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: 13465
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 304.
#1. To: All (#0)
Pig mother effers. IMVHO, a .45 cal should be mandatory when roller-skating in Dallas.
We should be sure of all the facts. The story claims witnesses said she was aggravating the situation by attacking the cop. Were the witnesses impartial?
She looks ok in the first picture standing next to police car. At that point she seems to be in custody, and police are responsible for her.
She looks like she had her face scraped across the pavement. Don't know what else would likely cause that kind of redness. That does suggest the cop had control of her at the time it happened.
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
That much blood doesn't come from mere scrapes.
The account given by the police was given by a "Lt. Rick Watson". But I wonder how likely it is that any loftey Lt. was out on patrol doing grunt work. Watson was more likely giving a pro-police version of the event rather than giving any kind of testimony of what HE saw happen, and if he didn't see it but speaks as though he did, then that's pretty incriminating as well. It's likely his version of the events is mere heresay, at best. The girl is smart to consult a lawyer before making any public comments.
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
Of course he can't. Why would he undercut one of his own people? I'll tell ya, I've wrapped up guys, lean 'n' mean and 15 years younger than me, without giving them so much as a bruise. And this creep thumps this little girl so hard the blood is all over her face. And then his knee on her throat and her spine. I hope these pics really hang him. He went way overboard and now it's time to pay the fiddler. The head hunters will have some fun looking into his record and sending him for new psych tests. ;0)
Of course he can't. Why would he undercut one of his own people? Oh, damn, that's from a different story. Oh, it looks as it this Lt. is just a mouthpiece they roll out to make sound bites. Yeah, well, he can bite me too. ;0)
I was there that night and saw the situation as well. They also took my info as a witness. I side with the police on this one, sorry. The girl who got arrested was stoned out of her mind, argumentative and clearly off her nut. I had seen her and her friend earlier skating on Main Street. They were skating on the sidewalk at that time, and they fell down numerous times as well as nearly crashed drunkenly into lines of people waiting to get into clubs. She had been warned by the police on Main Street about her conduct before she was finally ticketed and arrested on Elm Street. The "tiny girl" on skates had been told before not to skate in the street by the police, and as you said, was arrested and in the process of being ticketed for her conduct. She was breaking the law. Right now, the most common arrest in Deep Ellum is NOT assault, breaking and entering, or any other violent crime; it is PUBLIC INTOXICATION. Michelle was a prime object lesson for this. She was arrested, and not only failed to follow the instructions of the police, she was an ass about it. She was skating in the middle of a BUSY street, if she had been hit by a car, you would all be crawling up the butt of the police asking why they DIDN'T stop her from skating in the street. Or are you now advocating that people go roller skating in the middle of a busy street on a weekend night? Perhaps we should have a skating party on the 75 next Saturday? As civillians, we need to respect the police. Even if we disagree with them. There are structures in place to dispute the actions of the police. The middle of Elm Street is NOT a place to do this. Also, you NEVER have a right to swing at a police officer, even if you are drunk. It is their job to protect us from harm, even when that harm is coming from our own actions (like a drunken girl who wants to rollerskate in the MIDDLE OF A BUSY STREET). You laughingly play it down as she gave "a little attitude" when in fact she was extremely disrespectful and got what she deserved. She was intoxicated, breaking the law and endangering her life and the lives of the drivers in the area, I really don't see how her weight comes into play there. She resisted arrest, and fell to the ground in the scuffle, so what? I would be FAR more concerned if the officer was NOT able to control her. So she got cut... big deal. She resisted arrest. She should not have done that. The officer has been on the force for 12 years and has been written up 3 times. That is immaterial. It does not show a "pattern" of abusive behavior. Clearly each incident was addressed or he would not be serving on the force presently. It is hack journalism to try to paint the police officer as being in the wrong for doing his job because of 3 write ups over a 12 YEAR SPAN. She was drunk and under arrest, she should not have resisted. Had she not resisted, she would have been ticketed and relased... unharmed. It is amazing that you all are trying to portray this idiotic, offensive and drunken female as a victim... The cops did their job, and did it well. She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson.
