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: 12768
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
#1. To: All (#0)
Pig mother effers. IMVHO, a .45 cal should be mandatory when roller-skating in Dallas.
man, these freaks are so out of control, it's not even funny. i hope this girl gets herself a bulldog attorney.
My stepfather was a cop, and I learned a lot about cops while I still associated with my family. I learned that happy, well adjusted people who like themselves and like life don't become cops.
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: christine (#2)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
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?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#5. To: ALl (#2)
And never let these freaks administer a field sobriety test. You'll fail - they'll make sure of it. What are they going to do to this girl, suspend her driver’s license? She was on fucking skates.
#6. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
i think that's probably truer today than it was 10-20 yrs ago. there was a time when cops were there to protect and serve. that's no longer the training they get. they're enforcers of policy (militarized) and revenue generators for the state.
#7. To: Neil McIver (#4)
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.
"We have our own values; we build our own special, our JEWISH life - and we are proud, so very proud." - Meir Kahane
#8. To: Neil McIver (#4)
"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. standard CYA. did anyone else who wasn't a fellow officer state the same?
She resisted and attacked the officer, Lt. Rick Watson said.
#9. To: Neil McIver (#4)
Neil , this girl has every constitutional right to "aggravating the situation." She has the right to tell the officer to fuck off and go find a real criminal. Nothing criminal in that statement. If I were an investigative journalist, I'd look thru the police criminal reports during that time frame and see what was happening around Dallas while this oaf was beating up this "criminal."
The story claims witnesses said she was aggravating the situation by attacking the cop. Were the witnesses impartial?
#10. To: christine (#6)
Yep, and amen. And if they can get off by beating to death someone, so much the better, for them. Resisting arrest, dontchaknow?
there was a time when cops were there to protect and serve. that's no longer the training they get. they're enforcers of policy and revenue generators for the state.
#11. To: Dakmar (#7)
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#12. To: christine (#8)
That's the question. Are the witnesses cops or impartial passers-by?
standard CYA. did anyone else who wasn't a fellow officer state the same?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
Agreed, but if she attacked the cop, as described, then the rules changed. Maybe she didn't, but it's an important fact to know.
Neil , this girl has every constitutional right to "aggravating the situation." She has the right to tell the officer to fuck off and go find a real criminal. Nothing criminal in that statement.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#14. To: Neil McIver, Jethro Tull (#13)
Even granting that she may have been drunk and disorderly, the level of force used to subdue her appears to have been disproportionate. It's not like she was waving an AK47 or something, the primary reason for arrest was to prevent her from hurting herself.
Agreed, but if she attacked the cop, as described, then the rules changed.
"We have our own values; we build our own special, our JEWISH life - and we are proud, so very proud." - Meir Kahane
#15. To: Neil McIver (#11)
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
#16. To: christine (#15)
Yep, those are more than scrapes. The bloody papers in the last photograph are also visible in next-to-last, looks like quite a bit of blood.
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
"We have our own values; we build our own special, our JEWISH life - and we are proud, so very proud." - Meir Kahane
#17. To: Dakmar (#7)
Just like the discredited US army is responsible for the detainees at Abu Graib
t that point she seems to be in custody, and police are responsible for her.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#18. To: christine (#8)
YEP. Cops just want to have fun.
standard CYA.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#19. To: lodwick (#10)
Not to sound too harsh, but if that fat prick winds up with one in the head, I won't shed a tear.
#20. To: Dakmar (#14)
If she was drunk, she'd be even easier to control. There looks to be a 200 pound difference bet her and the doughnut muncher.
Even granting that she may have been drunk and disorderly, the level of force used to subdue her appears to have been disproportionate.
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
The white cop in pix #4 would not look the lady in the face -' he is (or should be) ashamed of what he is a part of. I'll say it - the black cop needs hanging. There it is, it's obvious. Yes and on MLK day - I dare say he would agree with me and any other thinking person as well. She may have weighed in at 130 lbs?? Him 220 if an ounce. DISGUSTING- hang him and the chief of police as well. That will help the criminals think about the consequences of their actions.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
And she's on skates. Common sense would dictate either the skates be removed or she be put in back seat of patrol car. Cops made us stop stop racing ten-speed bikes in empty (abandoned) parking lot one time, and we were only a little bit drunk.
