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: 13617
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 (1-612) not displayed.
.
.
.
#613. To: BTP Holdings (#561)
That's what I'm guessing at this point.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Neil, I never claimed to be the "be-all-end-all" witness. I do happen to be the ONLY person on this thread who was actually present at the scene. And yet YOU call me a liar and somehow say that it does not mean that you don't believe me. How odd...
Neil, It is not the lack of prompt action that should surprise you. It is the lack of ANY action that should surprise you. It is clear that you have not done much work in this arena. If they were going to press a civil case they would be sowing the seeds NOW using the initial wave of PR that was generated to stir public interest. Instead this story has slipped off the headlines and disappeared into the ether. Other than on a few websites, it is now a non-story. If her attorney thought they had a chance in hell of making the civil case, they would not have sat back, they would have taken the offensive and handled the story. Being as how they did not, and are not, doing that... it is easy to see that they will not be pressing the civil suit very seriously, if at all.
Neil, My only involvement with this case is that I was a witness to what happened. I do not stand to profit in any way regardless of what verdicts may be handed down in this matter. Being as how that I am, other than being a witness, in no way affiliated with any of the parties involved in this matter, why does what I do for a living concern you so much?
There are indeed limits to what information can be gleaned from the photos. But the photos do give a fair amount of information. Some of that information reasonable people can agree on. I feel like I've just stated something extremely obvious, but it seems there's one here that seems to make it his goal in life to be as disagreeable as possible with anyone who doesn't trust him.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Link? I suppose in your binary way of fruitcake thinking, anyone who doesn't trust what you say completely is calling you a liar. If, in your mind, it isn't possible for someone to simply *not know* whether you're telling the truth or not, and all people must be in one extreme or the other, then fine. Put me down as one who calls you a liar. Because until you've earned my trust I'm sure as hell not going to take your word as gospel.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Neil, Here is one example of you calling me a liar... see, I have a far better memory than you do.
Neil, Here is ANOTHER example of you calling me a liar. Are you starting to remember yet, dumbass?
Low..... Don't call me that, I'm not your friend. And if you think you have insulted me, try again, you missed. And besides, I've seen more hooter shots working those concerts than you've ever imagined, even if you have been lucky enough to have a wet dream. ROTFLMAO! BTP, I can, and will, call you whatever I please. You are a racist, and make no attempt to deny it. I am not trying to insult you by calling you my racist friend, because you are a racist and you are my friend. No insult implied. I can call you "friend" if I please because I am the one who decides who I call friend. SO, you are indeed my racist friend. OOOH, BTP has seen boobies! WOW, that certainly qualifies him to give expert testimony about the behavior of a police officer in a situation that he did not see, and investigative and medical reports that he has not read. Oh, and I thought you were not reading my posts... ROFLMAO!!! Ooopsies... my racist friend BTP screwed up again....
I suppose in your binary way of fruitcake thinking, anyone who doesn't trust what you say completely is calling you a liar. If, in your mind, it isn't possible for someone to simply *not know* whether you're telling the truth or not, and all people must be in one extreme or the other, then fine. Put me down as one who calls you a liar. Because until you've earned my trust I'm sure as hell not going to take your word as gospel. Neil, I posted two links where you were explicitly calling me a liar. I suppose, according to your incoherent way of thinking, calling someone a liar does not mean that you are actually calling them a liar. In your addled brain, calling someone a liar must somehow equate to meaning "someone who simply does *not know* whether or not that person is telling the truth." I don't care if you take my word as gospel, I never said it was. I simply said what I saw at the scene. I have no intention of "earning" your trust, as trust is an emotion and can not be "earned" in any way, it can only be given.
Neil, Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos. This should be quite humorous...
I stand corrected. Thank you. For the record, here are my statements in context: .... My reasoning, however, was impeccable. (You do still consider yourself neutral witness, right, in seeing a girl you are sick of have a rough run-in with a cop?) I guess I was considering my statements more argumentive than conclusive. I'll now consider them conclusive, if there is no argument. You are a liar.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind. I will concede that wrestlers don't wear skates and Michelle isn't black, at least not in the first picture.
