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: 12857
Comments: 855
POSTED: 5:16 pm CST January 16, 2006
DALLAS -- E-mails and pictures circulating the Internet tell the tale of a Dallas woman's bloody run-in with police after a roller-skating outing escalated into an arrest with excessive force, but officers and some witnesses Monday told a different story.
The incident happened early Saturday morning in Deep Ellum after police attempted to speak with Michelle Metzinger, 25, who, according to a police report, was intoxicated and weaving through traffic on roller skates.
Images: The Arrest & Other Slideshows
The pictures that stemmed from the events that followed are dramatic. They show an officer arresting Metzinger. Her face is covered in blood and there is a puddle of blood on the sidewalk.
"Very excessive. Uncalled for, you know. We're talking about a 250-pound guy and a 100-pound girl. It was just over the top," witness "D.C." said. "All I saw were her feet in the air and disappearing behind a cop car."
However, Dallas police and other witnesses tell a totally different story.
They said Metzinger was drunk and that she not only ignored officers who asked her to stop skating in the street, but also shouted profanities.
According to reports, an officer then tried to arrest Metzinger for public intoxication.
She resisted and attacked the officer, Lt. Rick Watson said.
"The officer attempted to turn her around, at which time the suspect then reached up and grabbed the officer's -- right part of his face -- trying to gouge the officer's eye," Watson said.
Despite the interest that the story has generated online and in the media, Metzinger said she would not comment on the incident until she had consulted with a lawyer.
Metzinger also had not filed a complaint report, so Dallas police were not conducting an internal investigation.
When I worked concert security and someone got bloodied, it was always proper for us to "get our stories straight." Or, as Eddie Murphy said in that movie, "You were lying your asses off." That LT is a lying piece of shit and so is the black cop who LIED in his report.
I'll tell you one thing for certain, this bastard needs to be caught and given a damn hard ball-batting. And then a WHITE magic marker taken to his forehead and the words BAD COP inscribed thereon. What was done was brutal, inexcusable and unjustified.
Police Deny Excessive Force In Bloody Arrest
Dramatic Pictures, Rumors Circulate Online
UPDATED: 6:11 pm CST January 16, 2006
Poster Comment:
Pictures taken by a witness clearly show the cops are LIARS!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 836.
#1. To: All (#0)
Pig mother effers. IMVHO, a .45 cal should be mandatory when roller-skating in Dallas.
We should be sure of all the facts. The story claims witnesses said she was aggravating the situation by attacking the cop. Were the witnesses impartial?
She looks ok in the first picture standing next to police car. At that point she seems to be in custody, and police are responsible for her.
She looks like she had her face scraped across the pavement. Don't know what else would likely cause that kind of redness. That does suggest the cop had control of her at the time it happened.
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
That much blood doesn't come from mere scrapes.
The account given by the police was given by a "Lt. Rick Watson". But I wonder how likely it is that any loftey Lt. was out on patrol doing grunt work. Watson was more likely giving a pro-police version of the event rather than giving any kind of testimony of what HE saw happen, and if he didn't see it but speaks as though he did, then that's pretty incriminating as well. It's likely his version of the events is mere heresay, at best. The girl is smart to consult a lawyer before making any public comments.
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
Of course he can't. Why would he undercut one of his own people? I'll tell ya, I've wrapped up guys, lean 'n' mean and 15 years younger than me, without giving them so much as a bruise. And this creep thumps this little girl so hard the blood is all over her face. And then his knee on her throat and her spine. I hope these pics really hang him. He went way overboard and now it's time to pay the fiddler. The head hunters will have some fun looking into his record and sending him for new psych tests. ;0)
Of course he can't. Why would he undercut one of his own people? Oh, damn, that's from a different story. Oh, it looks as it this Lt. is just a mouthpiece they roll out to make sound bites. Yeah, well, he can bite me too. ;0)
I was there that night and saw the situation as well. They also took my info as a witness. I side with the police on this one, sorry. The girl who got arrested was stoned out of her mind, argumentative and clearly off her nut. I had seen her and her friend earlier skating on Main Street. They were skating on the sidewalk at that time, and they fell down numerous times as well as nearly crashed drunkenly into lines of people waiting to get into clubs. She had been warned by the police on Main Street about her conduct before she was finally ticketed and arrested on Elm Street. The "tiny girl" on skates had been told before not to skate in the street by the police, and as you said, was arrested and in the process of being ticketed for her conduct. She was breaking the law. Right now, the most common arrest in Deep Ellum is NOT assault, breaking and entering, or any other violent crime; it is PUBLIC INTOXICATION. Michelle was a prime object lesson for this. She was arrested, and not only failed to follow the instructions of the police, she was an ass about it. She was skating in the middle of a BUSY street, if she had been hit by a car, you would all be crawling up the butt of the police asking why they DIDN'T stop her from skating in the street. Or are you now advocating that people go roller skating in the middle of a busy street on a weekend night? Perhaps we should have a skating party on the 75 next Saturday? As civillians, we need to respect the police. Even if we disagree with them. There are structures in place to dispute the actions of the police. The middle of Elm Street is NOT a place to do this. Also, you NEVER have a right to swing at a police officer, even if you are drunk. It is their job to protect us from harm, even when that harm is coming from our own actions (like a drunken girl who wants to rollerskate in the MIDDLE OF A BUSY STREET). You laughingly play it down as she gave "a little attitude" when in fact she was extremely disrespectful and got what she deserved. She was intoxicated, breaking the law and endangering her life and the lives of the drivers in the area, I really don't see how her weight comes into play there. She resisted arrest, and fell to the ground in the scuffle, so what? I would be FAR more concerned if the officer was NOT able to control her. So she got cut... big deal. She resisted arrest. She should not have done that. The officer has been on the force for 12 years and has been written up 3 times. That is immaterial. It does not show a "pattern" of abusive behavior. Clearly each incident was addressed or he would not be serving on the force presently. It is hack journalism to try to paint the police officer as being in the wrong for doing his job because of 3 write ups over a 12 YEAR SPAN. She was drunk and under arrest, she should not have resisted. Had she not resisted, she would have been ticketed and relased... unharmed. It is amazing that you all are trying to portray this idiotic, offensive and drunken female as a victim... The cops did their job, and did it well. She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson.
She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson. You were doing pretty good until the last couple of lines. Saying that "she got what she deserved" and "perhaps you all will learn a little respect" is where you went over the high side. I remember my stepfather and the discussions we had concerning things like liberty and privacy, and his big answer was always "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about". Trying to explain why that was wrong to him was like trying to explain calculus to a chimpanzee, he simply had no facility to be able to understand the concept, it was utterly beyond him, and sadly that proved true about all of his cop friends as well. Some people understand liberty, most people don't. Those who spout sayings like "she got what she deserved" and "perhaps you will learn a little respect" fall into the camp of those who don't.
Elliot, She did get what she deserved, and you all are showing a great amount of disrespect for the police. Your stepfather was right, if you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about. Michelle WAS doing things wrong, MANY things. She was intoxicated in public. She was rollerskating in the middle of a busy street. She was NOT listening respectfully to the police when they tried to peacefully resolve the matter. She was resisting arrest. So... The cops did their job, and they did it well. If you don't respect the police, then you don't respect society, Elliot. The police are put in place by society to keep us safe from people like Michelle. If I had been driving down Elm and hit her because she was rollerskating in the street because the police saw her and did nothing, you would be screaming at the police for their inaction. Can't have it both ways, Elliot. The police did their job, they stopped someone who was breaking the law. She got what she deserved and perhaps will learn NOT to resist arrest next time.
We are going to have to agree to disagree, Richard. I don't respect the police, not any longer, not when they say things like "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but then cannot even tell me how many laws there are that I have no right to be ignorant of. The line is drawn, you are on one side and I am on the other. At least you are honorable enough to have a clear position and the will to defend it, but I will never agree with those who believe that "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about".
Elliot, I am not sure how your discussion of the concept "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" comes into play in this matter. What we have here is a woman who was first told by the police nicely that her actions were unlawful and asked to stop. When she continued to do the actions that she was just TOLD were unlawful, she was arrested and given a ticket for her actions. She was NOT doing nothing wrong. She was KNOWINGLY doing wrong. Then, while under arrest, she assaulted the police officer. Now, I acknowledge that there are many laws and we don't know them all... but come on... we ALL know that you can't take a swing at a police officer when you are under arrest. How are you saying that Michelle was ignorant of the law? She was warned first, so she was NOT ignorant of the law. If she had obeyed the law at that point, none of this would have happened.
Here's the problem: It simply doesn't matter what the circumstances were leading up to this incident, the result was a 250 lb black officer beating a 100 lb white woman bloody. Now, imagine if this situation were turned around, and it was a 250 lb white officer beating a 100 lb black woman bloody. When rule of law becomes rule of force, facts cease to matter and appearances become everything. Yes, it's unfair, but it is also the way things are. Where are the victims of this woman's actions? Is there a single person who was harmed by what she was doing? I don't see anyone else lying broken and bloodied by her actions, but I see a lot of blood on the ground from what the cop did to her. My stepfather used to practice his "take-down" moves they taught him at the CHP academy on me, and I know for a fact that cops have a lot of ways to deal with people that don't involve cracking their heads open. This woman stupidly chose to take a drunken swing at a cop, for that she should be prosecuted in a court of law. But this officer had a lot of different ways to deal with the situation, he chose a method that spilled a fair amount of blood, and that's going to cause problems.