"We have our own values; we build our own special, our JEWISH life - and we are proud, so very proud." - Meir Kahane
#23. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
Yeh a chick in a miniskirt on rolling skates - a real threat to the public safety.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#24. To: tom007 (#21)
If the colors of these two were reversed, Sharpton, Jackson and the other racial scumbags would light the town up. Yes, hang the porker.
I'll say it - the black cop needs hanging. There it is, it's obvious.
#25. To: Dakmar (#22)
The cops tried to get me to stop breaking into cars once. Thank goodness I could run!
#26. To: All (#25)
The mother's pulled down the pics!!!!
#27. To: Neil McIver, Jethro Tull, christine (#4)
The guy who took the pics says someone on the sidewalk made a wisecrack at the girl. She kinda turned halfway to respond to them and that is when the cop flipped out on her. Clearly off the wall and over reaction. Notice that the cop is kneeling on her neck and also has his knee on her spine. I can tell you from experience that is how to really put some serious hurt on someone. And this guy had to weigh in at 250. Some kinda tough guy, NOT. I would have kicked him in the head if I was there and saw the whole thing. Imagine if it was a white cop and a black girl. Half of Dallas and maybe Ft. Worth would be in flames. Here is what the guy said on another forum, 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?
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 weird. 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 struggled back up, and he shoved her around.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#28. To: Jethro Tull (#26)
Probably exceeded bandwidth on the hosting site at tinypic.
The mother's pulled down the pics!!!!
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#29. To: BTP Holdings (#28)
Translate, BTP? WIll they be back up?
#30. To: BTP Holdings (#27)
The Patroit Act is again protecting us. Go back to watching the regularly programmed TV show or rent a movie about the Holocost.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#26)
Hate us cause we're free.
he mother's pulled down the pics!!!!
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#29)
I think so. There is a daily bandwidth limit on many of these hosting sites. The first place he had them only lasted a few hours and he reposted them to the new venue. Now it seems that has run out also. Maybe after midnight or some time tomorrow they will be up again. Best thing is to copy the properties links and try to get them later on by linking to them directly and copying them to your HD. My experience in working crowd control tells me this incident stinks to high heaven. I've seen it happen, it's sort of like a gang situation. And what is worse, these thugs are heavily armed.
Translate, BTP? WIll they be back up?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#33. To: Dakmar (#22)
Back about 15 years ago when I used to bicycle race two of us got pulled over for speeding in a residential speed zone (clocked 31 in a 25). I about lost my mind. True, the town we were in was pretty quiet, but no place is so quiet to warrant pulling two cyclists over for speeding. Cars in the area commonly go faster than that. The cop told us that we were doing well (but not any longer, standing still with heartbeat still at like 160 beats per minute), but that traffic laws applied to us too.
Cops made us stop stop racing ten-speed bikes in empty (abandoned) parking lot one time
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
Jethro Tull posted on 2006-01-16 21:47:06 ET Can you imagine the uproar if it were a 240 lb white idiot cop and a 120 lb black fox on roller skates ........................ This beast need to be sent back to Brazzeville, Congo and be eaten by his bros. Sorry if I offened anyone. (Not really).
If the colors of these two were reversed, Sharpton, Jackson and the other racial scumbags would light the town up. Yes, hang the porker.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#35. To: historian1944, TommyTheMadArtist (#33)
that's one of those *you gotta be shitting me* stories.
#36. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
All I see is some chick with her face bloodied. I'd be the first one to rail on this situation, but after reading the article, and seeing the pictures, it can go either way as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure she'll be making money off of this with her lawyer, and the cop will likely get a slap on the wrist if anything else happens. People should be less concerned about a black cop and a white idiot getting roughed up, and be more concerned that so many stupid people live in this world and wreck it for the rest of us.