“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
PC correction follows: Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some “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
I have neve never seen a witness to what amounts to a summons take such
interest in a case. But then the City of Dallas has millions to lose when this
goes civil. There is more to our friend Richard than he has allowed us to see.
While Richard is out scoring more amphetamine for another long posting day,
I'll kick around some possibilities.
I really don't think it is fair to Richard to put your statments in context as it blows his Whole argument out the window. I believe Richard . . . . . . . . . . . Sorry, where was I? I believe Richard should let his Gerbil out for a while.
“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
True you didn't. In fact a few times on this thread
when asked for details of what you saw, eliciting those details from you was
like pulling teeth. One presumes however you were a fount of volunteered
information when you gave your statement to the police (which statement you
could have reiterated for us), but here you have to be asked repeatedly and
you are not forthcoming with details or clarification of whatever you saw or
not. Having compared all the news reports and background with what you
have reported here, you haven't added anything substantive, and in a few
notable instances your eyewitness reporting here even conflicts with what is
alleged to be the police departments' version of events. Does that make
you a liar? No. But it does make you uninformative and questionable as an
eyewitness. Your claims of having been there hold out the possibility to learn
from you what has yet to be discovered. But since you refuse to volunteer all
the details, insisting instead on telling us what to decide (you are spinning)
about the officer, the girl, the town, etc (ie she deserved it, he's a good
cop, the town has too much PI), you leave an inquisitive person no choice but
to ask you, repeatedly. At which point you take offense for being asked to
reveal that which you claim to be the only source on this thread. And yet
you equivocate that as an eyewitness, you can't tell whose blood was on the
pavement even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement and
she received stitches for facial lacerations (plural) which you concede can
bleed profusely while the officer only had scratches; that you can't tell the
difference between the officer 'simply taking her down' versus the 'officer
losing his balance and falling'; that the girl herself smeared the blood on
her face and yet she was handcuffed from behind; That inspite of her refusing
treatment at the scene as reported by the police you insist she was 'triaged';
but you have yet to say what sequences of movements you saw to explain how the
girl went from standing to being face-down under the officers knee (for
example, other testimony adds that the officer grabbed her hair and yanked her
down - did you see that?). Well, you don't get to have it both ways.
You proclaim ad-nauseum to be the only eyewitness on this thread, but not the
best eyewitness, while witholding details of what your eyes witnessed, yet
taking offense when being asked for corroborating details (you are ostensibly
the only eyewitness here that we can ask, right? - did you not expect to be
asked?) but expecting strangers on the internet to believe your
conclusions about the girl deserving what she got and the officer's
force being measured. Read that again. You expect us to believe your
conclusions , suspending our own judgement. We'd rather form our own
conclusions from as many facts as can be gathered, and not simply endorse your
conclusions in lieu of corroborating facts. However true that may be, none of that is a guarantee
that you have been accurate. None of that is a guarantee that you have been
complete. None of that is a guarantee that you have been unbiased or
impartial. And none of that is a guarantee that you have been honest. You are
an anonymous, unsworn stranger and an insulting one at times (as are the rest
of us). You have no rational reason whatsoever to presume what you post on the
internet will be accepted as impartial factual truth. Any sane person would
anticipate questions. Any honest person would understand the desire of others
to have more facts and less spin. One can be mistaken and honest in their testimony and
not be a liar. To ascertain if there are any mistakes, questions are asked,
details solicited, differences (if any) reconciled, and credibility assessed.