Elliot. Here is where you lose all credibility. Race does not enter into this matter at all. It is offensive of you to even suggest that they do. Also, to assert that the events preceeding her arrest do not factor into things is ridiculous. Furthermore, she was not "BEATEN" as you try to portray, she was simply taken to the ground and handcuffed. The cut she got came because she was resisting arrest (which, by the by, is a CRIME) and was taken to the ground. And FINALLY "Where are the victims of this woman's actions? Is there a single person who was harmed by what she was doing?" SO... you assert that if NO ONE IS HARMED THERE IS NO CRIME? Ok, so when I go to rob a bank, and shove a gun in the face of the teller, but DON'T pull the trigger because she gives me the money... ACCORDING TO YOU I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NO ONE WAS HURT??? What a frightening world you live in, Elliot. "This woman stupidly chose to take a drunken swing at a cop, for that she should be prosecuted in a court of law. But this officer had a lot of different ways to deal with the situation, he chose a method that spilled a fair amount of blood, and that's going to cause problems. " YES, this woman stupidly chose to RESIST ARREST and ASSAULT A POLICE OFFICER. The officer did his job by subding the violent offender. He did have lots of different ways to do this. He could have maced her. He could have used his baton on her. He could have used his tazer. He could have shot her. BUT... he didn't, because those methods were excessive given the circumstances. He took her to the ground and handcuffed her. He did not beat her, he simply subdued her.
Ok, so when I go to rob a bank, and shove a gun in the face of the teller, but DON'T pull the trigger because she gives me the money... ACCORDING TO YOU I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE NO ONE WAS HURT??? What a frightening world you live in, Elliot. That argument is sophomoric beyond belief. You're a good little boot-licker, I'll give you that much...
Elliot, You are saying that because she had no visible victim, because no one got hurt as a result of her actions then she should not have been arrested. Fine. Then I should be able to go 140 down the middle of downtown Dallas, or in a school zone in the afternoon, provided I don't actually HIT anyone with my car, correct? It just does not work that way. You don't have to have a visible "victim" to be breaking the law. What you are suggesting is beyond idiotic and bordering on the surreal, Elliot.
Richard, you are being sophomoric again. ;0)
BTP I am simply dumbing down my game to the level of my comrade.... He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime. That opens the door to a lot of things.
That opens the door to a lot of things. Suggesting that there are crimes where there are no visible victims opens the door to a whole lot of things as well, Richard.
Yes, Elliot, it does. Under your new rules... I can drive as fast as I want, whenever or where ever I want. Even when I am drunk or high. I can fire my automatic weapons out of my office window in downtown dallas, provided I don't hit anyone or harm their property. I can also have sex with my 17 year old daughter now, according to you. My my... what a fun world you are offering us, Elliot. I can
As opposed to the fun world your kind has given us, a world where I can't even go out and have a single drink at a nightclub for fear of getting a DUI on the way home, a world where the police can bust down my door and steal everything I own after saying the magic word "drugs", a world where citizens have fewer rights every day while the police gain additional powers every day. Yes, such a fun world the statists have given us.
So Elliot, You would prefer to have a society where I can drive as fast as I want, even when I am drunk or stoned, rob a bank - provided I don't actually shoot anyone, and screw my daughter if she is horny? Lovely....
You are attributing statements to me that I have not made, and using reductio ad absurdum arguments as well. These are hallmarks of those who wish to bludgeon, not argue. For the record, driving too fast and/or driving drunk or high is wrong and should be against the law. But the drunk driving laws have turned into a moneymaking industry, and are now so vigorously prosecuted that people like myself no longer go out to clubs and bars for fear of getting a DUI even when we are not even close to impared. Of course robbing a bank is wrong, because there is a victim once money has been forcibly extracted by someone via threat of violence (duh!). As far as you having sex with your daughter, the fact that you even bring up that argument is rather, well, disturbing...
Elliot, Driving Drunk has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident. Driving fast has NO VICTIM as long as I don't hit anyone or cause an accident. If I rob a bank and don't harm anyone, there is NO VICTIM. Simply holding a gun is not a crime, nor should it be. If I don't fire it... it is just something in my hand. The supposed "THREAT" is presumed, not real, until such time as I fire the weapon. As for having sex with my daughter... well, in YOUR world of "No Victim, No Crime", I should be able to do so without a problem. You should find YOUR argument disturbing.
uh, Richard..where did Elliott say that your having sex with your own daughter was a victimless crime? no one has said that but you.
Christine, Elliot asserted that because there was no "victim" to Michelle's actions, that this should not have happened in the first place. He is proposing a "No Victim, No Crime" system of law. According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so. No victim... so no crime. According to Elliot.
goose-steppers frequently have trouble discerning things that the rest of us have no trouble seeing. and I am to explain basics of human life to you apparently. and the mind- numbed robot goose-stepper would argue with me on these basics. Maybe I shouldn't explain to you as it is a waste of time, but others might want to read the reasoning. Let me start at the beginning for the mind-numbed robot goose-stepper who loves jack-booted thugs that beat up women. God made us. and he made us so that we are prepared for a family relationship where a man is the husband a woman is the wife. When a man has sex with his daughter he disrupts this preparation. Because he teaches her a different pattern than that which our creator prepared for us. And this may destroy her ability to have a normal relationship. It will certainly harm her. She is a victim. I would not expect a mind-numbed robot goose-stepper to be able to see these things. All you can do is say 'seig heil' and goose-step. NAZI skinheads are not normal people either.
Red, How is using Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime making me a goose stepper? God did not make us, Elliot... if you choose to believe in the Boogeyman, that is fine wtih me, but there is no evidence of this. If I have a daughter and she is 17, in the state of Texas, she is of the age of consent and can have sex with whomever she pleases. She is NOT a victim, she is a volunteer. No Victim, No Crime, says Elliot. The officer in question did not "beat up" the woman, he simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her. Red, it is clear you have never been in a fight in your life, or you would know the difference. If he wanted to "beat up" Michelle, she would either be dead or in the ICU at Baylor. He just wanted to arrest her, and she resisted. WOW... you have introduced Nazis into the conversation... it is clear that you have run out of things to contribute. I am not a nazi, a skinhead, or even a conservative. It is clear that your emotions have gotten the better of you, Red... you have lost the debate and now resort to childish namecalling.
Once again, reductio ad absurdum. Here's the deal, at no point did I make the absolute statement "no victim, no crime". However, I did state that once you accept the idea of victimless crimes, then the door has opened to an endless escalation of laws and supposed "crimes" that eventually results in de facto tyranny. That is a door that is better kept closed, because once opened it is rather hard to close again. My concern is that there are so many laws on the books now that for all intents and purposes the police have become mere tyrants, able to arrest and punish anyone anytime whenever they feel like it. This is a bad thing. Once upon a time this country believed in certain ideals, such as "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man". Sadly those ideals have gone the way of the dodo bird, largely because of people such as yourself who are willing to mindlessly obey those in positions of authority. Since you really cannot defend said argument as stated, you resort to hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum arguments in an attempt to make your point. It is to the credit of everyone else on this forum that nobody else here is buying it.
Elliot, It is clear you don't work in the law or you would not have said "Once upon a time this country believed in certain ideals, such as "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man". Sadly those ideals have gone the way of the dodo bird, largely because of people such as yourself who are willing to mindlessly obey those in positions of authority." You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority. When am I mindlessly obeying? Is it when I choose not to get drunk off my ass and go rollerskating in the middle of a busy street? Is it when I stop rollerskating in the middle of the street because an officer told me it was illegal? Is it when I choose NOT to attack a police officer? Which argument can I not defend, Elliot? Do tell.
When am I mindlessly obeying? When someone supports and defends the use of excessive force, then as far as I'm concerned they are mindlessly obeying authority. And yes, as far as I'm concerned that cop used excessive force against that woman. If you took a drunken swing at a cop and were then beat bloody, I'd defend you just as vigorously. Being drunk and stupid does not mean that you are deserving of being beaten bloody, especially nowadays when cops are taught literally dozens of moves that can be used to restrain someone. Perhaps my viewpoint is extreme, but once again I'd rather be extreme in the pursuit of liberty than moderate in the face of tyranny. I'm in favor of justice being meted out in court, not on the streets.
Elliot, Pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to sensationalize this. SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY. She resisted arrest, was forced to the ground and placed in handcuffs. She was NOT beaten. Being drunk does not mean that you deserve to get beaten. However, assaulting a police officer would certainly put you in that category, even though, in this case, it did not occur. Your viewpoint does not take into account her actions. A person attacked a police officer and got put on the ground and handcuffed. As a result of their struggling with the police the got a cut on their face from the ground. This was NOT excessive force by ANY stretch of the imagination. He could have used his baton, his mace or his tazer... or even shot her.... but he did not, because THAT would have been excessive force for the situation.
Gosh, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
Elliot I was THERE. I know the actions surrounding those photos. You were not there. You just see pictures but don't know what happened.
You just see pictures but don't know what happened. You're right, I wasn't there and I didn't see what happened first hand, all I have to go with is the pictures. But you have to admit that these pictures look bad. You asserted that she was not beaten bloody, well, from what I can see of the pictures it sure looks like she was. That's not makeup spilled on the ground..
Elliot, You are being reactionary again... Accoring to the PICTURES... there is no evidence that she was beaten at all. She may have simply fallen. There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
Now thats funny! Richard, you such a silly man.