She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson. You were doing pretty good until the last couple of lines. Saying that "she got what she deserved" and "perhaps you all will learn a little respect" is where you went over the high side. I remember my stepfather and the discussions we had concerning things like liberty and privacy, and his big answer was always "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about". Trying to explain why that was wrong to him was like trying to explain calculus to a chimpanzee, he simply had no facility to be able to understand the concept, it was utterly beyond him, and sadly that proved true about all of his cop friends as well. Some people understand liberty, most people don't. Those who spout sayings like "she got what she deserved" and "perhaps you will learn a little respect" fall into the camp of those who don't.
Elliot, She did get what she deserved, and you all are showing a great amount of disrespect for the police. Your stepfather was right, if you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about. Michelle WAS doing things wrong, MANY things. She was intoxicated in public. She was rollerskating in the middle of a busy street. She was NOT listening respectfully to the police when they tried to peacefully resolve the matter. She was resisting arrest. So... The cops did their job, and they did it well. If you don't respect the police, then you don't respect society, Elliot. The police are put in place by society to keep us safe from people like Michelle. If I had been driving down Elm and hit her because she was rollerskating in the street because the police saw her and did nothing, you would be screaming at the police for their inaction. Can't have it both ways, Elliot. The police did their job, they stopped someone who was breaking the law. She got what she deserved and perhaps will learn NOT to resist arrest next time.
We are going to have to agree to disagree, Richard. I don't respect the police, not any longer, not when they say things like "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but then cannot even tell me how many laws there are that I have no right to be ignorant of. The line is drawn, you are on one side and I am on the other. At least you are honorable enough to have a clear position and the will to defend it, but I will never agree with those who believe that "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about".
Elliot, I am not sure how your discussion of the concept "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" comes into play in this matter. What we have here is a woman who was first told by the police nicely that her actions were unlawful and asked to stop. When she continued to do the actions that she was just TOLD were unlawful, she was arrested and given a ticket for her actions. She was NOT doing nothing wrong. She was KNOWINGLY doing wrong. Then, while under arrest, she assaulted the police officer. Now, I acknowledge that there are many laws and we don't know them all... but come on... we ALL know that you can't take a swing at a police officer when you are under arrest. How are you saying that Michelle was ignorant of the law? She was warned first, so she was NOT ignorant of the law. If she had obeyed the law at that point, none of this would have happened.
Here's the problem: It simply doesn't matter what the circumstances were leading up to this incident, the result was a 250 lb black officer beating a 100 lb white woman bloody. Now, imagine if this situation were turned around, and it was a 250 lb white officer beating a 100 lb black woman bloody. When rule of law becomes rule of force, facts cease to matter and appearances become everything. Yes, it's unfair, but it is also the way things are. Where are the victims of this woman's actions? Is there a single person who was harmed by what she was doing? I don't see anyone else lying broken and bloodied by her actions, but I see a lot of blood on the ground from what the cop did to her. My stepfather used to practice his "take-down" moves they taught him at the CHP academy on me, and I know for a fact that cops have a lot of ways to deal with people that don't involve cracking their heads open. This woman stupidly chose to take a drunken swing at a cop, for that she should be prosecuted in a court of law. But this officer had a lot of different ways to deal with the situation, he chose a method that spilled a fair amount of blood, and that's going to cause problems.