In the process, when the eyewitness (ostensibly you) rather than relating
those details instead conveys conclusions and judgements that are at odds with
other facts in evidence (police reports, photos, testimony of other
eyewitnesses and proclaims prior to any finding of fact or ajudication
that the girl will be convicted, the officer and department exhonerated,
that "eyewitness" has impeached their own impartiality and credibility; that
eyewitness has demonstrated an agenda. Someone whose testimony differs
from other factual accounts and who seems to have an agenda might reasonably
be suspected of lying. Read that again. Reasonably suspected . When,
acting upon those suspicions, in an effort to uncover the truth one is met
with insults instead of clarifying facts, the appearance of lying is
reinforced. In the end, the bulk of your argument has been not a
disclosure of evidence but a disingenuous effort to constrain the discussion
to a hypothetical formed by only the pictures posted. As if there weren't
other news stories and other eyewitness accounts and a video or post-treatment
photos of the girl we may yet get to see, and maybe even forensic DNA testing
of the blood on the street to satisfy you who provided it. If you weren't
spinning, you'd understand the questions and discomfort the rest of us have.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well said Starwind. Michelle has hired one Kevin Clancy, esq to represent her. If Richard is indeed an eyewitness, this thread should be of value, IMHO.
Yikes... what a complicated pie I have tasted a slice of... For the record, I perceived the ORIGINAL story as a "non-story" that used photos that show only a bloodied girl being arrested. I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. She FITS THE PROFILE of someone trying to blame the cops for her own idiocy. They usually arrive screamin' obscenities at all who approach and taking swings at folks trying to help her... Again, she APPEARS to be doing that in photos. Folks who have been beaten down are usually cowering and pulling themselves into a fetal position... She does none of those things IN THE PHOTOS. Now a reasonable person could assume that the author of the story, who must believe the charges, would present photos that FIT HIS ACCUSATIONS rather than ones that fit the police claims... wouldn't you think? Now, admittedly, I've not seen the videos but I *believe* that they are taken from a poor vantage point that doesn't show the incident at all until AFTER she's on the ground? Otherwise, all would be forced to agree about what REALLY happened. That's the end of this story as far as I'm concerned... I'm not willing to spend another ounce of energy on sorting it out. PEACE...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
A point of background (about which you may be knowledgeable) if you would indulge me? When a patient has (as reported) "refused treatment" at the scene, what is EMS protocol regarding triage of facial lacerations of said patient? Assuming the patient's refusal was "informed" (admittedly we don't have all those facts yet, but assuming so) does EMS protocol provide for triaging bleeding facial lacerations, anyway, over the patient's refusal?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
It may be different in Texas, but here the police can tell you you're either going to the hospital or going to jail if you are publically intoxicated and injured. Most people choose the hospital. Great post earlier.
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
Based upon what, Neil?
Hmmmmmmm... How do the former governor of Minnesota and black dope addict in California enter into this? What is your point?
Jethro, I took interest in the situation because it happened right in front of me. From the very start there was a large and hostile crowd, so it held my interest. Then, when she assaulted the officer as he tried to put her in handcuffs,... well, that kind of action is hard to ignore, especially when it is less than 20 feet away from you. It is human nature to watch someone who has been detained by the police, we are all curious creatures. Add an angry crowd and a suspect who resists arrest and attacks a police officer... well, it is hard NOT to watch that with interest.