Tom, Please point to where in those photos you see that the police are causing the injuries. She is laying face down and away from the camera in one, but you can not see any evidence of injury. In the others she is bleeding. Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
You originally said "Nothing to suggest" the cop...... And the guy with his knee on her back/face darn sure "suggests" he may have caused the injuries. It indicates as well, Richard. And why do you care so much to seek out this site and start this deification of the Police. Your best bet is to admit that. But seeing as you care nothing for you cedibility.... I'm sure you will not.
Tom, Hate to tell you again that you are wrong, but you are wrong. A police officer shown with his knee on her back, handcuffing her does NOT suggest that he may have caused the injuries. The injuries are not visible in that photo, so we do not know if she was injured before or after she was placed on her face based soley upon the photographic evidence. Being as how it was stated by more than one witness that she had fallen twice on Main Street earlier, a case could be made that she injured herself at that time. Now, I was there, and she got cut when she assaulted the police officer, and she deserved it; but based JUST on the photos, there is no evidence of that. Sorry, tom, but you would not do well in law school. There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
Lets see, she was OK standing by the cop car, then Mr Big has her face down on the asphalt with his knee on her neck, and you maintain there is no reason to suggest the cop caused her injuries???? I am laughing at you, Richard. Then you say I would not do well in Law school??? You are a silly man if you think you can come here and say you found this site today and decided to post this.
Tom, You are dealing with circumstantial evidence in these photos. You are inferring things into the photos that the photos do not represent. Just because she is standing by the police car does not prove anything. There is nothing in the photos that would show that the actions of the police caused her facial injuries. The policeman has his knee in her back, not on her neck, as you incorrectly reported. Being as how his knee is on her BACK, you can not reasonably presume based solely upon the photos that she sustained her injuries at the hands of the police. She was drunk off her ass and on rollerskates, and more than one person said they saw her fall on Main Street earlier when she was skating drunkenly on the cobblestones, so based on the photographic evidence, you can't presume that the police caused the injuries. You just can not make the case just off the pictures. I did not find this site today, I found it two days ago and registered just like anyone else would. It is amusing to see how you deal with people who deign to disagree with you, especially when they were actually AT the event in question.
Just because you SAY you were at the incident does not prove anything. Much less than the pix. If you didn't come off like a FERAL GOV boot licker, I might have given your story more creedence.
tom, I don't care what you think, remember? I don't know why you try to paint me as a boot licker just because I feel in THIS ONE INSTANCE THAT I WITNESSED that the police did nothing wrong. I am not saying that the police never do bad things or that excessive force is not used, I am saying in THIS ONE INSTANCE THAT I WITNESSED they did nothing wrong. Also, I don't care whether or not you believe I was there that night. I gave my statement and my information to the officers at the scene, and they seemed to believe I was there, and I DO care about that. So... have a a lovely day.
Time to archive this thread to send to the defense and and flush this Richard turd, or whoever it is.
Hmmmmm, You weren't there and I was, yet you are so quick to side with the woman who attacked the police. Curious... The defense wont have any trouble tracking me down, I gave my statements to the police and they have my contact information. They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
He's already stated that he is "sick" of the drunks on the street, so he is very much a biased witness from the start (assuming he's really a witness at all). Richard's testimony can't be trusted for that reason.
Neil, stating that I am sick of drunks on the street does not discredit my testimony at all. The behavior that got her arrested was drunken. But the reason that she went to jail was not her drunken conduct, it was her violent behavior. Or are you in favor of violent behavior towards the police? In which case, you would be disqualified because you are prejudiced.
It taints it and any jury should consider your bias with your testimony. 'nough said. Disqualified for what? I may well be biased myself, and if so, a jury would be correct in taking my bias into consideration had I been there and seen the events and given testimony. There's nothing wrong with being biased. It's just when you lie and claim you are not, as you are, THAT'S where there's a problem. When I first asked if you considered yourself a neutral witness, I already knew the answer. My reason for asking was only to find out how honest you are. Turns out you are not honest at all. In insisting you are a fair witness here you've proven to me you are a liar, and THAT does taint your testimony more than your bias alone does. Bias + liar = totally discredited testimony.
Are you an attorney? If not, how can you speak with any credibilty about what a jury would or would not do in any given situation? Sounds like you are doing more of your "I don't know the TRUTH but here is what I think and so you can take it as the truth." You asked a question and I told you the truth, I am an honest witenss. I don't know Michelle nor Officer Gordon. I dont work for the police or the city of Dallas. That I stated I am upset with drunks does in no way discredit me as a witness. Her conduct was violent, not drunken. Insisting that I am a fair not make me a liar, and it is clear that you have never been around a jury pool in your life. Everyone has a point of view, so in your thinking, NO ONE would make a fair witness. You can say what you like, Neil, because it clearly does not matter.
You don't have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. In fact, it's better if juries have no attornies on them, as juries are representative of the voice of the people, not the courts. If you care, go and read my first comments on this thread. I try to be fair and my first comments should give evidence of that, if not prove it outright. I never claimed to be there or know all the facts. What irritates me is when a fruitcake comes on board who is bias as all get out and yet claims not to be. You ARE biased here and until you admit it, I consider you a liar and therefore don't care what you say. I'll believe you only when an honest witness says the same thing. Because you'd lied here on this thread about your neutrality, your testimony isn't worth crap, and it doesn't even matter if it's 100% accurate. I didn't ask if you were honest. I asked if you were neutral, and you are not.
You dont have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. You DO have to be an attorney to understand that the selection process for jurors is very complex. Not just anyone gets to be on a jury. Also, to say that juries are better with no attornies on them is an incredibly UNFAIR and BIASED statement, as MOST attornies do not represent the courts, the represent their clients. Neil, we ALL have biases. Mine do not obstruct my point of view as an eyewitness in this instance. Are you going to sit there and tell me that her drunken buddies DON'T have a bias against the police, or that YOU don't have a bias against the police? You said you were FAIR, but you CLEARLY have a bias against the police. As for my testimony, well, fortunatley for all of us, your opinion of it is worth absolutely nothing. I have not lied about my neutrality here. Neil, I am at least as fair and neutral as you are in this matter.
I know it's complex. It has to be to stack it, as is the practice in courts today. Jury selection is supposed to be random, but the screening process these days makes sure that no person sits on a jury who doesn't first agree with the politics behind current laws. Juries are routinely fed crap by judges about having power only to judge the facts of the case and not the law, when the truth of the matter is they have the power to acquit if they feel the law is unjust. In fact they have a duty to do so, and have since the precedent set in the days of William Penn's trial. It should be enough to ask if they know the accused or accusers personally. Wrong. As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts. And when a judge has the power to disbar an attorney, the attorney can be persuaded to not present the best defense. It happens when the best defense embarrasses the judge by raising issues the judge doesn't want raised. When did I claim otherwise? I probably am biased against police in general. But I'm not claiming to be a witness here, you are. So it's your bias that's on the table. That you refuse to admit it is all I need to know. Word of advice for you on this thread: Don't read everything you believe.
Jury selection is not supposed to be random, it is supposed to be impartial. Voi dire is designed to ensure that it is impartial. If it was random you could not be assured of being judged by a jury of your peers. You could have 12 homeless guys in the jury box under your system. "It should be enough to ask if they know the defendant personally" Well, then you could be before the courts on a DUI charge and have a jury full of people who recently lost their husband or wife to a drunk driver that never got charged or convicted of their crimes. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, Neil. "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts." MORE of "Neil does not know what he is talking about!" You can't represent BOTH the Court and your client as an attorney. You have to represent ONE OR THE OTHER. Your embarrassing lack of understanding of our legal system is disturbing. I am not "claiming" to be a witness, I AM a witness to this event. Again, everyone has a bias, it is their point of view. So, if everyone has a bias, then I have a bias. However, my "bias" does not impede my ability to see a situation and accurately report what I saw. I am not biased against Michelle, nor am I biased in favor of Officer Gordon. Witnesses are not judges nor juries, they are witnesses. They all have "biases" and it is their duty to simply relate to the courts what they witnessed.
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.
ROFLMAO! RANDOM IS THE MEANS BY WHICH IT IS IMPARTIAL??? In whose universe? In the 1940s, a black defendant had NO chance of having a black person his jury because there were no black people allowed on juries. Female defendants were denied female jurors in the same fashion. Would you consider those to be IMPARTIAL jury pools simply because they are randomly selected? Random selection of the jury pool ensures that no one had a hand in selecting the potential jurors. Voi Dire ensures that the actual jurors are not fettered with undue prejudices, like having a woman who lost her son to a drunk driver the month before serving on a jury for a DUI case. Both the prosecution AND the defense get to eliminate potential jurors from the pool, you moron. "Is there something wrong with homeless people?" You can't be on the jury pool if you are not a registered voter. Homeless people don't vote and thus are not valid jurors. There is nothing "wrong" with them, they are just not candidates in our system. Neil, how do you support your claim that you have an understanding of the system of juris prudence in this country? Your innane ramblings go to prove the contrary As for your ridiculous notion about the relationship between attorneys and judges... you really show how little you know about the law. MOST attorneys never take a case before a trial judge in their careers. Furthermore, the judge in NO WAY holds the sway that you are trying to imply over any attorney. Wow, you are clueless about the legal system in this country. You need to stop reading those John Grisham novels. It is amazing how myopic you have allowed yourself to become, Neil. Sadly, it is not surprising.
