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: 14087
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 (1-289) not displayed.
.
.
.
#290. To: Starwind (#287)
I did not claim that she had any previous convictions. I stated, if you could READ, that she would surely be convicted of the charges stemming from her conduct on Saturday and that THOSE charges would be introduced if she was foolish enough to press a civil suit. Once again, children, you need to work on READING AND COMPREHENSION.
You applaud his inability to read and comprehend? How odd...
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. 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.
Well done Starwind. Add your research to what Tom007 did, and it seems we have a bad apple here....
In your post #203 your exact words are: Of COURSE he will face civil charges because America has become the nation where everyone is the Victim. It wont go to civil court, however, because she could never win. She was not beaten. All she got a cut on her face because she was taken to the ground after she assaulted a policeman. She does not have a chance in hell in civil court. Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial. I scanned the entire thread and I don't see where you discussed her conviction on any charges, before your post#203, just her losing a civil complaint because of what you allege to be prior convictions. And following your post #203, the only discssion of convictions were questions posed to you about your post #203. So, if not post #203 (wherein you implied prior convictions on her record) where else in this thread (what post #) did you predict her conviction on the charges of public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer, please?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Are you ALL morons? I never indicated she had any previous convicitons, you dolt. I said she would be convicted of the charges that she incurred Saturday, and that if she went to a civil trial, those charges would be introduced and thus destroy her case. It is a wonder any of you got out of high school with your inability to read and comprehend basic statements.
A defense attorney is an officer of the court, look it up sometime.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
I will do this REAL SLOW so you can grasp it. She will be CONVICTED of the charges stemming from her conduct on SATURDAY. THOSE CONVICTIONS will be ON HER RECORD going into her CIVIL TRIAL. Ergo, she does not have a chance in hell in civil court. I did NOT imply she had prior convicitons, Starwind. I implied that she would easily be convicted of the charges she incurred Saturday. Wow, you really are not very good at this.
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.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Now Richard, name calling is the last resort of a losing argument. Look, the cop lost his cool and hammered this kid. The kid - as I thought - hired an attorney. Your chance at testimony will finally be realized. We will follow this case with interest :)
not very good at reading and comprehending what you had not written prior to your clarification? No, you're right. I'm not very good at assumptions and prejudging as you seem to be. I prefer explicit fact, whereas you rely on implication, inuendo, and insult.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This cop did not loose his cool and did NOT hammer this kid. He did not strike her, he wrestled her to the ground. You do enjoy trying to sensationalize what you did not see. As I said, she won't press a civil case because she can't win.
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.
Are you serious? Let me google the attorney mentioned in the article Tom007 posted. She's going after punitives. 10-4, Roger Wilko, over and out.
You made a blanket statement, I corrected you. Are we supposed to overlook your basic lack of English skills?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
I was directly refuting the incorrect statement "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts." So, the definitional scope of the term "represent" was already defined. YOU were the one who misapplied the term, not I.
Of COURSE she is. Every yahoo who gets arrested tries to sue the police, it is the national pastime. She can't go after punitives until her court case for the PI, resisting, and assault. Her civil suit will fizzle out shortly after her convictions. It won't see a courtroom.
So, the definitional scope of the term "represent" was already defined. Yes, and Neil was correct, a defense attorney is a representative of the court, as is the prosecutor.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Once again you miss the mark. Neil tried to assert that a defense attorney "represents" the interests of the courts. He does not. He can not. He represents his client. Nice try, and thanks so much for playing...
You want me to argue about what you think he meant when what he said was 100% factual? You really are a fruitcake.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
I just want to let you know that, once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and that you are obsessed with fruitcake. Christmas was last month... let it go.
Obsessed? One mention is obsessed? I take back my fruitcake remark, you are an ass-sucking retard.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
That clearly puts you in the ranks of those who are fair and impartial. LOL Dakmar, I am truly sorry that you don't have enough intellectual game to play with the big boys, but perhaps you should do a little more reading and a lot less talking. ROFLMAO
I'm not the one trying to argue about personal interpretations of factual statements.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Neil did not make a "Factual Statement." He made an assertion, and it was incorrect. Again, nice try, and thanks so much for playing.
SO now she's a YAHOO? Richard, your pending testimony is worthless.
He said a defense attorney is a representative of the court. It's no one's mistake but yours that you read that as "representing the interests" of the court. Once again, a defense lawyer, being an officer of the court, is by definition a representative of the court.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Makes me want to give Metzingers lawyer a call...
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
This info might be worth a few bucks to him :) Our friend Richard has impeached himself with his overt bias.
A Defense Lawyer is an Officer Of The Court. That does not mean that they speak FOR the court. It means that they can speak TO the court. The are not the representative of the COURT, they are the representative of the DEFENDANT. Once again, you fail to grasp the situation at hand. Just because YOU read the wrong meaning into the word does not excuse your ignorance.