Yeah, and when he begins to stttuttter at the keyboard we will know he has done one hit too many. ;0)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I have answered pretty much every question that I have seen, Starwind. I am sorry that I have left my office to do other things from time to time, but it is the height of paranoia to presume that means I was avoiding the questions. " compared all the news reports and background with what you have reported here, you haven't added anything substantive..." I have mentioned plenty of things that were not stated in the "news reports" that would clearly indicate that I was there at the time. That you choose to overlook or disbelieve them is up to you entirely. "insisting instead on telling us what to decide (you are spinning) about the officer...(that)he's a good cop..." I have never said that Officer Gordon was a "good cop.' Starwind. I have never implied that he was a "good cop." I feel that he did his job and did not go outside the scope of what was required given the situation, but that does not make him a "good cop" or a "bad cop" in my view. It makes him a "cop who did his job and did it well." There IS a difference. I don't know the guy, other than this incident, I have never seen him before in my life. Once again, you are attributing things to me that I did not say. "other testimony adds that the officer grabbed her hair and yanked her down - did you see that?" When he went to put the handcuffs on her she resisted and swung her free arm at the officer. No, I can't say that I saw him grab her by the hair, he may have, but what I recall was seeing the officer grapple with her and they both went to the ground. He was grabbing at her and his arm was about at her shoulder level when they went down, but that was the extent of what I can say clearly. It happend very fast, and I can not say that I saw him specifically grab her hair. If he grabbed her hair to subdue her after she swung her arm at him, so be it. That is not a beating nor is it excessive force being a how she swung her arm at him when he was placing her under arrest. "the girl herself smeared the blood on her face and yet she was handcuffed from behind; That inspite of her refusing treatment at the scene as reported by the police you insist she was 'triaged'..." The stuggle to handcuff her did not take 5 seconds, she was flailing about quite a bit. It is a wonder she was not hurt worse than she was given how much of a fight she put up, to be honest. Then again, as a professional rollerderby chick, she is used to fighting and probably knew what she was doing. I know she smeared the blood on her face with her hand because there was blood smeared across the palm of her hand. If you look at the photo, and have done any work with injured people, you can tell that the blood all over her face could not have gotten their naturally from a small cut, or even a series of small cuts, or even from a 9 inch gash across her entire face. The blood on her face is CLEARLY smeared across her face, down to and around her chin, blood does not do that naturally. Star, again... to say that she "refused treatment" at the scene means that she did not get her cut stitched at the scene. You are trying to make a connection here that does not work. When the paramedics arrive to a scene with police involvement, and the suspect is bleeding, she HAS to be assessed to determine whether or not she is healthy enough to be taken to jail. She CAN'T refuse that, as she was under arrest at the time. She was triaged at the scene and was sent to the hospital for "treatment." I am sure you are smart enough to understand the difference, but you are just being argumentative. I am not "spinning" anything, Star... I am just stating my point of view.
Sia: I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. On 2006-01-22 12:57:18, Starwind wrote: To: siagiah A point of background (about which you may be knowledgeable) if you would indulge me? When a patient has (as reported) "refused treatment" at the scene, what is EMS protocol regarding triage of facial lacerations of said patient? Assuming the patient's refusal was "informed" (admittedly we don't have all those facts yet, but assuming so) does EMS protocol provide for triaging bleeding facial lacerations, anyway, over the patient's refusal? No, if an informed patient refuses treatment at the scene, they sign papers stating that... She would NOT be treated unless her injuries were life threatening in which case the police dept. arresting her would be responsible for authorizing treatment over her objections.. Circumstances vary if she's under arrest or simply in police custody ... which this person most definitely was under arrest... It's complicated legally and most would hold off letting the ER DOC make that call. If her blood alcohol level was high enough, she'd be considered unable to make sound decisions and they'd be made for her. Does that help?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Boy did she hit the nail on the head... This IS a Non-Story. That said... I find it rather odd, Starwind, that you do not bite her head off in the same fashion as you have tried to do mine. She sees the same photos you do and she sides far more with me than you. And she has firsthand experience with people who have ACTUALLY been beaten, unlike Michelle, who got a small cut in a fall. How curious that you give her a pass... she was not even there and she DARES disagree with your viewpoint? LOL
Saigiah, Suppose a patient has a face covered in blood at the scene like our suspect, Michelle does. Would not the paramedic have to clean off the blood to assess whether or not the injuries sustained were life threatening? She can't just say "I refuse treatment" until such time as they KNOW her injuries are not life-threatening, correct? Just a point of clarification for Starwind, because the paramedics did clean off her face before she went to the hospital.
Oh, and don't forget to include that she was under arrest and being assessed as to whether or not she was able to be sent to jail at the time.... Thanks!
Football break Richard. Go blow the dust off your Black's Law Dictionary for later use :)
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed? Be precise. Kindly provide exact quotes from me and links to my posts wherein I made those quotes (lest I weasle out from under your withering accusation) and then show how Siagiah's posts (again please provide exact quotes from her and links to her posts) disagee with mine. And bear in mind "disagree" means to refute, dispute, argue, or contradict. Show us where I stated an assertion that Siagiah has contradicted.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Star, You can parse it any way you want. She does not hold your view that the police necessarily used excessive force, nor does she feel that the woman in the photos was beaten at all. She does not feel the photos tell us anything substantive about the events or how they unfolded. Also, she does not back up your claim that she was NOT treated in some fashion at the scene before being sent to the hospital. Yet you give her a pass...