Uhhh... no. If blacks and females are not selected, then obviously it's not random. I don't think "random" means what you think it means. Have a nice one, fruitcake.
At that time, they were picking from the available jurors. Blacks and females were not available. So why is that not "random" to you? You are picking at random from the available pool.
"There was a show at the LIQUID LOUNGE, even though the flyer said Lizard lounge, and it WASN'T free, for some of our Dallas derby girls. I met up with Amanda outside of Elm St. Tattoo, and there was a derby girl skating from the bar across the street to the tattoo parlor. No big deal. But a cop stopped her to give her a ticket. Well, she gave some attitude, but went with it. Kept her hands on the car while he wrote her a ticket. I crossed the street to the bar, and another skater went past me, nothing happened to her, even though her friend was getting a ticket for skating in the street.... very wierd. I turned back around to look at the girl and the cop, and I see him wrestling her to the ground. She's screaming, this tiny girl, is struggling, while about 50 people gather and start yelling. Turns out someone on the sidewalk yelled something to her, she turned to see the person, took her hands off of the car, and the cop got pissed. She gave attitude, I think he shoved her back on the car, so she stuggled back up, and he shoved her around. He was at least 200 pounds. She was about 100. Her face was bloody. I have a few pictures. I was questions, they got my info to call me. I hope they do. Honestly, this whole mess makes me fucking sick and sad. I want to be a cop, so it's not like I'm against them. About 6 more cop cars showed up. 18 cops. One ambulance. They're treating us, including us ones trying to be helpful and nice, like shit. And when we're explaining it to other people, they yelling at us, and threating us "we'll give you tickets for standing on the street, we don't care!" What.... what the hell? How ignorant. The girl got checked up, seemed fine, and then they took her off to jail.
What are you talking about "Maybe I shouldn't have fucked with Tom?" Like he is anything to worry about? He was not there and is going off hearsay. Yes, I did read the account you posted, and that is this other person's point of view. It sounds to me like they were at least at the scene. Even they state that the girl seemed fine before going to jail... not beaten as some of you reactionaries would try to state. As for the police telling people they would get tickets for standing in the street... well, it is illegal to stand in the street, so I don't have a problem with that. Odd that they would mention that, but hey, they have their point own point of view. Of course, according to Neil, this is not an unbiased witness either becuase they are clearly against the police, lol. Still don't see how this has anything to do with Tom or why I should give two soft craps about him or his opinion...
You were not their either. Did your check clear from the Law Office retained by the PO representing him?? Enjoy the pices of silver.
I was most certainly there, otherwise the police would not have taken my statement. I was standing in front of July Alley, which is right next to the tatoo parlor where all of this started. I was amused that they were cooking food on a little barbque grill in front of the tattoo parlor. It is curious to see that you feel ANYONE who disagrees with you (even though YOU weren't there) must be a shill. I was there, I saw what I saw. You weren't there, you saw nothing.
You were NOT. YOU ARE A PAID SHILL BY THE LAW OFFICE REPRESENTING THE PO THAT COMMITTETED CRIMES AGAINST THE DEFENDENT. YOU ARE INTENDING TO COMMIT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT. THAT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE., RICHARD.
You are sadly mistaken. I was most certainly there. Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. I gave my statement to the officers at the scene, and they believed me, which matters a great deal. I am not intending to commit any fraud. Tom, this case will never go to court, she will plead it out as soon as she can. Sorry, Rumplestiltskien, but you can't change what I saw by screaming... LOL
They believed you! Now there's a shocker. They need all the help they can get, even if it's from a flawed witness. Yes, this case will weave its way through the system. The sharks smell blood :)
If you actually were a cop, then you know that as well as I do. She will plead this out before Valentine's Day and will never be heard from again. She can't make the civil case work. She was barely scratched as a result of her resisting arrest, she was not beaten, no broken bones. Her injuries came as a result of her resisting arrest, and they were trivial. Sorry, Aqualung, but in this case you are Thick As A Brick. She will plead out as fast as she can and go Skating Away On The Thin Ice Of A New Day. (high fives to me for the fantastic JT refs)
Trial? I told you earlier the criminal case is a foregone conclusion. Cops win here. It's about punitive damage at this point. The rules of evidence are different, as you might or might not know. The visual of this kid in court with beef-boy is amusing. The city will pay large to get out of this mess, and beef- boy will be taken off the street and tucked away in the property clerk for the next 10 years. As It Is Written, So Shall it Be Done.
You're right on with this, JT. But with all the negative publicity for the PD on this so early they have been forced to launch an IAD investigation now instead of 3 or 4 weeks from now. This cop will be lucky if he can get a job in Texas rounding up wetbacks. There is no way he will be allowed to stay in Dallas, especially with SIX complaints in his jacket. I saw the other info that tom007 posted on the other thread. This guy was an accident waiting to happen; a ticking bomb. I know how it is from my time on the bouncer gig and I know you do as well from NYPD. I know how long it took me to unwind after working a show and being in the thick of the action. I was keyed up. It usually took 2 or 3 hours, six beers and a few shots of tequila to get the edge off. Here in the county I live in the Sheriff was forced to get rid of 10 of his deputies for "irregularities" which means they were found jobs in other counties in the state. If the "irregularities" are bad enough, that type of transfer would be impossible. This guy in Dallas may not even be able to stay in Texas considering his work record is so impaired. Which department would take on a known liability?
Yep. If he can't handle this tiny thing - no matter how she was acting - he doesn't belong on the job. It's scary what the public is beginning to accept. Had this happened in Harlem, with the colors of the actors reversed, 125th St would still be on fire.
Oh, it's a fact that there are plenty of methods to use that will not cause the type of injury we saw in those pics. I've given out some good thumpings a few times that I'm sure the drunken idiots couldn't remember the next day why they had a few lumps on them in tender places. As I said above, it's not so difficult to wrap someone up. I watched a couple of our off duty cops backstage once when one half of a two- man band got out of line and the house production manager told him to clear out after he and his black gay lover (they went into the bus together also) trashed the dressing room. Some little chick was in the face of one of the cops when the other grabbed the dude by the arm to usher him out the door. You should have seen the little twirp fall down on the floor having a tantrum. The chick went nuts and the first cop gave her a bear hug. End of that situation. By the time the other cop went to try to pick the dude off the floor I had hold of an arm and leg and had him half way out the door. He said I moved quick for a big guy. So you see, this Richard is an absolute idiot who doesn't know shit from shinola. And Harlem is like the projects in Chicago, so I know what you mean there.
The “Injuries” you saw in the picture were from a small cut on her cheek that she sustained in the process of resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. The reason she has blood smeared on her face is because SHE smeared the blood across her face with her hand. She was BARELY injured. Also, note that she has YET to file a complaint.
this is from "a small cut to her cheek?"
First off, BOTH parties were bleeding at the scene and had to be treated, so we don't know whose blood this is in the picture. Secondly, the face bleeds enormously from the smallest of cuts. If you had to shave your face, you would know this. Thirdly, I saw her face when the paramedics wiped the blood that she had smeared all over her face with her hand, it was a very small cut. Fourtly, if she had listened to the officer, NOT resisted arrest, and NOT assaulted the officer, then NONE of this blood would have been spilt from either person. That she got a scratch on her face does not indicate in any way that Michelle was innocent or that inappropriate force was used, Christine.
I agree although I'd describe the scratch as a laceration based on the amount of blood on the pavement. I don't see blood on the cop in the photos nor do I see his head and face on the ground. Not that it's a big deal, just a bit confusing for me, but I wondered if you are aware that you're using the Quote box (which is meant to italicize the words of the poster you're replying to) rather than the Comments/Response box?
I recall one time about 26 years ago when I was at a meeting in a park district building and while I was leaving to go to my truck there was a bunch of kids horsing around. One of them (maybe 10 years old) ran into the gate of the chain link fence and cut himself below the left eyebrow but above the eyelid. There was a good amount of blood and it was a deep laceration. I took him back inside the building to the washroom and had him wash his face. We dried him off with paper towels and used a couple of them to stop the bleeding. Then one of the other kids brought the first aid kit I always kept in the truck and we put a couple of gauze pads on the cut. At this point and the gauze pads were just used as a compress to keep the bleeding from starting again. He was not covered in blood quite like Michelle in these photos and there certainly was not enough bleeding to cause there to be the amount of blood we see in this incident. In other words, the blood did not run all over his face. It was on his hands but not an awfully enormous amount. The attendant at the front desk managed to contact a relative who knew where the parents were and I drove the kid up to the hospital where his folks met us a few minutes later. The cut only required 5 or 6 stitches. As an aside, I got a cut on my face once from a work related injury. It needed 4 stitches to close and it did not bleed a whole hell of a lot either. I've had cuts on my fingers that bled more than the one on my face.
well, like I said to Richard, the photographs that we DO see are far more
telling of what occurred than his "eyewitness" and possibly biased account.
that and the fact that this officer has had several prior excessive force
complaints.
Christine, ANY complaint that is filed against an officer, regardless of whether it is frivolous or not, has to be logged in his file. That he has only received SIX frivolous complaints (note, NOT convictions or disciplines) in 15 YEARS speaks more to his ability to use good judgement in situations than anything else. All you see in the photos is a suspect being restrained. You don't know why or what happened prior to the photos. You can't tell if she pulled a knife, a gun, or a bazooka before she was taken to the ground and handcuffed. Christine, I know the photos make GREAT emotional fodder, but you are just looking at pictures, you were NOT there, and I was. I saw what happened. This is not a big deal, she resisted arrest, assaulted a police officer, and got a small cut as a result.