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#37. To: Dakmar (#14)
I agree that does appear to be the case.
the level of force used to subdue her appears to have been disproportionate.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#38. To: christine (#15)
That much blood doesn't come from mere scrapes.
looks to me like a head laceration that bled down her face. look at the amount of blood on the pavement.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#39. To: All (#38)
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#40. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Maybe he was just getting some practice in on smacking white girls around, as he hasn't had the chance to get some licks in since his white girlfriend told him to get lost. I wonder if this fat pig would have been so brave had the "subject" been a "banger"...
#41. To: Neil McIver (#39)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman. 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)
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)
“I can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#43. To: All (#42)
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 can not comment on his state of mind,” said Lt. Rick Watson, a Dallas PD spokesman.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#44. To: ALL (#43)
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.
#45. To: Richard (#44)
Hi Richard, First, welcome to 4um. I'm sure your account will inspire a lot of commentary. A few questions: Did you see her "swing" at the police officer? She wasn't simply "cut" as you suggest. Her face was badly scraped up and there is enough blood in the street to form a small puddle. How can you suggest the officer used sufficient minimal force, as police are supposed to be trained to do, with that kind of harm inflicted? I for one don't defend reckless behavior that endangers others. But being drunk and/or stoned and argumentative does not justify overwhelming crushing force. Even if she did take a swing at the officer, it does not justify scraping her face against the road and cutting her so badly.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#46. To: Richard (#44)
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.
The cops did their job, and did it well.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#47. To: Neil McIver (#45)
Neil, Yes, I did see her swing at the officer. She was cut on the face, and facial lacerations bleed a lot. She was not severly harmed. The bottom line is simple: If she had not resisted, she would not have been harmed, nor taken into custody. She would have been cited and released. If you are trying to say that it is "ok" for her to take a swing at a police officer, then you lose from the start. In whose world is it "ok" to swing on the people who are here to protect us from the kinds of people who have such disregard for our society that they would swing on the police? She got what she deserved.
"Even if she did take a swing at the officer, it does not justify scraping her face against the road and cutting her so badly."
#48. To: Richard (#44)
Hi Richard, and welcome. About the above comment, no, we don't have to respect the police. I don't and I was a member for years. Today they've become nothing more that revenue collectors for local government - heavy handed ones at that. What they did to this girl is the real crime, imo. Having spent nearly 15 years on the NYPD, beginning in the late 60's, I saw lots of serious criminal activity. Roller skating, even under the influence, isn't one of them. I can think of countless ways a 250 pound, trained police officer could have handled this, but this guy seemingly chose the least civilian friendly method. I believe a Dallas PD spokesman (Watson) was interviewed for the article? Well, let the spin begin. This goof is going to need spin. Those pictures paint an ugly picture. If this were my daughter that cop would have one pissed off ex cop all over his butt. Lets see how this all shakes out. At the very least the guy should be fired, sued and possibly jailed.
As civillians, we need to respect the police.
#49. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
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.
#50. To: Richard (#49)
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".
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#51. To: Jethro Tull (#48)
Hi Jethro, First off, I appreciate and acknowledge your service to this country. That said, in this instance, you were not present at the scene, I was. The girl was rollerskating in the middle of a busy street and the police asked her nicely to stop. She did not. Then, when they were going to give her a ticket for her actions, she got violent. The police begain with a civillain friendly method - Michelle chose to take Door #2. Are you suggesting, as a 15 year vet of the NYPD, that if a woman took a swing at you that you would simply laugh it off and release her? I don't think so. The officer in question subdued his attacker, plain and simple. He should not be fired, sued nor jailed for his actions. You were not there, Jethro, I was.
#52. To: Richard (#49)
I'd feel safer with Michelle keeping me safe from your cop
The police are put in place by society to keep us safe from people like Michelle.