You go right ahead... see how far it gets you. LOL
I read a factual statemment. You read more into it than was there.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Sadly you would not know a "factual statement" if it bit you on the lip. Neil did not make a factual statment. He made an ASSERTION. Again, your ignorance of the truth is no defense.
So a defense attorney is not an officer of the court?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Welcome to the website for the State of Delaware Public Defender's Office. The office was created to preserve the constitutional rights of indigent defendants in criminal cases, through the assistance of counsel, at every stage of the adjudication process. In addition, case law has established that the Public Defender, as an officer of the court, has the professional duty to assist the court in every reasonable way in the improvement of justice. Golly, Richard, that sure sounds like a representative to me.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Random is the means by which it is impartial. The state should not be specifically screening out people that disagree with the law, which it does. What's wrong with that? Is there something wrong with homeless people? You could also get 12 people that were unfairly charged with DUI. Odds are though that you'd get people associated with both sides. Since it takes a unanimous vote to convict, even having 11 related to a drunk driving death (which is very unlikely) would still need that 12th vote to convict. Oh, I most certainly do. I'm just not indoctrinated by the modern broken legal system as you seem to be. That's what the system likes to preach. But as long as one can only have a lawyer approved by the court to represent one's case, and that the judge can adversely impact the attorney's career, then there's a problem. I'm not going to get into a silly argument over whether that constitutes "represent". Call it what you will if not that. What a stupid comment. I suppose everyone should just trust you without question? Another stupid comment.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Noooooooooo.........!!!! Keep the fruitcake. It's just too fitting.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Seems this is a big issue to you. Yes, it is possible for the lawyer to represent the court and the client. I've no interest in arguing it further, so if you disagree, fine.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Lord you are a dolt. A defense attorney IS an officer of the court. That is NOT to say he is a representative of the court. He does, in no way, REPRESENT the court. He represents his CLIENT.
Comments (331 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStarwind,
#291. To: christine (#289)
Christine,
#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.
-- George Bonser
#293. To: Neil McIver (#292)
Neil,
#294. To: Starwind, Tom007 (#287)
#295. To: Richard (#290)
I did not claim that she had any previous convictions.
Jethro,
I stated, if you could READ, that she would surely be convicted of the charges stemming from her conduct on Saturday and that THOSE charges would be introduced if she was foolish enough to press a civil suit.
#296. To: Jethro Tull (#294)
Jethro,
#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.
#298. To: Starwind (#295)
STARWIND...
#299. To: Dakmar (#297)
Dakmar,
#300. To: Richard (#299)
#301. To: Richard (#296)
#302. To: Richard (#298)
you really are not very good at this.
#303. To: Jethro Tull (#301)
Jethro,
#304. To: Dakmar (#300)
Dakmar,
#305. To: Richard (#303)
As I said, she won't press a civil case because she can't win.
#306. To: Richard (#304)
Perhaps you are not aware, but there are many different ways to define the word "representative."
#307. To: Dakmar (#306)
Wrong again, BettyLou,
#308. To: Jethro Tull (#305)
ROFL Jethro,
#309. To: Richard (#307)
I was directly refuting the incorrect statement "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts."
#310. To: Dakmar (#309)
Dakmar,
#311. To: Richard (#310)
#312. To: Dakmar (#311)
No, Dakmar,
#313. To: Richard (#312)
#314. To: Dakmar (#313)
Wow,
#315. To: Richard (#314)
#316. To: Dakmar (#315)
Dakmar,
#317. To: Richard (#308)
Of COURSE she is. Every yahoo who gets arrested tries to sue the police, it is the national pastime.
#318. To: Richard (#316)
He made an assertion, and it was incorrect.
#319. To: Jethro Tull (#317)
#320. To: Dakmar (#319)
Makes me want to give Metzingers lawyer a call...
#321. To: Dakmar (#318)
Dakmar,
#322. To: Jethro Tull (#320)
Jethro,
#323. To: Richard (#321)
Just because YOU read the wrong meaning into the word does not excuse your ignorance.
#324. To: Dakmar (#323)
Dakmar,
#325. To: Richard (#324)
#326. To: Richard (#324)
#327. To: Richard (#293)
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.
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.
You can't represent BOTH the Court and your client as an attorney. You have to represent ONE OR THE OTHER.
I am not "claiming" to be a witness, I AM a witness to this event.
However, my "bias" does not impede my ability to see a situation and accurately report what I saw.
-- George Bonser
#328. To: Dakmar (#313)
I take back my fruitcake remark,
-- George Bonser
#329. To: Richard (#316)
-- George Bonser
#330. To: Dakmar (#325)
Dakmar,
.
.
.