Were you there, Richard? I ask, only because this is about the 73rd time on this thread that you emphasized the point.
I ask, only because this is about the 73rd time on this thread that you emphasized the point. Neil, I emphasize it because people like you consistently try to say that I was not there.
I never said you weren't there. My point with the observation is that you apparently expect everyone to trust you without question, because "you were there" and as long as you consider yourself unbiased after making the comment about how sick of drunks you are while claiming this girl was one of them, you don't get trust from me. Trust must be earned, and you are far from doing so here on this forum. The world doesn't revolve around you, you know. Again, my first comments on this thread show my attempt to be open minded about the event, but that apparently doesn't matter to you. Sorry, but "fruitcake" is the descriptive word that keeps coming back to me, because of your strange expectation that we would simply accept what you say without question (particularly when comparing your comments with the photos).
Neil, You have never said explicitly that I was not there, no. However, you have skirted the edge with implications that you don't belive I was there on more than one occasion. Or perhaps that was your continuing to call me a liar and a fruitcake your way of saying "Hey, Richard, I believe you were there and I believe that what you are saying is indeed what you saw."
No I did not. And I should know because... I was there.... I mean here. I know what I implied and you should believe it because I said so and I was there. Seriously. I did not imply that I didn't believe you. I said you "claimed" to be there, which you did, which you somehow took as an insult, I guess because I didn't accept your claim as gospel. I called you a fruitcake because you talk like you are the be-all-end-all in witness reporting and expect us to trust you when to us you're nothing but type on a webpage.
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...
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.
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 think it's fair to suggest that Star didn't realize that a patient can be ASSESSED without their consent as I described earlier (5 level triage acuity scale which can be done from a distance if necessary to separate a level 1 or 2 (immediate intervention required)from a 4 or 5 (optional medical intervention ie: not life threatening) so OBVIOUSLY he was asserting that she did not have an DIRECT triage assessment such as checking pulse, blood pressure, etc... and no bandaging of her wounds at the scene. It's safe to say that this part of the dispute is a matter of knowing what definition one uses for "assessment". Clearly the two of you are not on the same wavelength therefore neither was technically wrong in your assertions. Legally, refusing treatment at the scene would imply that she stated that she did not want ANY treatment whatsoever or that she did not want paramedics to treat her on the scene, preferring to seek treatment on her own. Given her probable state of intoxication and the fact that she had obvious facial injuries (increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit) the officer exercised his right to transport her to a medical facility against her stated wishes BECAUSE it was clear that she was not of sound mind to make that decision in the first place. Also, EMT's are not licensed to administer the drugs necessary to calm an irrational patient so it would be counterproductive to attempt to force medical care on a resistant patient. Certainly the ED called in crisis counselors to assess her mental condition as well. This kind of case is carefully documented because it usually winds up in court. For the record, my assertion that her probable intoxification contributed directly or indirectly to her injuries DOES NOT IMPLY that I believe she is wholly responsible for them nor does it imply that I believe her claim that the officer brutalized her. In all likelihood, she has no recollection. Several scenarios COULD be true. Scenario 1= she's drunk and resists arrest. She hits/kicks/bites the officer trying to get away. He is forceful and rough in handcuffing her because he has to be due to her attacking him. She winds up falling to the ground because she's fighting and her rollerskates cause her to lose her balance. Scenario 2= she's drunk and resists arrest. She's so clumsy that she falls to the ground when handcuffed and skins up her face because her hands are cuffed and she's unable to break her fall. Scenario 3= She's drunk and pisses off the officer. He's rough with her and slams her to the ground for kneeing him in the groin... or just because he can. Which one is most likely? IMHO, 1 or 2... Police officers seldom beat on prisoners with tons of witnesses watching particularly after the Rodney King episode... Star is a literalist because it SEEMS as if your testimony changes and therefore literalism is warranted to clear up the facts...?? As for calling Star a moron... I see ZERO evidence to support that contention. What evidence I see to support things you've been labelled, I'll resist commenting on... Fair enough?
Siagiah, Thanks for that informative and well thought out response! Much appreciated. :)
Thanks for that informative and well thought out response! Much appreciated. :) No problem... BTW, I've SEEN 6 year olds attack adults, causing serious injuries to the adult and occasionally significant injury to the child if the adult is either not trained in proper restraining methods or is caught off guard, unable to subdue the child safely. When any person attacks another person the attacker is the provokee and NOT the victim until and unless the initial victim restrains the attacker and then CONTINUES to manhandle the attacker. Certainly, reasonable people don't pound them into the pavement once restrained but simply use whatever means are NECESSARY to keep them restrained even if that causes injury to the attacker. Whose fault is it that someone presumably CHOOSES to drink too much, take mind altering drugs, or to attack someone else? It's difficult to know what really happened without being a professional investigator or catching it on film.
Siagiah, I liked what you had to say there. So many people today are doing whatever they can to avoid taking personal responsibilty for their actions. No matter what happens it never seems to be their fault. Is it not the responsibility of the individual who has been drinking to monitor their alcohol intake, as well as their behavior? If my alcohol intake and my behavior cause me to act in a way that is illegal, and I am arrested as a result of my illegal action, ... would you not say that it was MY fault? Hmmm... Here is a scenario... Let's say I am drunk and skating in the street, which is illegal, and I am told it is illegal by a police officer but I continue to skate in the street anyway, so the officer stops me and decides to place me under arrest, but I don't like that so much and I take a swing at an officer who tries to put me in handcuffs, resulting in him wrestling me to the ground, and then, while on the ground, I kick at him with my rollerskates until he flips me over and suceeds in handcuffing me... would you not say that it was MY fault that this entire scenario occurred? In that scenario, I was the one who CHOSE to drink, I was the one who CHOSE to skate in the middle of a busy street even AFTER the police told me to stop, I was the one who took a swing at the officer when he tried to place me under arrest, and I was the one who continued to struggle even when I was wrestled to the ground. Seems like that would be easily considered by even the most simple of minds to be MY fault. Well... that is what happened to Michelle that night. So... could we not say that this incident was, in fact, Michelle's fault?
I"m with you ther man. I hope the Dallas PO Officer is ready to take personal responsibility for his violent, abusive actions. "No matter what happens it never seems to be their fault." Officer Gorden - wasn't me. Didn't do it. Glad to see the DAllas Police are protecting you from rogue girl skaters, RICHARD> You must feel safer already, don't you???
O I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
Perhaps they are sometimes and even more likely, perhaps they are not all the time...THIS TIME, it's really not clear from the evidence which is which. Richard claims to have been a witness. He can't prove he was there and you can't prove he wasn't. THEREFORE we have an impasse that requires that we debate based only on the indisputable FACTS available... No offense intended to Richard, but he can claim whatever he pleases but his assertion that his version is FACT means nothing to anyone BUT him since he has yet to produce any documents from the Dallas PD proving his claim. Equally meaningless, with no offense intended to you Tom007, it APPEARS that you have brought a personal bias to the table that colors your view against one and for another. You have not offered anything in the nature of FACT to your statement that it WAS the police officer's fault. Any reasonable reader of your post could conclude that you've decided blame based on those biases and not on the facts since you cite no facts to back up your views. The only thing that is clear is that the gal was on the ground, she did have minor facial injuries, her face was bloodied, she was drunk according to medical testimony, she was wearing roller skates, she did kick the officer trying to avoid being handcuffed, and the officer did have minor bruises. It's irrelevant that some hate cops a/o blacks or that she weighed 1/3 what he did... Even tiny children can injure you if they so desire... It's irrelevant that some cops beat folks because not ALL cops do. Not much else is known as fact so that's all we have to work with that is indisputable... Can we at least all agree on something?
Just saw your post......We need more clear thinkers like you in the world!....Very well said!
No, I can't agree with siagiah, or apparently you. The kid was submissive to authority (see photos) and for the police officer to allow the incident to reach the point it did show a lack of control on his part. Add his past history of aggressive behavior and it’s clear to me who the criminal is here. The cop needs to be fired and the Dallas PD sued for millions. That's all the power structure knows.
You're 100% correct on this, JT. I've got 11 years worth of experience in Chicago and you've got 15 on NYPD. I can say that on a couple of occasions I have been complemented by the "boys in blue" in Chicago as to the amount of restraint I showed in handling certain situations. Seriously, they said they would have gone off on the creeps a lot harder than I did in those same circumstances. The pictures tell enough of a story from where I stand and are unequivocal. I even had the privelege of being at the clusterfuck known as Woodstock '94 to work as security right on front of the main stage and came to develop a few close professional relationships, one with the guy who was in charge of security for that event and was also in charge of security for the Grateful Dead. When they come to town and spot you and immediately walk up and shake your hand, you know there is a great deal of professional respect and courtesy involved. The same happened for another guy who ran his own security company and did lots of gigs, one of which was called Lollapalooza. We did a couple of shows for them, one in Des Moines and another in Pecatonica, Illinois near Rockford. I knew this guy first from working with him at Woodstock '94 and the first thing he did when he spotted me was stop the golf cart he was on and jump off and give me a big hug. Now tell me there wasn't a connection, and don't get smart. ;0) This is just my way of showing how it is possible for us to be able to spot a bad situation and know what it is when we see it. I think you've got the same take on this as I do. Some never develop this and it is indeed like an extra sense. And there were many times that extra sense saved my bacon.