#53. To: Jethro Tull, Richard, Neil McIver (#48)
I agree with you JT. I'm sure there's a lot of fine police fellows, just as there are in any profession. even among drug smugglers there's some fine people. but the police in this country have done so many horrible things. How can we respect them any more! As far as Richard's commentary - I am skeptical of it. an eye-witness - how convenient. there's no excuse for drawing all that blood from someone, especially a woman.
we don't have to respect the police
#54. To: Elliott Jackalope (#50)
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.
#55. To: Richard (#51)
LOL - Thanks, but I didn't serve the country. For me it was the NYPD or Vietnam. I chose the paycheck, over an illegal war. If she took a swing at me, I'd have grabbed her arm and cuffed her. No takedown, complete with a knee in the back, was necessary. I realize you were there, and I think your testimony will be invaluable in the civil portion of this matter. Just repeat exactly what you have in this post. It reeks of excessive force.
First off, I appreciate and acknowledge your service to this country.
#56. To: Red Jones (#53)
Red, Wow, you are quite the conspiracy theorist to presume that I am lying about being an eye-witness to this idiotic woman's behavior. What would I possibly stand to gain? The police have my information and I told them I would be happy to testify if needed. Perhaps you think they are paying me? Sorry... I live in Deep Ellum and am sick to death of the drunken idiots that think that "the man" is there to keep them down. The police are there to protect the law abiding citizens from the rest of you. Michelle was drunk and skating in the middle of the street. She was told not to skate in the street and chose to do so anyway. You are upset because the police arrested a woman? How incredibly sexist of you. Would you have felt better if she had successfully managed to gouge out the officers eye as she was trying to do? Then would his actions be justified? Sorry, Red, but you really don't have much ground to stand on here if you are trying to introduce the sex of the criminal as justification for her actions.
#57. To: Red Jones (#53)
When we stop respecting them Red, they might start behaving. Same goes for most forms of government that I can think of. None are worthy of my respect.
#58. To: Richard (#54)
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.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#59. To: Jethro Tull (#55)
Jethro, Yes, in fact, you DID serve your country by serving the city of New York. Perhaps you don't see the bigger picture, but in any event, your work is appreciated. So you would have grabber her arm and cuffed her? Simple as that, eh? And it always goes smoothly, because the criminal does not continue to resist? LOL This was not a "little girl" but a professional rollerderby skater. She knew how to fight and chose to do so at her own peril. She lost. As she should. I will be happy to testify to her illegal and violent behavior in court if asked to do so.
#60. To: Elliott Jackalope (#58)
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.
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#57)
Jethro, Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one.
#62. To: Richard (#60)
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...
SO... you assert that if NO ONE IS HARMED THERE IS NO CRIME?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#63. To: Richard (#59)
Richard, trust me, I didn't. I'm not entirely sure if the statute of limitations are expired on.....oh, never mind....(g)
Yes, in fact, you DID serve your country by serving the city of New York.
#64. To: Elliott Jackalope (#62)
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.
#65. To: Richard, Jethro Tull (#61)
Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one. Yeah, JT, you hate America. Where have we heard this tripe before? ROTFLOL!
Jethro,
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#66. To: BTP Holdings (#65)
I never suggest that he hated America. I was simply offering him an alternative to living in a country that he does not hold in high esteem. You read far too much into things, BTP
#67. To: Richard (#64)
Richard, you are being sophomoric again. ;0)
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?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#68. To: Richard (#66)
No, I'm not. Unfortunately, I have to step out for a few hours. I'll expand on this later if you will be around.
You read far too much into things, BTP
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#69. To: BTP Holdings (#67)
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.
#70. To: Richard (#69)
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.
He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#71. To: Richard (#69)
He suggested that if there is no visible victim, then there is no crime. That opens the door to a lot of things. Yes, it does open the door to many things. Be careful on which door you decide to twist the doorknob. From what I've seen here you have very little understanding of the proper role of police in society or the citizen's duty under corrupt government. Perhaps that is why you are a slave and haven't the slightest clue that you are so thoroughly bound. As I said above, we will continue this later. I have to go for now.