Nothing in the photos shows the girl's bloody face being pressed into the pavement, Starwind. The blood was on her LEFT cheek. In the photo where her face is "pressed" into the pavement as you assert, her RIGHT cheek is pressed into the pavement, her LEFT cheek is not, and there is NO blood on her face whatsoever. The photos do not show anyone's bloody face being pressed into anything. Nice attempt at sensationalizing. Swing and a miss, Starwind...
In point of fact, you are the one doing the parsing. My questions and solicitation of fact from you do not constitute a viewpoint, rather they constitute fact-finding. Were my questions otherwise, you would not need to parse them or evade providing proof of your assertion that I posited a viewpoint with which Siagiah disagreed. In light of your blatant evasion to back up your claims of my viewpoint, this is merely another in a long series of unsubstantiated presumptive paranoia on your part in which you impute beliefs (to me at this point) in absence of any fact. Another blatant falsehood on your part. No where did I claim she was not treated at the scene. The police, OTOH, claim she refused treatment at the scene. I was trying to ascertain to what extent if any EMS protocol would treat her at the scene, in spite of the police report to the contrary (read that again - in spite of the police report to the contrary) to reconcile differences between your testimony and that of the police. It is because you conciously persist in making obviously false statements about what is or is not on this thread, and willfully evade subtantiating your falsehoods, that you take on the appearance of a chronic liar. She very politely and seemingly to the best of her ability answered my question. I gave her nothing. She OTOH, gave me information. It also corroborates what I already knew about Texas EMS protocols and informed refusal of treatment.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This stems from your lack of understanding of what "treatment" is in that situation. She was drunk and under arrest, so she did not have the right to refuse the initial assessment of her condition. Being as how I am not a medical professional, I consider what they did to her, cleaning her face and assessing her condition, to be "treatment" of a sort. She was not sent to the hospital in the condition that you see her in the photo, she was not sent to the hospital with blood smeared all across her face. She did not have the right at that point to demand to be taken to a hospital. They had to determine the extent of her injuries, which entails some cleaning of the area. She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine. That does not mean that they shipped her untouched to the hospital.
Nothing in the photos shows the girl's bloody face being pressed into the pavement, Starwind. The blood was on her LEFT cheek. In the photo where her face is "pressed" into the pavement as you assert, her RIGHT cheek is pressed into the pavement, her LEFT cheek is not, and there is NO blood on her face whatsoever. The photos do not show anyone's bloody face being pressed into anything. And here is a prima facie example of your blatant parsing. My fuller quote (with your excerpt underlined) was exactly: You conveniently distort my quote to suit your purpose. I gave an example of how you wish to constrain the discussion to hypotheticals in lieu of the evidence and how you claim to be an eyewitness yet can't witness whose blood your eyes saw on the pavement. The photos show her bloody face. Blood in sufficient amounts that you argue EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life-threatening and needed triage at the scene. Blood on the pavement, ostensibly where the girl's face lay under the officer's knee. Which do you suppose came first? Blood from her face onto the pavement or blood on the pavement onto her face? How did blood get smeared on her face as you testify (while she was handcuffed or being handcuffed) if not for her face being pushed into it. Into her own blood based on the evidence & testimony. Her blood from her face onto the pavement where her face was further smeared in it. Otherwise, where is the testimony or evidence it is the officer's blood on her or on the pavement? So far there is none. Only your allusion to it possibly being the officer's blood, in spite of her being the one needing triage & stitches. The photos show her right cheek on the pavement under the officer's knee and another of her on her stomach (face not visible) presumably face down with either her left or right cheek on the pavement or possibly her nose & forehead. Those are all parts of her face last time I peeked at Gray's Anatomy. Collectively, the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee. You seemingly would have us grant credibility to your eyewitness recollections, yet you can't tell or remember how the girls face came to be smeared with enough blood to ostensibly require triage from EMS to ensure her bleeding was not life- threatening, but you have no recollcetion of the officer bleeding and obviously his face was not on the pavement under her knee, now was it. And afer making such assinine distortions of my questions and the evidence, you want to be believed?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