If the cop couldn't cuff the kid without incident when she had her hands on the radio car, he has problems. Here's a little somthing on the officer involved: In his 13-plus years on the force, Officer Gordon has received his fair share of commendations and awards. But he's also had 27 complaints filed against him, most of which were deemed "unfounded" or "inconclusive." His record also includes at least two allegations of excessive force that were found to be inconclusive.
Which PROVES what? That he's been accused by people before? That suggests a problem but it doesn't PROVE anything at all. It's all subjective. WHO accused him? When? Why? Why were they deemed unsupported or inconclusive? Is there a cover up or was there really NO EVIDENCE because it didn't really happen? You simply don't know. All that information does (for me) is reinforce my unwillingness to decide that I "know" what really happened. I believe, I don't know anything.
When a police officer average more than two formal complaints a year, it’s my experience that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. IMO, he’s one of the many 250 pound assholes who are unfit to be “policing” anything, never mind anyone. If that stuffed bag of doughnuts couldn’t control a 90 pound kid on skates, who completely submitted btw, he’s in the wrong business. Been there, seen it, it blows.
Okay, fair enough. Has anyone checked HER record? I'd be interested in hearing all about what made her get drunk, go rollerskating in the middle of a highway, and then resist arrest... If this is a real issue with true merit, why is there no press on it aside from this ONE obscure article? I have run out of time for now... I'll catch up later... See if anyone can find out more about her?
Have we proven she was drunk? And even if she was drunk,
being on skates, she’d be far easier to control. Let’s take the
officers story as fact for the sake of argument. What harm would it have been
if he back up and let her kick at thin air? That would have been the right
thing to do, since her efforts would have lasted 5 minutes, and threatened
nobody. And talk about the neat pics that would have generated (g).
What bothers me in this matter is her size, his bulk, and the pictures of her
submitting prior to the incident. Also, the general trend of police behavior
over the past few years is troubling. They've become increasingly aggressive,
especially in places like this Deep Ellum-type area. To "protect and serve"
has been replaced with "to arrest and summons".
They've allowed themselves to become revenue collectors for local government,
and they love it.
It wasn't a highway, and perhaps she was legally drunk (considering her size, "a couple" would likely do it). Whether she was drunk enough to attack a police officer, the 1st photo of her standing by the cruiser seems to indicate compliance, but the "eyewitness" accounts seem to be at either extreme of 'she started it' or 'he beat her'. I suspect the truth may be more like, she took her hands off the car, perhaps turned, the officer instead of telling her to resume her position began to force her back into position, at which point: We've yet to see/hear credible evidence of what happened between the time she was standing to when she was under the officer on the street. Here is some more background: Using street & town and business names from various news articles, I did a Google search to generate a picture of the "scene". You can do the same with this link: local Google tattoo OR bar OR alley near July Aly & N Crowdus St, Dallas, TX 75226 Wait for the image to load, then click "hybrid" in upper right corner (to get satellite photo w/labels overlaid). Then in the upper left corner, click zoom "+" incrementally. If you do that, you should see: Note the streets are shown in yellow with traffic directions and note that Elm St is one-way southwest bound, seemingly a 4-lane with parking on both sides. "B" (Elm St Tattoo) seems to be where the arrest was made. "D" (Elm Street Bar) is where Metzinger had just left, crossed Elm street to the north, arriving at Elm St Tattoo. Note also that the Elm St Bar seems to be set back from the street with a parking lot in front (empty at the time this satellite photo was taken). "C" (July Alley) is where many of the eyewitnesses (like " Richard") claim to have been standing. At maximum zoom, you can see the Elm St traffic lanes clearly and the 'point' of the red balloon "B" is probably where the partrol crusier was parked, pointing to the left, and the photos we see were taken from the sidewalk in front of Elm St Tattoo facing south across Elm St towards the parking lot in front of the Elm St. Bar "D": Here is a thread supposedly posted by the person who actually took the photos: I met up with Amanda outside of Elm St. Tattoo, and there was a derby girl skating from the bar across the street to the tattoo parlor. No big deal. But a cop stopped her to give her a ticket. Well, she gave some attitude, but went with it. Kept her hands on the car while he wrote her a ticket. I crossed the street to the bar, and another skater went past me, nothing happened to her, even though her friend was getting a ticket for skating in the street.... very wierd. I turned back around to look at the girl and the cop, and I see him wrestling her to the ground. She's screaming, this tiny girl, is struggling, while about 50 people gather and start yelling. Turns out someone on the sidewalk yelled something to her, she turned to see the person, took her hands off of the car, and the cop got pissed. She gave attitude, I think he shoved her back on the car, so she stuggled back up, and he shoved her around. He was at least 200 pounds. She was about 100. Her face was bloody. I have a few pictures. I was questions, they got my info to call me. I hope they do. Honestly, this whole mess makes me fucking sick and sad. I want to be a cop, so it's not like I'm against them. About 6 more cop cars showed up. 18 cops. One ambulance. They're treating us, including us ones trying to be helpful and nice, like shit. And when we're explaining it to other people, they yelling at us, and threating us "we'll give you tickets for standing on the street, we don't care!" What.... what the hell? How ignorant. The girl got checked up, seemed fine, and then they took her off to jail. Oh my God. These are MY PICTURES all over the internet. She was NOT skating through traffic. That's what gets me. She crossed the street. And, I'm not sure where you're from, but in a place like Deep Ellum, it's like 6th street in Austin, people are walking all over the streets. She was NOT weaving in and out of traffic like the damn news said. And I'm ticked off they reported that. I know these pictures are all over the internet, but they came from ME. Here's a Google news search on Metzinger OR Gordon and you'll note there are many news stories, including an appearance in court. If you click "web" you'll find about 150 or so hits, but be careful as there are another couple of Michelle Metzinger's elsewhere.
for more info here's the link to the photographer... http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1064892&blogID=77774019 and if you want to help Michelle... http://www.helpmichelle.org/ and a pic of her under her skating name... http://www.assassinationcityderby.com/agents/pages/images/MuffThumper.jpg love ruthie XXXXXX
Thanks, ruthie. I hope Michelle is doing well. That pic of Gordon's partner still in the car is just amazing. It is unbelievable incompetence. I know for sure I never would have left my partner alone in any kind of confrontation. It is unprofessional not to mention he might have slugged me for leaving him hanging. ;0)
hi there Michelle wrote me and said that "(this)...web site you sent me made me very happy to know that people who don't even know me or the whole story know injustice when they see it and are willing to stand up and say it..." please, if you want to give Michelle a chance to see justice done, contribute at http://www.helpmichelle.org/ thank you for reading this :) love ruthie XXXXXX
please, if you want to give Michelle a chance to see justice done, contribute at http://www.helpmichelle.org/ I would do it for anyone under the same conditions and without hesitation. I have been a victim of injustice myself and we witness it on a daily basis. People need to know the truth as to why these things happen and that our public servants only have limited authority and must obey the law themselves. If I were able to send a few bucks I would do so, but I am strapped because of one of those instances of injustice I was speaking of above. I would encourage anyone reading this to send something if they are able since the lawyers do not work for free. Drop in any time you like and tell friends about our site. Guaranteed to give them a quick education, if they ask the right questions. Kisses back atcha. ;0)
(catches his kisses and blushes) thank you for starting this thread...and thanks to Richard for entertaining me with his open-minded, unbiased posts! (i hope that wasn't too melodramatic for you, Richard - it is one of my defects as a mere woman LOL) seriously, i know that Michelle is very grateful for the kind words of encouragement and any practical help would be appreciated :) love ruthie XXXXXX (please visit http://www.helpmichelle.org/)
(catches his kisses and blushes) Thanks for the little belated Valentine's Day encounter. Nicest thing to come my way in a long while. Maybe I can get down that way later this year and catch Michelle doing her roller derby gig. It would be a blast. ;0)
oops - the link shouldn't have a bracket on the end! sorry about that, it should be... and here's a pic of Michelle in happier times with some of her team-mates at roller derby...
ruthie, do you know where the laceration was which caused the large amount of blood on Michelle's face? under her chin in the one photo, the flow of blood is heavy. i hope that it wasn't her face because of scarring. do you know if she's healed, without visible permanent scarring, from her injury?
Christine, It has only been a couple weeks since the cut, you wouldn't be able to tell about permanent scarring at this stage. I have been checking the news locally for ya and there still is no more word about this incident that I have seen. I'll keep ya posted if anything turns up on this.