I am simply dumbing down my game to the level of my comrade....
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#72. To: Elliott Jackalope (#70)
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
#73. To: BTP Holdings (#71)
BTP... PLEASE do tell me what you think the proper rolle of the police in society is. Then tell me how that role was violated with the incident where Michelle was arrested after being warned, and then taken into custody after attacking the police. I am eager to hear this.
#74. To: Richard (#61)
I refuse to leave my country until Washington DC is set ablaze and there are 534 members of congress swinging from various trees. Ron Paul catches a break.
Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one.
#75. To: Richard (#72)
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.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#76. To: Richard (#49)
Richard I concur with your observation, I think what you are missing is our contempt and mistrust of the police. Just wanted to set the record straight. Oh!.. and fuck society! It's for the children you know, mine.
.....and you all are showing a great amount of disrespect for the police.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#77. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
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....
#78. To: Jethro Tull (#74)
NFW this asshole is for real. That would mean that there actually is a perfect asshole. More likely an "old freind" or Pys-op specialist like ................
Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#79. To: Richard (#77)
My dog will handle that, again.
screw my daughter if she is horny?
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#80. To: Hmmmmm (#78)
I was going to say I want sloppy seconds on his daughter, but I thought better...
#81. To: Jethro Tull (#80)
LOL... Well, in Elliot's World, you can!
#82. To: Flintlock (#79)
Now there's a visual! The audio: Oh god! Oh god! Oooooooooooooooooh...............
My dog will handle that, again.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#83. To: Richard (#81)
Thank goodness...a sense of humor :)
#84. To: Richard (#77)
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...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#85. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
Funny Richard is a brand new poster, who just happened to be there, assures us the Dallas police, with their culture if violence, assures us the poor men did nothing incorrect. Remarkable, isn't it?? Looks like all the Homeland security is busy protecting the reputation of the Dallas police. And Richard has no credibility with me.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#86. To: Richard, all (#81)
OMG! It's true. It's true. Maybe
LOL...
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#87. To: tom007 (#85)
We really need to rename the Department of Defense with their original name of "Department of War", and then rename Homeland inSecurity with the name "Department of Peace", and then we need to sic them on each other. That'll keep them out of our hair...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#88. To: Elliott Jackalope (#84)
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.
#89. To: tom007 (#85)
Tom, I am a new poster, who LIVES in Deep Ellum, and was coming out of July Alley (across the street) when this incident happened. I don't assure you of anthing about the DPD and their culture, nor am I affiliated with them. However, I was an eye-witness to the event in question, and you were not. I am not protecting anyone, I am simply speaking as someone who was there and saw the events unfold. You are just a reactionary looking at photos of a girl who is bleeding and you dont care that she brought that upon herself due to her violent actions. I don't care if I have "credibility" with you. I don't need it.
#90. To: Richard (#88)
You may think you are clever, but in case you have yet to notice nobody else is buying it...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#91. To: Elliott Jackalope (#90)
Elliot, I am using YOUR RULES. No Victim, No Crime. Perhaps now you see how stupid your rules are....
#92. To: Richard (#88)
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.
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)
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.
#94. To: Richard (#72)
Richard, if you're on the level, then you're the kind of a guy that goose- steps. It's not a good thing.
#95. To: Red Jones (#94)
Red, I don't goose-step by any means. I just understand what happened with Michelle and what did NOT happen with Michelle because I WAS THERE. It is easy for you to slam the police when you don't know the facts. I know the facts, and they did their job. Michelle made her bed and has to lie in it, blood and all. You don't fight with the police.
#96. To: christine (#92)
As I see it, there are only two kinds of guy that would introduce the concept of having sex with their daughter into a discussion for the sake of winning an argument: 1. Those that really don't have a daughter and 2. Those that really do have sex with their daughter
#97. To: Richard (#93)
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.
According to that law, if my daughter wants to have sex with me, then I should be free to do so.