And we are still waiting on your eyewitness proof of where I asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
As this remains unresolved, I would still like an answer as to where the paramedics triaged Ms. Metzinger and where you were standing that you could observe it to be a very small cut, albeit a potentially life-threatening in-need-of-triage, very small cut.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Once again, in case you missed it... If you look in the photo, there is NO BLOOD ON HER FACE when the officer has her on the ground. No blood on ANY of her face. In the photo where her face is away from the camera, even you can not determine whether it is the right or left side of her face on the ground, and in that photo it is CLEARLY not being pressed into the pavement. FURTHERMORE, you can't tell if it has any blood on it at the time. So again, nothing there to support your statements. SO, you can NOT conclude that "her bloody face was pressed into the pavement" no matter how you try to parse the word "face," and your statements are, at best, wild and unsubstantiated assertions. I am NOT distorting your statements in any way, I am taking them at face value, which, it turns out is ZERO. Again, you are incorrect in your statement "Blood in sufficient amounts that you argue EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life-threatening and needed triage at the scene." The blood was not the reason that the EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life threatening at the scene. IT IS THEIR JOB. She was under arrest and involved in assaulting an officer, they HAVE TO DETERMINE if her wounds might be life threatening, even if there is NO BLOOD. She could have sustained a concussion, she could be in the process of an overdose of drugs which is why she resisted, she might be having a heart attack do to the struggle or the thought of going to jail. They have no choice in the matter at that time. It was not that the EMS said "oh, well, there is blood, perhaps we should check her out as long as we are here." They HAVE to check her out before she can leave the scene. "How did blood get smeared on her face as you testify (while she was handcuffed or being handcuffed) if not for her face being pushed into it." I already addressed this. Her palm was also smeared with blood. Looking at how the blood is smeared on her face, no amount of "pressing" a face into the pavement could smear the blood that evenly without causing much more damage. Another wild and unsubstantiated allegation you made is "Collectively, the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee." There is NO evidence to date that supports this wild claim. If there is, then you are the only one who has knowledge of it at this time. "You seemingly would have us grant credibility to your eyewitness recollections, yet you can't tell or remember how the girls face came to be smeared with enough blood to ostensibly require triage from EMS to ensure her bleeding was not life- threatening, but you have no recollcetion of the officer bleeding " Starwind, at the time there was a lot going on, large and hostile crowd, people moving everywhere, lots of police and emergency vehicles, etc. It would be far MORE surprising if I knew every specific detail of what she did at the time. It was a zoo. I did not see her smear her face with her hand. I did see her nicely smeared face AND her nicely smeared hand, and drew a natural conclusion. As for why I did not see blood on Officer Gordon, well, she is white, he is black, it was night (also black), and blood is red. He also was not smearing his blood across his face for effect like Michelle did, nor was he screaming and crying like a baby the way Michelle was. I have not made a distortion of your questions and the evidence, you just are not very good at understanding things. Nice try... thanks for playing.
Star, I already answered this question. It was in the street where the incident occured. You really do not pay attention very well.
Comments (654 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd I think I'm right about him being a lawyer.
-- George Bonser
#614. To: Neil McIver (#608)
#615. To: Neil McIver (#609)
#616. To: Neil McIver (#613)
#617. To: siagiah (#597)
-- George Bonser
#618. To: Richard (#614)
And yet YOU call me a liar and somehow say that it does not mean that you don't believe me.
-- George Bonser
#619. To: Neil McIver (#275)
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.
#620. To: Neil McIver (#284)
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.
#621. To: BTP Holdings (#542)
BTP, Well, well, my racist friend.