OK Richard, I for one can't play any longer. We all know your feelings about this matter from our last go around. Please stop trying to introduce your persona #2 as some impartial concerned citizen. ruthie has linked Michelle’s web site and it’s clear this case has legs. Sorry bub, that’s the system.
love ruthie XXXXXX
Richard Says: January 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm “She was brutalized by a Dallas police officer twicer her size during a citation for public intoxication. ” Sorry to disappoint you, but I was one of those first-hand witnesses. I was just coming out of July Alley, not 25 feet from where this went down. She was drunk and abusive. When the officer went to put her in handcuffs, she swung on him. He wrestled her to the ground. He did NOT strike her. Once on the ground, Miss Metzinger continued to fight him and started kicking him with her skates. The officer flipped her over onto her belly and handcuffed her. She sustained MINOR cuts on her face. This woman is a professional rollerderby skater, she fights for a living. She was NOT brutalized in any sense of the term. In fact, from what I saw, the officer used incredible RESTRAINT in his use of force. Given her struggle, he could easily have maced her or punched her in that situation, but he did not - he simply grappled her and handcuffed her, causing the least amount of damage to either party. She was drunk, resisted arrest and assaulted the officer… she was not a nun fresh from the convent. Joel Says: January 24th, 2006 at 8:56 am After further fact checking on my part and thanks to Richard’s input, I’m more than willing to eat crow on this one. I’m glad more has come out about this other than the official story and the one eye-witness account I read. Yes, it’s difficult to make a judgment based on only two stories without further corroborating evidence. Yes, a minor head cut bleeds like the dickens. So that can account for the aftermath photos. Still, I’m ashamed of myself and of the general state of media organizations that I feel the need to second guess and question their reporting on most issues. Oh well. Thanks, Richard! ruthie Says: February 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm gosh, fancy finding you here, Richard! what an interesting set of posts you put in this forum and in http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=17934&Disp=All unfortunately, you don’t seem to be as impartial and unbiased as you’d like people to believe, in fact you seem sexist to the point of mysogeny by your comments. if you checked your facts, you would discover that Michelle is not a professional skater and the photographs at http://www.helpmichelle.org show a little bit more blood than you would like people to believe. another inaccuracy is your bold assertion that she would plead guilty and this would all die down - she denied the charges and has the support of many other people including witnesses who contradict your own statements. perhaps you might think carefully before making any assertions about Michelle, as you might be called to account in court. have a nice day, by the way :) p.s. i am just another “hysterical woman” so you can ignore me and belittle my words, okay? ruthie XXXXXX
ooops! lol at my bad spelling! of course that should be MISOGYNY but you knew what i meant... i don't feel comfortable asking Michelle for details of her injuries - its sort of a privacy thing and might be important to any court case? i don't really know her even though she very kindly replied :) i just hope she can put all this behind her and move on once everything is sorted out. in the meantime, here's another forum but this one's in German so needs translating - Google sort of produces some of the meanings if you're interested.... http://www.talkaboutusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=23797&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 love ruthie XXXXXX p.s. more pics of those ears LOL
I'm beginning to grasp the popularity of this sport.
Here's a little more background ( I chased a link from ruthie's link above): Response to Friday the 13th in Deep Ellum When I posted about Friday night's Rollergirl / Police violence, I certainly was not anticipating over 150 replies! My intention for posting was to reflect upon the activities going on in the Deep Ellum area that have led to the declining culture in the area. Unfortunately, all of the pictures (even the mirror sites) are now gone. Surely, this is on the advice of someone's lawyer, and I do hope real justice is found. Deep Ellum, historically, has never been a safe place. It has been a red light district for longer than anyone currently alive can remember. It was the playground of Bonnie and Clyde and Jack Ruby. It has been gang turf for black, mexican, and white gangs alike. Muggings, shootings, robberies, and general beatings are nothing new. I've said for many years that the difference between Austin and Dallas is that on 6th Street in Austin, the police block the traffic through the streets, and protect the club patrons; whereas, on Elm Street in Dallas, the police direct the traffic to the street, and harass the club patrons. The harassment, however, has taken a huge turn in Ellum. I have been a participant of the Deep Ellum experience for 15 years. All along that decade and a half, I have seen and heard of all of the kinds of stories you would expect to hear about a 15 square block area where hundreds converge to drink and debauch. For the past 7 years, I have been DJing and promoting in Deep Ellum, which provides a view on the pulse of the area that one simply cannot grasp when they are there purely for fun. In 2000, I began working every Saturday night at one of the area venue. At first, everything in Deep Ellum was as it always has been. Then Laura Miller was elected mayor. That very month, the TABC (a branch of peace officers n charge of alcohol regulation) began what became obsessively regular checks. That week, I heard first hand out of an officer's mouth to expect many more because it was Laura Miller's intention to clean up the area and send a strong message. And many more were to be had. These weren't your standard and discreet checks of regulations. These were packs of officers, barrelling in the door, threatening your customers, and generally being jerks. It was happening all over Deep Ellum. Soon thereafter, a new police chief was named. Things only got worse. Citywide, we have held the number one spot for violent crime and robbery nationwide. All the while, the law enforcement in Ellum became just as scary as the existing crime. Over the course of the next year, the true nature of the beast became known. I began seeing the police gang up on and harass patrons waiting in line for clubs. One night at my club (thankfully, on a night I was not there) an officer shot and killed a nuisance teenager in a situation that should and could have easily been handled by arrest. I began seeing police shoot tear gas into clubs as a sat and ate dinner. Yet where were the police, for example, when I witnessed a drunk couple get into a fight that resulted in the guy repeatedly backing the girl's head into the curb? I assure you they had been called. I had to wonder what kind of message, exactly, Laura Miller was wishing to send here. Regarding this particular incident? In an odd way, I'm glad it happened. This is by far not the first story of recent police brutality in the area. I've seen it many times in person and on the news. This time, however, it wasn't a drunk yuppie willing to reach a high dollar settlement, or a gang banger with a bad record and little credibility. This was a roller girl; a girl who is part of a trend that has captured the fancy of thousands of people in Texas and beyond. Roller girls, and their fans, are not known to allow themselves to be fucked around, and are an outspoken bunch. As far as what can be accurately assessed by those pictures? I've discussed it in detail with my boyfriend, who has been trained and licensed as a police officer in Texas. Allow me to point out a few items: *** Many suggested that the girl mouthed off to the officer. In the state of Texas, any officer of the law cannot legally respond in any way, shape, or form to any verbal insults. While I wouldn't suggest it, you can tell off a cop in any manner at any time without legal repurcussion. *** Someone suggested her face was possibly bloodied by her falling on her rollerskates. First, I would like to point out (even though you can't see them now) that the place where her face was against the pavement when he was using his knee to pin her down by her neck is the exact same place that was bloodied in the following photographs. It is quite possible that she got on the ground in the first place by falling, though. It is still unforgivable that, as you could clearly see in the picture, he held her down by the neck with his knee. I know 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the officer most definitely received detailed lecture and hands-on training in a multitude of more humane and more effective methods of restraining and cuffing her. In fact, he received specific training on how NOT to handle her as well. *** Someone suggested the roller girl clawed at the officer. Who knows was form of resistance she gave? What I do know, though, is that an officer is only legally allowed to exact equal force, and only the force necessary to undertake the arrest. The officer was easily twice the size of the rollergirl. Pinner down her torso by her neck was certainly not equal force, nor was it a necessary move to detain her. Hello officer? Here's a tip: She's face down on the pavement. Sit on her legs instead of her neck, and bring her arms behind her back. Her muscular force cannot match your resistance. I promise. *** By all accounts of the incident, there were a very large number of officers present on the scene. Police are trained to, when necessary, use as many officers as possible to detain an arestee. Cases of police brutality most commonly occur when one officer has to do too much to detain someone. Two officers can more easily detain an arestee with far less risk of anyone getting hurt. If she was truly putting up a big fight for a little girl, more than one of those present officers should have pitched in to detain her. This is police brutality. Point blank.
Another tidbit from the thread linked above: http://cyberina.livejournal.com/518280.html?thread=1611144#t1611144 1) In the first photo she is co-operating and has "assumed the position". Even if she "mouthes off" there is no justifiable reason for the use of force. If she "resisted" while being cuffed, there are still limits to the amount of force which can be applied to restrain a suspect. Like force for like force is the watch word of the law enforcement officer in today's law suit happy world. 2) The use of the knee to pin the neck is NOT a sanctioned restraining move (the knee in the back is), because it can block airflow and choke the person being restrained (which is now a police no-no). 3) While her face injury may have occured from falling...if it was as a result of the officer's actions, the DPD is still responsible and liable. 4) The bystander (possibly a security guard) in the red jacket (photo #3, far lt.) is holding a homemade "riot baton" (from appearances, made of dowel rod). I have no idea why the police are permitting that, or why the person is permitted to be close to the situation, as others are being warned away. I wondered who this 'seemingly sanctioned' person was. Maybe he is "club" security?
hmm...i think we see this man holding a red flag out at the time that Officer Gordon is forcing Michelle to the ground - if you look at the pictures, he might have had the best view of the whole incident and could be crucial to the case - i wonder who he was and why he stood there? does he work nearby? i don't think it is anything like a "riot baton" but just the flag's pole :) love ruthie XXXXXX
#837. To: ruthie, RICHARD (#836)
ruthie. michelle got beaten because she was skating. the swine who did this needs to be arrested. lets get this done.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#7. To: Neil McIver (#4)
#11. To: Dakmar (#7)
#15. To: Neil McIver (#11)
#38. To: christine (#15)
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
#39. To: All (#38)
#41. To: Neil McIver (#39)
The account given by the police was given by a "Lt. Rick Watson". But I wonder how likely it is that any loftey Lt. was out on patrol doing grunt work. Watson was more likely giving a pro-police version of the event
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#41)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
#43. To: All (#42)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
#44. To: ALL (#43)
#46. To: Richard (#44)
The cops did their job, and did it well.
#49. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
#50. To: Richard (#49)
#54. To: Elliott Jackalope (#50)
#58. To: Richard (#54)
#60. To: Elliott Jackalope (#58)
#62. To: Richard (#60)
SO... you assert that if NO ONE IS HARMED THERE IS NO CRIME?
