103)
Neil, If you have been arrested by the police, you do not have the right to resist. If you feel your arrest is unlawful, you have the courts sytem as your point of recourse. If you are NOT saying that it is "Ok" for Michelle to attack the police officer, then this entire conversation is moot. The only reason she was taken into custody was because she resisted arrest. Care to try again?
#108. To: Neil McIver (#106)
Neil, I never said all cops are good cops. MOST cops are good cops. There are good and bad people in all walks of life. That does NOT give you the right to resist arrest or to assault a police officer.
#109. To: Flintlock (#104)
Flint, But your dog is so damned sexy, how can she resist?
#110. To: Richard (#56)
Then you are not unbiased in your testimony. You live there and are sick of drunk people being about. Thus, she got what she deserved, not necessarily because of resisting arrest, but (perhaps?) because she was one of those drunk people, and anything done to clean up the town is fine with you.... ?? (I'm asking respectfully.... do you consider yourself a neutral observer in this case?)
What would I possibly stand to gain? The police have my information and I told them I would be happy to testify if needed. Perhaps you think they are paying me? Sorry... I live in Deep Ellum and am sick to death of the drunken idiots that think that "the man" is there to keep them down.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#111. To: Richard (#105)
When am I mindlessly obeying? When someone supports and defends the use of excessive force, then as far as I'm concerned they are mindlessly obeying authority. And yes, as far as I'm concerned that cop used excessive force against that woman. If you took a drunken swing at a cop and were then beat bloody, I'd defend you just as vigorously. Being drunk and stupid does not mean that you are deserving of being beaten bloody, especially nowadays when cops are taught literally dozens of moves that can be used to restrain someone. Perhaps my viewpoint is extreme, but once again I'd rather be extreme in the pursuit of liberty than moderate in the face of tyranny. I'm in favor of justice being meted out in court, not on the streets.
You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#112. To: Richard (#100)
this is one of the problems with goose-steppers. They have a problem with discernment. They would not be goose-steppers but that they cannot see clearly, their minds have become eroded. Please read carefully. I did not say that you were a goose-stepper because you used elliott's concept in a perverted way. You said this, and then you attributed it to me. Poor logic. poor discernment. I said you were a goose-stepper based on your whole post. It is obvious to the casual observer that you are a goose-stepper. Meaning you have a fascist mentality, an glorification of the police and an exaggerated and legalistic glorification of the law and a desire to maliciously punish elements that you can punish via the law and the police. As a matter of fact, I first said you were a goose-stepper in one post, then told you about why having sex with your daughter is not a victimless crime in a following post. Your mind has been degraded that you cannot handle simple logical thought. This happens when you reject god and reject his ways. Goose-steppers normally replace god with government. They worship government instead of god. and thus their minds become deteriorated over time.
How is using Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime making me a goose stepper?
#113. To: Richard (#61)
Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one. There are, in fact, people considering just such a thing.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#114. To: Red Jones (#112)
Well stated, Red. Although I am hostile to religion I do very much believe in God, although I have problems with how God is conceptualized by most people. However, I believe in the concept of "God-given" rights, which is something that I know you also believe strongly in as well. You go Yahweh, I'll go mine, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that we'll both meet again somewhere in a better place than this...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#115. To: Neil McIver (#110)
Neil, Yes, I do consider myself neutral. It was EASY to see what happened. Drunk girl asked to stop skating in the street. She does not stop. She was arrested. She was not pleased with being arrested. She displayed a lot of "attitude." She took swipe at officer. She got put on the ground and handcuffed. Michelle screwed up and paid the price. Pretty simple.
#116. To: Elliott Jackalope (#114)
I appreciate that Elliott. We can argue endlessly on religion as you say. and the bible says that god's the judge, not us. I can't stand a lot of the christians myself, and I am christian (allegedly anyway).
#117. To: Richard (#115)
She got put on the ground and handcuffed. And in the process ended up getting beaten bloody. A little 100 lb girl beaten bloody by a 250 lb cop. Some of us have a problem with that. Apparently you don't, and that is the difference between you and the rest of us on this forum.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#118. To: Neil McIver (#113)
There are, in fact, people who have already done such a thing. See: Belize, Costa Rica, British Columbia, Switzerland, Chile, and so on...
There are, in fact, people considering just such a thing.
#119. To: Red Jones (#116)
You're a good man, Red. A little stubborn sometimes, but a good man to the core. You got a lot of heart...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#120. To: Elliott Jackalope (#111)
Elliot, Pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to sensationalize this. SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY. She resisted arrest, was forced to the ground and placed in handcuffs. She was NOT beaten. Being drunk does not mean that you deserve to get beaten. However, assaulting a police officer would certainly put you in that category, even though, in this case, it did not occur. Your viewpoint does not take into account her actions. A person attacked a police officer and got put on the ground and handcuffed. As a result of their struggling with the police the got a cut on their face from the ground. This was NOT excessive force by ANY stretch of the imagination. He could have used his baton, his mace or his tazer... or even shot her.... but he did not, because THAT would have been excessive force for the situation.
#121. To: Richard (#120)
Gosh, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#122. To: Richard (#88)
Roads are designed to for cars to use a certain way and up to a certain speed. Road engineers know all about this. Driving a car on a road inconsistant with it's design, such as going too fast or straying into the opposite lane, is reckless endangerment. That's when the line is crossed (so to speak). It may be that somewhere, 120 MPH on main street is consistant with it's design. If so, then it's okay to go that fast. But otherwise, the victims are the locals who are put at unreasonable risk by the excessive speed. Uhhh... the bank owner? Customers with deposits you steal? Perhaps you think stealing money from someone doesn't hurt them. If so, would you mind if I steal $50,000 from you? I promise it won't hurt. Many of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws say you're wrong. (as an aside).
Driving Drunk has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident.
Driving fast has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident.
If I rob a bank and don't harm anyone, there is NO VICTIM.
Simply holding a gun is not a crime, nor should it be. If I don't fire it... it is just something in my hand.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#123. To: Red Jones (#112)
Red, Wow, you really paint with a broad brush. I have no desire to maliciously punish ANYONE. I do believe that there are laws on the books, and there are people in place to enforce those laws. Those people should be listened to, and should not be attacked. Those who choose to attack the police are in effect, attacking the law. The law was created by society, so they are attacking society as well. Apparently you and your Boogeyman have a lot of room for people to disrespect the law... But wait... not according to your god.... your god also says that homosexuals should be killed and that I can sell my daughter into slavery, and that all football players should be killed for touching pigskin. Your god is a deep thinker...
#124. To: Elliott Jackalope (#117)
Elliot, A 100lb girl who was NOT BEATEN BLOODY. She was ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER and was taken to the ground. She was not BEATEN in any way. You were NOT there. I WAS. I saw what happened and what both parties did. She was fighting with a cop and got subdued. The pictures simply show the result of her fighting with the police. Are you now advocating that anyone who is a woman weighing less than the arresting officer be allowed to attack that police officer? Her weight does not come into play here.
.
.
.
Comments (125 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest