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: 13772
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 (1-666) not displayed.
.
.
.
#667. To: Elliott Jackalope (#666)
PM
Post #433 The burden is on you Richard to convince us that what you say is accurate. Statements such as "not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt" do not add to your credibility. In my opinion, you wished to make a point and you exaggerated for effect. If you are willing to exaggerate in one place to make a point, how are we supposed to know where else you might be willing to do it, especially when you claimed she was getting what she deserved? Post #254 Those are your own words. Not one person gave you the benefit of the doubt? Does that seem like a factual statement? Of course, you can say that it was only because you felt picked on that you said what you said. However, regardless of the reason, you stated something as a fact ("not one person") and it was not a fact. Post #255 If you came here expecting anyone to believe 100% of what you say, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Using that theory, our court system would simply need to put the first witness on the stand. The prosecutor could ask the witness if the person is guilty. The witness could answer. The jury could then nod approvingly. The judge could impose the sentence. The entire trial would be over within the first few minutes. How fair do you think that system would be? There would be one way to make that system even less fair. The witness could be an anonymous internet poster I suppose, lol.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious LOL Mine is in a handy spot.
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
This is something like what happened with a known trouble maker from my old neighborhood in Chicago. We just happened to be in a neighborhood tap on Fridy night. I was with some buddies from work and the jerk was with some of his friends from work. Anyway, later on in the evening there was a little flare up and the jerk got tossed out of the place. He was out in front and proceeded to get into it with someone else. The other guy labelled him once and he went down. From a nearly prone position he tries to get up and is hit again. Next he turns, still half on the ground and says, "C'mon, c'mon," all the while motioning at the guy like he was in a position to overcome the beating he was receiving. Needless to say, he lost big time. Somehow, I got blamed for it all and I never laid a finger on him. The jerk was spreading lies all over about what happened. When his brother found out the truth, he decked the jerk himself for getting him involved in something started by lies.
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 would also echo what markm0722 has pointed out in that in my very first post #287 to you, while I misunderstood that you meant Metzinger would have future convictions going into a civil trial rather than past convictions going into her criminal trial, I nonetheless voluntered the facts in detail with links as I understood them asked very civilly for your corrections or explanations of a seeming contradiction. Your response could have been simply factual, but you embellished it with personal insults of me (in post #290). While that is your right on this forum, it was a poor first impression and a harbinger of your ongoing unwillingness to dissect the facts in an impartial and civil manner, at least with those of us like myself who did in fact want to listen to whatever evidence you actually had. You had ample opportunity to strike a different tone, but you never did and seem to relish insulting anyone and everyone who dared to ask the "eyewitness" a question. And you added further fuel to the fire expecting me to overlook your continued insults in your subsequent clarification in your response #298 to my question in #295. And there you are in your post #433 whining about being called names, and yet without any apology from you for your unprovoked ad-hominems, against me for one example.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
That type of thing is what reinforces my belief that Richard is a lawyer, and a highly stereotypical one at that -- one who goes out of his way to challenge every last detail of fact not in his favor, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, and denying anything that he can possibly get away with, and beyond that even those things he can't. Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? A: When his lips are moving. Thus goes Richard. A classic, textbook, stereotypical lying lawyer is my estimation. Richard, as for the challenge: Here goes: The female subject was wearing roller skates. Go easy on me now. I am kinda new at this observation stuff, as you already know. As for your query about what it is based upon I called you a liar, my answer: I forget. I figure if you have, I might as well too.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. BE only posts on business days, 9-5 PM and Richard is well outside of that scope. He's a fruitcake and good for sparing exercise. You remember that webols wobble but they don't fall down, don't you? It's true that Richard will never concede anything and will post as long as we do but I've not had this much sparing practice since the good ol days. He's no problem though, if that's what your getting at. Nothing the bozo filter can't handle.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. From my point of view, that is the case. It is not something that I have to prove or disprove in this environment. I stand by it. Being as how you are not going to be a juror, you don't get to see all the facts of the case, sorry.