Elliot. Here is where you lose all credibility. Race does not enter into this matter at all. It is offensive of you to even suggest that they do. Also, to assert that the events preceeding her arrest do not factor into things is ridiculous. Furthermore, she was not "BEATEN" as you try to portray, she was simply taken to the ground and handcuffed. The cut she got came because she was resisting arrest (which, by the by, is a CRIME) and was taken to the ground. And FINALLY "Where are the victims of this woman's actions? Is there a single person who was harmed by what she was doing?" SO... you assert that if NO ONE IS HARMED THERE IS NO CRIME? Ok, so when I go to rob a bank, and shove a gun in the face of the teller, but DON'T pull the trigger because she gives me the money... ACCORDING TO YOU I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NO ONE WAS HURT??? What a frightening world you live in, Elliot. "This woman stupidly chose to take a drunken swing at a cop, for that she should be prosecuted in a court of law. But this officer had a lot of different ways to deal with the situation, he chose a method that spilled a fair amount of blood, and that's going to cause problems. " YES, this woman stupidly chose to RESIST ARREST and ASSAULT A POLICE OFFICER. The officer did his job by subding the violent offender. He did have lots of different ways to do this. He could have maced her. He could have used his baton on her. He could have used his tazer. He could have shot her. BUT... he didn't, because those methods were excessive given the circumstances. He took her to the ground and handcuffed her. He did not beat her, he simply subdued her.
Ok, so when I go to rob a bank, and shove a gun in the face of the teller, but DON'T pull the trigger because she gives me the money... ACCORDING TO YOU I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NO ONE WAS HURT??? What a frightening world you live in, Elliot. That argument is sophomoric beyond belief. You're a good little boot-licker, I'll give you that much...
Elliot, You are saying that because she had no visible victim, because no one got hurt as a result of her actions then she should not have been arrested. Fine. Then I should be able to go 140 down the middle of downtown Dallas, or in a school zone in the afternoon, provided I don't actually HIT anyone with my car, correct? It just does not work that way. You don't have to have a visible "victim" to be breaking the law. What you are suggesting is beyond idiotic and bordering on the surreal, Elliot.
Richard, you are being sophomoric again. ;0)
BTP I am simply dumbing down my game to the level of my comrade.... He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime. That opens the door to a lot of things.
That opens the door to a lot of things. Suggesting that there are crimes where there are no visible victims opens the door to a whole lot of things as well, Richard.
Yes, Elliot, it does. Under your new rules... I can drive as fast as I want, whenever or where ever I want. Even when I am drunk or high. I can fire my automatic weapons out of my office window in downtown dallas, provided I don't hit anyone or harm their property. I can also have sex with my 17 year old daughter now, according to you. My my... what a fun world you are offering us, Elliot. I can
As opposed to the fun world your kind has given us, a world where I can't even go out and have a single drink at a nightclub for fear of getting a DUI on the way home, a world where the police can bust down my door and steal everything I own after saying the magic word "drugs", a world where citizens have fewer rights every day while the police gain additional powers every day. Yes, such a fun world the statists have given us.
So Elliot, You would prefer to have a society where I can drive as fast as I want, even when I am drunk or stoned, rob a bank - provided I don't actually shoot anyone, and screw my daughter if she is horny? Lovely....
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gosh, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
Elliot I was THERE. I know the actions surrounding those photos. You were not there. You just see pictures but don't know what happened.
You just see pictures but don't know what happened. You're right, I wasn't there and I didn't see what happened first hand, all I have to go with is the pictures. But you have to admit that these pictures look bad. You asserted that she was not beaten bloody, well, from what I can see of the pictures it sure looks like she was. That's not makeup spilled on the ground..
Elliot, You are being reactionary again... Accoring to the PICTURES... there is no evidence that she was beaten at all. She may have simply fallen. There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
Now thats funny! Richard, you such a silly man.
Tom, Please point to where in those photos you see that the police are causing the injuries. She is laying face down and away from the camera in one, but you can not see any evidence of injury. In the others she is bleeding. Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
You originally said "Nothing to suggest" the cop...... And the guy with his knee on her back/face darn sure "suggests" he may have caused the injuries. It indicates as well, Richard. And why do you care so much to seek out this site and start this deification of the Police. Your best bet is to admit that. But seeing as you care nothing for you cedibility.... I'm sure you will not.
Tom, Hate to tell you again that you are wrong, but you are wrong. A police officer shown with his knee on her back, handcuffing her does NOT suggest that he may have caused the injuries. The injuries are not visible in that photo, so we do not know if she was injured before or after she was placed on her face based soley upon the photographic evidence. Being as how it was stated by more than one witness that she had fallen twice on Main Street earlier, a case could be made that she injured herself at that time. Now, I was there, and she got cut when she assaulted the police officer, and she deserved it; but based JUST on the photos, there is no evidence of that. Sorry, tom, but you would not do well in law school. There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
Lets see, she was OK standing by the cop car, then Mr Big has her face down on the asphalt with his knee on her neck, and you maintain there is no reason to suggest the cop caused her injuries???? I am laughing at you, Richard. Then you say I would not do well in Law school??? You are a silly man if you think you can come here and say you found this site today and decided to post this.
Tom, You are dealing with circumstantial evidence in these photos. You are inferring things into the photos that the photos do not represent. Just because she is standing by the police car does not prove anything. There is nothing in the photos that would show that the actions of the police caused her facial injuries. The policeman has his knee in her back, not on her neck, as you incorrectly reported. Being as how his knee is on her BACK, you can not reasonably presume based solely upon the photos that she sustained her injuries at the hands of the police. She was drunk off her ass and on rollerskates, and more than one person said they saw her fall on Main Street earlier when she was skating drunkenly on the cobblestones, so based on the photographic evidence, you can't presume that the police caused the injuries. You just can not make the case just off the pictures. I did not find this site today, I found it two days ago and registered just like anyone else would. It is amusing to see how you deal with people who deign to disagree with you, especially when they were actually AT the event in question.
Just because you SAY you were at the incident does not prove anything. Much less than the pix. If you didn't come off like a FERAL GOV boot licker, I might have given your story more creedence.
tom, I don't care what you think, remember? I don't know why you try to paint me as a boot licker just because I feel in THIS ONE INSTANCE THAT I WITNESSED that the police did nothing wrong. I am not saying that the police never do bad things or that excessive force is not used, I am saying in THIS ONE INSTANCE THAT I WITNESSED they did nothing wrong. Also, I don't care whether or not you believe I was there that night. I gave my statement and my information to the officers at the scene, and they seemed to believe I was there, and I DO care about that. So... have a a lovely day.
Time to archive this thread to send to the defense and and flush this Richard turd, or whoever it is.
Hmmmmm, You weren't there and I was, yet you are so quick to side with the woman who attacked the police. Curious... The defense wont have any trouble tracking me down, I gave my statements to the police and they have my contact information. They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
He's already stated that he is "sick" of the drunks on the street, so he is very much a biased witness from the start (assuming he's really a witness at all). Richard's testimony can't be trusted for that reason.
Neil, stating that I am sick of drunks on the street does not discredit my testimony at all. The behavior that got her arrested was drunken. But the reason that she went to jail was not her drunken conduct, it was her violent behavior. Or are you in favor of violent behavior towards the police? In which case, you would be disqualified because you are prejudiced.
It taints it and any jury should consider your bias with your testimony. 'nough said. Disqualified for what? I may well be biased myself, and if so, a jury would be correct in taking my bias into consideration had I been there and seen the events and given testimony. There's nothing wrong with being biased. It's just when you lie and claim you are not, as you are, THAT'S where there's a problem. When I first asked if you considered yourself a neutral witness, I already knew the answer. My reason for asking was only to find out how honest you are. Turns out you are not honest at all. In insisting you are a fair witness here you've proven to me you are a liar, and THAT does taint your testimony more than your bias alone does. Bias + liar = totally discredited testimony.
Are you an attorney? If not, how can you speak with any credibilty about what a jury would or would not do in any given situation? Sounds like you are doing more of your "I don't know the TRUTH but here is what I think and so you can take it as the truth." You asked a question and I told you the truth, I am an honest witenss. I don't know Michelle nor Officer Gordon. I dont work for the police or the city of Dallas. That I stated I am upset with drunks does in no way discredit me as a witness. Her conduct was violent, not drunken. Insisting that I am a fair not make me a liar, and it is clear that you have never been around a jury pool in your life. Everyone has a point of view, so in your thinking, NO ONE would make a fair witness. You can say what you like, Neil, because it clearly does not matter.
You don't have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. In fact, it's better if juries have no attornies on them, as juries are representative of the voice of the people, not the courts. If you care, go and read my first comments on this thread. I try to be fair and my first comments should give evidence of that, if not prove it outright. I never claimed to be there or know all the facts. What irritates me is when a fruitcake comes on board who is bias as all get out and yet claims not to be. You ARE biased here and until you admit it, I consider you a liar and therefore don't care what you say. I'll believe you only when an honest witness says the same thing. Because you'd lied here on this thread about your neutrality, your testimony isn't worth crap, and it doesn't even matter if it's 100% accurate. I didn't ask if you were honest. I asked if you were neutral, and you are not.
You dont have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. You DO have to be an attorney to understand that the selection process for jurors is very complex. Not just anyone gets to be on a jury. Also, to say that juries are better with no attornies on them is an incredibly UNFAIR and BIASED statement, as MOST attornies do not represent the courts, the represent their clients. Neil, we ALL have biases. Mine do not obstruct my point of view as an eyewitness in this instance. Are you going to sit there and tell me that her drunken buddies DON'T have a bias against the police, or that YOU don't have a bias against the police? You said you were FAIR, but you CLEARLY have a bias against the police. As for my testimony, well, fortunatley for all of us, your opinion of it is worth absolutely nothing. I have not lied about my neutrality here. Neil, I am at least as fair and neutral as you are in this matter.
I know it's complex. It has to be to stack it, as is the practice in courts today. Jury selection is supposed to be random, but the screening process these days makes sure that no person sits on a jury who doesn't first agree with the politics behind current laws. Juries are routinely fed crap by judges about having power only to judge the facts of the case and not the law, when the truth of the matter is they have the power to acquit if they feel the law is unjust. In fact they have a duty to do so, and have since the precedent set in the days of William Penn's trial. It should be enough to ask if they know the accused or accusers personally. Wrong. As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts. And when a judge has the power to disbar an attorney, the attorney can be persuaded to not present the best defense. It happens when the best defense embarrasses the judge by raising issues the judge doesn't want raised. When did I claim otherwise? I probably am biased against police in general. But I'm not claiming to be a witness here, you are. So it's your bias that's on the table. That you refuse to admit it is all I need to know. Word of advice for you on this thread: Don't read everything you believe.
Jury selection is not supposed to be random, it is supposed to be impartial. Voi dire is designed to ensure that it is impartial. If it was random you could not be assured of being judged by a jury of your peers. You could have 12 homeless guys in the jury box under your system. "It should be enough to ask if they know the defendant personally" Well, then you could be before the courts on a DUI charge and have a jury full of people who recently lost their husband or wife to a drunk driver that never got charged or convicted of their crimes. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, Neil. "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts." MORE of "Neil does not know what he is talking about!" You can't represent BOTH the Court and your client as an attorney. You have to represent ONE OR THE OTHER. Your embarrassing lack of understanding of our legal system is disturbing. I am not "claiming" to be a witness, I AM a witness to this event. Again, everyone has a bias, it is their point of view. So, if everyone has a bias, then I have a bias. However, my "bias" does not impede my ability to see a situation and accurately report what I saw. I am not biased against Michelle, nor am I biased in favor of Officer Gordon. Witnesses are not judges nor juries, they are witnesses. They all have "biases" and it is their duty to simply relate to the courts what they witnessed.
A defense attorney is an officer of the court, look it up sometime.
Being considered an "Officer of the Court" does not make you a REPRESENTATIVE of the court. There is a big difference, but apparently you people are not interested in the truth as much as you are interested in the hype.
By definition an officer of any organization is a representative, but keep spinning if it makes you feel better.
As an Officer of the Court, you EITHER represent the client or you represent the court. You can't be both. Perhaps you are not aware, but there are many different ways to define the word "representative." In the case of attornies, you can't represent BOTH the court and the client.