#64. To: Elliott Jackalope (#62)
#67. To: Richard (#64)
Then I should be able to go 140 down the middle of downtown Dallas, or in a school zone in the afternoon, provided I don't actually HIT anyone with my car, correct?
#69. To: BTP Holdings (#67)
#70. To: Richard (#69)
He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime.
#72. To: Elliott Jackalope (#70)
#75. To: Richard (#72)
#77. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
#84. To: Richard (#77)
#88. To: Elliott Jackalope (#84)
#92. To: Richard (#88)
As for having sex with my daughter... well, in YOUR world of "No Victim, No Crime", I should be able to do so without a problem.
#93. To: christine (#92)
#97. To: Richard (#93)
According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so.
#100. To: Red Jones (#97)
#102. To: Richard, All (#100)
#105. To: Elliott Jackalope (#102)
#111. To: Richard (#105)
You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority.
#120. To: Elliott Jackalope (#111)
#121. To: Richard (#120)
SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY.
#125. To: Elliott Jackalope (#121)
#130. To: Richard (#125)
You were not there.
#132. To: Elliott Jackalope (#130)
#179. To: Richard (#132)
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
#181. To: tom007 (#179)
#187. To: Richard (#181)
Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
#190. To: tom007 (#187)
#195. To: Richard (#190)
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
#199. To: tom007 (#195)
#206. To: Richard (#199)
ust because she is standing by the police car does not prove anything. There is nothing in the photos that would show that the actions of the police caused her facial injuries.
#208. To: tom007 (#206)
#215. To: Richard, ALL (#208)
I gave my statement and my information to the officers at the scene, and they seemed to believe I was there, and I DO care about that.
#216. To: Hmmmmm (#215)
#217. To: Richard (#216)
They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
#238. To: Hmmmmm (#217)
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
#252. To: Neil McIver (#238)
#275. To: Richard (#252)
Neil, stating that I am sick of drunks on the street does not discredit my testimony at all.
In which case, you would be disqualified because you are prejudiced.
#279. To: Neil McIver (#275)
Neil,
#284. To: Richard (#279)
Are you an attorney?
If not, how can you speak with any credibilty about what a jury would or would not do in any given situation?
Sounds like you are doing more of your "I don't know the TRUTH but here is what I think and so you can take it as the truth."
You asked a question and I told you the truth, I am an honest witenss.
#285. To: Neil McIver (#284)
Neil,
#292. To: Richard (#285)
You dont have to be an attorney to sit on a jury. You DO have to be an attorney to understand that the selection process for jurors is very complex.
Not just anyone gets to be on a jury. Also, to say that juries are better with no attornies on them is an incredibly UNFAIR and BIASED statement, as MOST attornies do not represent the courts, the represent their clients.
Neil, we ALL have biases. Mine do not obstruct my point of view as an eyewitness in this instance. Are you going to sit there and tell me that her drunken buddies DON'T have a bias against the police, or that YOU don't have a bias against the police? You said you were FAIR, but you CLEARLY have a bias against the police.
#293. To: Neil McIver (#292)
Neil,
#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.
#332. To: Neil McIver (#327)
Neil:
#340. To: Richard (#332)
In the 1940s, a black defendant had NO chance of having a black person his jury because there were no black people allowed on juries. Female defendants were denied female jurors in the same fashion. Would you consider those to be IMPARTIAL jury pools simply because they are randomly selected?
#341. To: Neil McIver (#340)
Neil,
#342. To: All (#341)
Perhaps NOW you see how "Random" does not ensure "Impartial" in any way.
#343. To: Richard (#342)
Richard I think maybe you shouldn't have fucked with Tom, yours isn't the only story out there.
#349. To: Hmmmmm (#343)
Hmmmmmm...
#352. To: Richard (#349)
He was not there and is going off hearsay.
#355. To: tom007 (#352)
Tom,
#357. To: Richard (#355)
was there, I saw what I saw. You weren't there, you saw nothing.
#359. To: tom007 (#357)
Tom,
#361. To: Richard (#359)
I gave my statement to the officers at the scene, and they believed me,
#363. To: Jethro Tull (#361)
Oh my sad Aqualung, this case will never go to trial.
#370. To: Richard (#363)
#380. To: Jethro Tull (#370)
Trial? I told you earlier the criminal case is a foregone conclusion. Cops win here. It's about punitive damage at this point. The rules of evidence are different, as you might or might not know. The visual of this kid in court with beef-boy is amusing. The city will pay large to get out of this mess, and beef- boy will be taken off the street and tucked away in the property clerk for the next 10 years.
#382. To: BTP Holdings (#380)
This cop will be lucky if he can get a job in Texas rounding up wetbacks
#387. To: Jethro Tull (#382)
If he can't handle this tiny thing - no matter how she was acting - he doesn't belong on the job. It's scary what the public is beginning to accept. Had this happened in Harlem, with the colors of the actors reversed, 125th St would still be on fire.
#392. To: BTP Holdings (#387)
#395. To: Richard (#392)
#397. To: christine (#395)
Christine,
#402. To: Richard (#397)
That she got a scratch on her face does not indicate in any way that Michelle was innocent or that inappropriate force was used, Christine.
#410. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#402)
I agree although I'd describe the scratch as a laceration based on the amount of blood on the pavement. I don't see blood on the cop in the photos nor do I see his head and face on the ground.
#413. To: BTP Holdings (#410)
#419. To: christine (#413)
#441. To: Richard (#419)
... you were NOT there, and I was.
#447. To: Neil McIver (#441)
Were you there, Richard?
#486. To: Richard (#447)
I emphasize it because people like you consistently try to say that I was not there.
#495. To: Neil McIver (#486)
I never said you weren't there.
#608. To: Richard (#495)
However, you have skirted the edge with implications that you don't belive I was there on more than one occasion.
Or perhaps that was your continuing to call me a liar and a fruitcake your way of saying "Hey, Richard, I believe you were there and I believe that what you are saying is indeed what you saw."
#614. To: Neil McIver (#608)
#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.
#639. To: Starwind (#632)
#641. To: siagiah (#639)
No, if an informed patient refuses treatment at the scene, they sign papers stating that
#694. To: Richard, all (#641)
Saigiah,
#698. To: siagiah (#694)
#711. To: Richard (#698)
To: siagiah saigiah,
#712. To: siagiah (#711)
#714. To: Richard, all (#712)
Siagiah,
#716. To: siagiah (#714)
#718. To: Richard (#716)
So many people today are doing whatever they can to avoid taking personal responsibilty for their actions. No matter what happens it never seems to be their fault.
#720. To: All (#718)
#725. To: tom007, Richard, All (#720)
To: All O I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
#730. To: siagiah (#725)
Not much else is known as fact so that's all we have to work with that is indisputable... Can we at least all agree on something?
#731. To: Merlin, siagiah (#730)
#738. To: Jethro Tull, Merlin, siagiah (#731)
No, I can't agree with siagiah, or apparently you. The kid was submissive to authority (see photos) and for the police officer to allow the incident to reach the point it did show a lack of control on his part. Add his past history of aggressive behavior and it’s clear to me who the criminal is here. The cop needs to be fired and the Dallas PD sued for millions. That's all the power structure knows.
#743. To: BTP Holdings, all (#738)
#744. To: Jethro Tull (#743)
#748. To: siagiah (#744)
Which PROVES what?
#749. To: Jethro Tull (#748)
#752. To: siagiah (#749)
I'd be interested in hearing all about what made her get drunk,
go rollerskating in the middle of a highway, and then resist arrest...
#756. To: Jethro Tull, siagiah (#752)
I'd be interested in hearing all about what made her get drunk, go rollerskating in the middle of a highway, and then resist arrest...
I dunno.
#759. To: Starwind (#756)
#768. To: ruthie, Jethro Tull (#759)
#769. To: BTP Holdings (#768)
#770. To: ruthie (#769)
Michelle wrote me and said that "(this)...web site you sent me made me very happy to know that people who don't even know me or the whole story know injustice when they see it and are willing to stand up and say it..."
#771. To: BTP Holdings (#770)
Kisses back atcha. ;0)
#772. To: ruthie (#771)
Kisses back atcha. ;0)
#773. To: BTP Holdings (#772)
i just LOVE those ears LOL! :) ruthie XXXXXX
#775. To: ruthie (#773)
#776. To: christine (#775)
#777. To: Feynman Lives! (#776)
#780. To: Jethro Tull (#777)
well well - "Richard" is at it again - take a look at http://jombe.com/blog/2006/01/18/state-propaganda-1-fact-checkers-0/
#782. To: ALL, ruthie (#780)
from ruthie's link and thanks for the link, ruthie!
#785. To: christine (#782)
sexist to the point of mysogeny
#788. To: ruthie, Jethro Tull, BTP Holdings, Elliott Jackalope, tom007, markm0722 (#785)
more pics of those ears
#796. To: All (#788)
#802. To: All (#796)
Well. I'm not sure what quite has happened, but there are some observations to be made. The photos, although incomplete are still pretty damning (especially if it happens to go before a jury).
#836. To: All (#802)
The bystander (possibly a security guard) in the red jacket (photo #3, far lt.) is holding a homemade "riot baton" (from appearances, made of dowel rod). I have no idea why the police are permitting that, or why the person is permitted to be close to the situation, as others are being warned away
Replies to Comment # 836.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 836.