LOL! Your point of view is all you've got. There are no facts supporting your allegation that I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed. Yeah. That's your story and you're stick'n to it. In hindsight, you really aren't as good at this as you thought you were.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Good, then go look up Texas Law and see for yourself. I don't have to do your work for you. If you fail to find it, or you think you have found evidence to the contrary, come back to me. When you are under arrest you do not have the same rights as a free citizen. Some obvious examples, you have sacrificed your liberty, you don't get to say what jail you go to, you don't get to go home and get a change of clothes, anything you say or do can be used as evidence against you. You are not thinking this thru. If she was obviously injured at the scene and was under arrest, she is now in the care of the State Of Texas. If she were to die on the way to the hospital because no one bothered to see if she was safe to transport, that would be criminally negligent homocide. Then again, based upon how you are treating this incident, you are not thinking several things thru. What question have you posed that I have refused to answer, Starwind? You keep saying this, but do not show me the questions.
Look at the bright side boys. The fact that the city fathers send Richard here (or many people using his password) shows me how desperate they are to get out in front of this story.
Those are your own words. Not one person gave you the benefit of the doubt? Does that seem like a factual statement? Of course, you can say that it was only because you felt picked on that you said what you said. However, regardless of the reason, you stated something as a fact ("not one person") and it was not a fact. Mark, Be serious. No one but me knew you had written me, so it would be considered facts not in evidence. My statement was addressing the people on the thread. YOU had not commented on the thread, and thus my statement is factual and accurate.
I certainly did NOT come here expecting people to believe 100% of what I said. However, I also did not come here expecting to be called a flat out liar and a paid shill for the state.
thought you said it wasn't going to trial. ;)
Neil, For once, you and I are in agreement. (now everyone, try not to have a heart attack from the shock of that) You can tell that the female subject is wearing rollerskates based solely upon the photographic evidence. New Challenge for you Neil: State something that supports your claim that excessive force was used by the police officer based SOLELY on the photographic evidence. Good luck.
Starwind, I am not allowed to have my own point of view on what your position is in this matter with out first being able to legally defend it? AND I have to justify it to you upon demand? What a strange world you live in, my friend.
The police said she had refused treatment. The police. Think that thru. Why should I post them a fourth time? You didn't see fit to answer them the prior three times. Your most recent response was Good, then go look up Texas Law and see for yourself. I don't have to do your work for you. Actually that would be you not paying attention. Here it is again: And now I'll unpack it for you: 2) and where were you standing 3) (and how far away) (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Christine, You made me giggle.. thanks. :)
In a sitting position in the street. 2) and where were you standing Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention. 3) (and how far away) Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention. You really need to pay more attention.
Liar.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Starwind, Yes, they did say that she refused treatment. Treatment for the stitches she needed to receive. Their saying "she refused treatment" meant ... and I will say this again because you clearly don't understand that words can have multiple and situational inferences... "She did not want to get stitches at the scene and was sent to the hospital to receive them." Wait, before you even say it... the reason that the police state that "she refused treatment and was sent to the hospital" is because she DID refuse SOME treatment and was sent to the hospital. She HAD to be assessed before she could be moved, and she could NOT refuse that treatment. However, the stitches were not a "necessary procedure" and thus she had the option of getting stitched up in the street or going to the hospital. Most of us would have chosen to go to the hospital to get the stitches, especailly on the face. (while I am hopeful that this clears it up for you, I somehow do not believe you will be able to grasp this simple concept.)
Go back and read the threads. I stated explicitly where I was and what was going on around me. Considering your less that gracious tone, I do not feel inclined to restate that which I have already stated for the record. You want to read it, go back and find it, lazybones. You must be used to people doing EVERYTHING for you. Do you chew your own food?
I have been asked hundreds of questions by you people, so I missed yours... big deal. You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
I think this thread might rival 'homosexuality is sin' thread. michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
Uh.... Good for you? Not sure what you were going for there... but if you enjoy your girlfriend and find her attractive, then good on ya!
Lucky....