#306. To: Richard (#304)
You made a blanket statement, I corrected you. Are we supposed to overlook your basic lack of English skills?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#7. To: Neil McIver (#4)
#11. To: Dakmar (#7)
#15. To: Neil McIver (#11)
#38. To: christine (#15)
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
#39. To: All (#38)
#41. To: Neil McIver (#39)
The account given by the police was given by a "Lt. Rick Watson". But I wonder how likely it is that any loftey Lt. was out on patrol doing grunt work. Watson was more likely giving a pro-police version of the event
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#41)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
#43. To: All (#42)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
#44. To: ALL (#43)
#46. To: Richard (#44)
The cops did their job, and did it well.
#49. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
#50. To: Richard (#49)
#54. To: Elliott Jackalope (#50)
#58. To: Richard (#54)
#60. To: Elliott Jackalope (#58)
#62. To: Richard (#60)
SO... you assert that if NO ONE IS HARMED THERE IS NO CRIME?
#64. To: Elliott Jackalope (#62)
#67. To: Richard (#64)
Then I should be able to go 140 down the middle of downtown Dallas, or in a school zone in the afternoon, provided I don't actually HIT anyone with my car, correct?
#69. To: BTP Holdings (#67)
#70. To: Richard (#69)
He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime.
#72. To: Elliott Jackalope (#70)
#75. To: Richard (#72)
#77. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
#84. To: Richard (#77)
#88. To: Elliott Jackalope (#84)
#92. To: Richard (#88)
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)
#97. To: Richard (#93)
According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so.
#100. To: Red Jones (#97)
#102. To: Richard, All (#100)
#105. To: Elliott Jackalope (#102)
#111. To: Richard (#105)
You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority.
#120. To: Elliott Jackalope (#111)
#121. To: Richard (#120)
SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY.
#125. To: Elliott Jackalope (#121)
#130. To: Richard (#125)
You were not there.
#132. To: Elliott Jackalope (#130)
#179. To: Richard (#132)
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
#181. To: tom007 (#179)
#187. To: Richard (#181)
Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
#190. To: tom007 (#187)
#195. To: Richard (#190)
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
#199. To: tom007 (#195)
#206. To: Richard (#199)
ust because she is standing by the police car does not prove anything. There is nothing in the photos that would show that the actions of the police caused her facial injuries.
#208. To: tom007 (#206)
#215. To: Richard, ALL (#208)
I gave my statement and my information to the officers at the scene, and they seemed to believe I was there, and I DO care about that.
#216. To: Hmmmmm (#215)
#217. To: Richard (#216)
They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
#238. To: Hmmmmm (#217)
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
#252. To: Neil McIver (#238)
#275. To: Richard (#252)
Neil, stating that I am sick of drunks on the street does not discredit my testimony at all.
In which case, you would be disqualified because you are prejudiced.
#279. To: Neil McIver (#275)
Neil,
#284. To: Richard (#279)
Are you an attorney?
If not, how can you speak with any credibilty about what a jury would or would not do in any given situation?
Sounds like you are doing more of your "I don't know the TRUTH but here is what I think and so you can take it as the truth."
You asked a question and I told you the truth, I am an honest witenss.
#285. To: Neil McIver (#284)
Neil,
#292. To: Richard (#285)
You dont have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. You DO have to be an attorney to understand that the selection process for jurors is very complex.
Not just anyone gets to be on a jury. Also, to say that juries are better with no attornies on them is an incredibly UNFAIR and BIASED statement, as MOST attornies do not represent the courts, the represent their clients.
Neil, we ALL have biases. Mine do not obstruct my point of view as an eyewitness in this instance. Are you going to sit there and tell me that her drunken buddies DON'T have a bias against the police, or that YOU don't have a bias against the police? You said you were FAIR, but you CLEARLY have a bias against the police.
#293. To: Neil McIver (#292)
Neil,
#297. To: Richard (#293)
You can't represent BOTH the Court and your client as an attorney. You have to represent ONE OR THE OTHER.
#299. To: Dakmar (#297)
Dakmar,
#300. To: Richard (#299)
#304. To: Dakmar (#300)
Dakmar,
Replies to Comment # 304. Perhaps you are not aware, but there are many different ways to define the word "representative."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 304.