#622. To: Neil McIver (#618)
Link?
#623. To: Neil McIver (#617)
There are indeed limits to what information can be gleaned from the photos. But the photos do give a fair amount of information. Some of that information reasonable people can agree on.
#624. To: Richard (#620)
Are you starting to remember yet
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.
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.
-- George Bonser
#625. To: Richard, Jethro Tull (#498)
If she tried to take this case to civil court she knows she would lose. We are not talking about a nun fresh from the convent here, she is a rollerderby chick, she makes her money fighting on skates. No jury will believe that she was just a passive victim who got 'da bomb' dropped on her for no reason whatsoever. Especially when they are looking at her convictions for public intoxication and resisting arrest at the scene.
#626. To: All (#625)
Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind.
black dope addict motorist (Rodney King) from California come to mind.
#627. To: Hmmmmm (#625)
#628. To: Neil McIver (#624)
I stand corrected. Thank you. For the record, here are my statements in context:
#629. To: Richard, Neil McIver, Jethro Tull, Tom007, Dakmar, Christine, markm0722 (#614)
I never claimed to be the "be-all-end-all" witness.
I do happen to
be the ONLY person on this thread who was actually present at the scene.
And yet YOU call me a
liar and somehow say that it does not mean that you don't believe me.
#630. To: Starwind (#629)
#631. To: all (#630)
#632. To: siagiah (#631)
I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does.
#633. To: Starwind (#632)
#634. To: Neil McIver (#624)
You are a liar.
#635. To: Hmmmmm (#625)
Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind. I will concede that wrestlers don't wear skates and Michelle isn't black, at least not in the first picture.
#636. To: Jethro Tull (#627)
#637. To: Jethro Tull (#627)
While Richard is out scoring more amphetamine for another long posting day, I'll kick around some possibilities.
#638. To: Starwind (#629)
"a few times on this thread when asked for details of what you saw, eliciting those details from you was like pulling teeth..."
#639. To: Starwind (#632)
#640. To: Starwind (#631)
For the record, I perceived the ORIGINAL story as a "non-story" that used photos that show only a bloodied girl being arrested. I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. She FITS THE PROFILE of someone trying to blame the cops for her own idiocy. They usually arrive screamin' obscenities at all who approach and taking swings at folks trying to help her... Again, she APPEARS to be doing that in photos. Folks who have been beaten down are usually cowering and pulling themselves into a fetal position... She does none of those things IN THE PHOTOS. Now a reasonable person could assume that the author of the story, who must believe the charges, would present photos that FIT HIS ACCUSATIONS rather than ones that fit the police claims... wouldn't you think?
#641. To: siagiah (#639)
No, if an informed patient refuses treatment at the scene, they sign papers stating that
#642. To: All (#641)
#643. To: Richard (#642)
#644. To: Richard, Siagiah (#640)
she was not even there and she DARES disagree with your viewpoint?
#645. To: Starwind (#644)
#646. To: Starwind (#629)
"even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement..."
#647. To: Richard (#645)
You can parse it any way you want.
She does not hold your view that the police necessarily used excessive force, nor does she feel that the woman in the photos was beaten at all. She does not feel the photos tell us anything substantive about the events or how they unfolded.
Also, she does not back up your claim that she was NOT treated in some fashion at the scene before being sent to the hospital.
Yet you give her a pass...
#648. To: Starwind (#647)
in spite of the police report to the contrary
#649. To: Richard (#646)
"even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement..."
And yet you equivocate that as an eyewitness, you can't tell whose blood was on the pavement even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement and she received stitches for facial lacerations (plural) which you concede can bleed profusely while the officer only had scratches;
#650. To: Richard (#644)
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed?
#651. To: Richard (#408)
Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face and where were you standing (and how far away) that you could see paramedics wipe Ms. Metzinger's cut and close enough to see it "was a very small cut"?
#652. To: Starwind (#649)
"And yet you equivocate that as an eyewitness, you can't tell whose blood was on the pavement even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement "
#653. To: Starwind (#651)
.
.
.