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. A paramedic is under no obligation to even touch a violent patient who refuses treatment and who may injure the EMT. If necessary, a trained medical person can assess a patient's physical condition from across a room using a five-level triage acuity scale that is very accurate. Observing factors such as skin color, breathing patterns, and bleeding patterns of spurting vs flowing all tell them what they need to know about the laceration itself. It would be obvious to a trained EMT if the injury required immediate intervention or could wait until the patient was restrained. I'm sure you know that head injuries tend to bleed profusely because the blood vessels are so close to the surface... Therefore, the volume of blood is not the criteria used to measure an injury's severity. However, BECAUSE the person could have a concussion or another brain injury that was not immediately visible from a distance or able to establish without direct contact with the victim, that would force them to transport the person to the nearest emergency room to rule out head trauma before going to a police station. USUALLY the police officer would then simply take the person into protective custody rather than arresting them because the latter action would force the police dept to be responsible for the bill, something his superior would censure him for. If the patient was violent to everyone who approached, I can't imagine why the paramedic cleaned her face off IF she refused treatment UNLESS she refused treatment only after they looked at it and told her it wasn't life threatening... Now consider this, any normal American girl would be CONCERNED about scarring and disfigurement from a facial laceration if she was thinking straight. Sooooooooooooo, based ONLY ON THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST FEW POSTS, I'm guessing that this gal was not just mildly tipsy but, in fact, quite drunk or high and that it's very probable that her reportedly belligerent behavior was the direct (or indirect) cause of her injuries... My view is not carved in stone because it's obvious that I only "know" that which has been presented here and leave open the probability of other factors altering it later. 600+ OPINIONS and the unsubstantiated claims of witnesses only serve to obfuscate the issue with too much CRAP to wade through to glean the few additional facts presented... soooo, like I said earlier... My opinion is only worth as much as the information provided allows it to be... and I don't care enough to wade through the rest Produce an unedited video that SHOWS what happened and then all bets are off... I trust that none exists and that's why the arguing here? Or is this an uncurrent black/white argument rather than what it is presented as on the surface? It seems to be an argument that goes deeper than this episode warrants.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Be serious. No one but me knew you had written me, so it would be considered facts not in evidence. You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way, and now it is considered "facts not in evidence". Okay, whatever. Let's throw that one out then, lol. My statement was addressing the people on the thread. YOU had not commented on the thread, and thus my statement is factual and accurate. That is not true. I did comment. Let's try this again in chronological order. Post #255 Post #433 Even after pointing this flaw out, you continue to believe that your statement is factual and accurate.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious yes I know.
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth. It is my opinion that disguising opinions as facts is one of your bigger problems on this thread.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious saigiah, The paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs and she was sent to the hospital to get stitches. Starwind is saying that this could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene. He seems to feel that if the police say that she refused treatment at the scene that it means that she was sent to the hospital without being assessed in any way. There would be no REASON to send her to the hospital if the blood on her face was not hers. People get other people's blood on them all the time when they fight, even though they themselves are not bleeding. SO, in order for it to be determined that she had to go to the hospital for STITCHES, she must have been treated in some fashion at the scene. Star is a bit of a literalist and a lot of a moron.
I was under no obligation to get your permission before posting that email. As for your post #255, I did not see it, and I apologize for saying that No One had given me the benefit of the doubt when you did. My bad. I have been barraged with hundreds of questions and accusations, so using a universal qualifier was perhaps not the most prudent choice. I will ammend it to read "at the time, only one person appears to have given me the benefit of the doubt." Duly noted.
you are an expert witness on the subject of morons. it is manifestly obvious that you know practically everything about being a moron.
I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid. I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific.
Red, Well, I went to all the meetings, passed the final, and I got this handy lapel pin, so.. thanks for noticing!
Liar. Show where I said the paramedics could not or did not clean off her face. I asked about protocols and what the paramedics actually did, where was Metzinger when they did it, and what you saw and where were you standing and how far away, etc, etc, etc - again, fact-finding. I stated she had the right to refuse treatment, which right the police accepted.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
(while I am hopeful that this clears it up for you, I somehow do not believe you will be able to grasp this simple concept.) EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street... well, not unless they enjoy getting sued. It would be rather unusal for ANY PATIENT to get stitches "on the scene" except in a Rambo movie... ???
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I was not privey to the conversation that occured, but the paramedics did indeed clean her up before they sent her to the hospital. Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
Liar.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific. I concede your point. I too should have used your conditional qualifiers in my response. That was not fair of me. I was dwelling on the "truly" choice of wording. Considered paranoid: An opinion that one is paranoid. (Considered: careful thought, "considered opinion") When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
Comments (708 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#668. To: Starwind, Richard (#629)
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.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
This was in my inbox tonight. I have only been on for a day, and thsi is the only thread I have commented on, yet I have a supporter who took the time to write me.
I agreed with your point that I could not tell what happened by looking at the pictures. I agreed with your point that her weight was not necessarily much of an issue. I agreed with your point that the face bleeds easily. I was very clearly listening to your story. The only thing I did not do was blindly believe 100% of your account of what happened (nor did I necessarily disbelieve it either). However, it is very clear from my post that I was willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and therefore your version of the story as well.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#669. To: Jethro Tull (#643)
Go blow the dust off your Black's Law Dictionary for later use :)
#670. To: Jethro Tull, Starwind (#661)
Star, is Richard still standing? If this were a prize fight, it would have been a TKO after 5 rounds. Well done.
#671. To: Richard, markm0722 (#668)
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
#672. To: BTP Holdings (#670)
From a nearly prone position he tries to get up and is hit again. Next he turns, still half on the ground and says, "C'mon, c'mon," all the while motioning at the guy like he was in a position to overcome the beating he was receiving.
#673. To: Starwind, Richard (#649)
You conveniently distort my quote to suit your purpose.
Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos.
-- George Bonser
#674. To: Elliott Jackalope (#663)
Has anyone else noticed that we are now dealing with someone who is capable of making over a hundred posts a day?
-- George Bonser
#675. To: Starwind (#662)
Your allegation was that I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed
#676. To: Richard (#675)
From my point of view, that is the case.
It is not something that I have to prove or disprove in this environment. I stand by it.
#677. To: Starwind (#665)
Quote that law for us all. If you use words to big for me, I'll look'em up.
#678. To: Neil McIver, starwind (#674)
#679. To: markm0722 (#668)
Post #254 This was in my inbox tonight. I have only been on for a day, and thsi is the only thread I have commented on, yet I have a supporter who took the time to write me.
#680. To: markm0722 (#668)
If you came here expecting anyone to believe 100% of what you say, you are going to be sadly disappointed.
#681. To: Richard (#675)
Being as how you are not going to be a juror, you don't get to see all the facts of the case, sorry.
#682. To: Neil McIver (#673)
Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos. Here goes: The female subject was wearing roller skates.
#683. To: Starwind (#676)
#684. To: Richard (#677)
You are not thinking this thru. If she was obviously injured at the scene and was under arrest, she is now in the care of the State Of Texas.
What question have you posed that I have refused to answer, Starwind?
You keep saying this, but do not show me the questions.
Liar. #656. To: Richard (#653)
You really do not pay attention very well.
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"?
1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
#685. To: christine (#681)
#686. To: Starwind (#684)
1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
#687. To: Richard (#686)
Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention.
#688. To: Starwind (#684)
The police said she had refused treatment. The police. Think that thru.
#689. To: Starwind (#687)
#690. To: Starwind (#684)
Why should I post them a fourth time? You didn't see fit to answer them the prior three times
#691. To: christine (#681)
#692. To: Red Jones (#691)
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
#693. To: Red Jones (#691)
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend
#694. To: Richard, all (#641)
Saigiah,
#695. To: Richard (#679)
I offered benefit of the doubt publicly by posting on this thread for all to see.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#696. To: Jethro Tull (#693)
#697. To: Richard, Starwind (#690)
You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#698. To: siagiah (#694)
#699. To: markm0722 (#695)
"You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way"
#700. To: Richard (#698)
a lot of a moron.
#701. To: markm0722 (#697)
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth.
#702. To: Red Jones (#700)
#703. To: Richard (#698)
Starwind is saying that this [paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs] could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene.
#704. To: Richard (#688)
However, the stitches were not a "necessary procedure" and thus she had the option of getting stitched up in the street or going to the hospital. Most of us would have chosen to go to the hospital to get the stitches, especailly on the face.
#705. To: siagiah (#704)
EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street...
#706. To: Richard (#705)
Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
#707. To: Richard (#701)
I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid.
Truly paranoid: The fact that one is paranoid. (Truly: truthfully, accurately)
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
.
.
.