#98. To: Red Jones (#94)
To misquote Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue." I'm one of those liberty freaks, I deeply resent those who are willing to surrender inalienable rights to others simply because they brandish symbols of authority. Picking fights with cops is just stupid, but mindlessly obeying cops simply because they are cops is downright cowardly...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#99. To: Sonovademocrat (#96)
Christine, I was introducing it to illustrate (and you are the perfect example of this) that Elliot's concept of "No Victim, No Crime" just does not work. Thank you for bolstering my point.
#100. To: Red Jones (#97)
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.
#101. To: Elliott Jackalope (#98)
Elliot, You got one right! Picking fights with cops IS indeed just stupid! Well done! You CAN learn! I am excited for you. Not sure what you mean by "mindlessly obeying cops" in this instance... she was warned, and after being warned she chose to break the law again.
#102. To: Richard, All (#100)
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.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#103. To: Richard (#47)
If you are trying to say that it is "ok" for her to take a swing at a police officer, then you lose from the start. I never said this, nor implied it. (Though it is lawful to resist and unlawful arrest, so there are some circumstances when it's okay).
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#104. To: Richard (#88)
Tell her to leave my dog alone.
As for having sex with my daughter..
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#105. To: Elliott Jackalope (#102)
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.
#106. To: Richard (#49)
Not necessarily true. People have been shot dead by police for no good cause, and the homes of innocents raided in the night and so forth. You can't tell me all cops are good cops. Plainly they are not. Some are good and some are bad. Same is true for people in all walks of life.
Your stepfather was right, if you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#107. To: Neil McIver (#103)
Neil, If you have been arrested by the police, you do not have the right to resist. If you feel your arrest is unlawful, you have the courts sytem as your point of recourse. If you are NOT saying that it is "Ok" for Michelle to attack the police officer, then this entire conversation is moot. The only reason she was taken into custody was because she resisted arrest. Care to try again?
#108. To: Neil McIver (#106)
Neil, I never said all cops are good cops. MOST cops are good cops. There are good and bad people in all walks of life. That does NOT give you the right to resist arrest or to assault a police officer.
#109. To: Flintlock (#104)
Flint, But your dog is so damned sexy, how can she resist?
#110. To: Richard (#56)
Then you are not unbiased in your testimony. You live there and are sick of drunk people being about. Thus, she got what she deserved, not necessarily because of resisting arrest, but (perhaps?) because she was one of those drunk people, and anything done to clean up the town is fine with you.... ?? (I'm asking respectfully.... do you consider yourself a neutral observer in this case?)
What would I possibly stand to gain? The police have my information and I told them I would be happy to testify if needed. Perhaps you think they are paying me? Sorry... I live in Deep Ellum and am sick to death of the drunken idiots that think that "the man" is there to keep them down.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#111. To: Richard (#105)
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.
You still have not stated how people (myself included) "Mindlessly Obey" authority.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#112. To: Richard (#100)
this is one of the problems with goose-steppers. They have a problem with discernment. They would not be goose-steppers but that they cannot see clearly, their minds have become eroded. Please read carefully. I did not say that you were a goose-stepper because you used elliott's concept in a perverted way. You said this, and then you attributed it to me. Poor logic. poor discernment. I said you were a goose-stepper based on your whole post. It is obvious to the casual observer that you are a goose-stepper. Meaning you have a fascist mentality, an glorification of the police and an exaggerated and legalistic glorification of the law and a desire to maliciously punish elements that you can punish via the law and the police. As a matter of fact, I first said you were a goose-stepper in one post, then told you about why having sex with your daughter is not a victimless crime in a following post. Your mind has been degraded that you cannot handle simple logical thought. This happens when you reject god and reject his ways. Goose-steppers normally replace god with government. They worship government instead of god. and thus their minds become deteriorated over time.
How is using Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime making me a goose stepper?
#113. To: Richard (#61)
Perhaps you should consider leaving the country if you are not willing to respect the laws of this one. There are, in fact, people considering just such a thing.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#114. To: Red Jones (#112)
Well stated, Red. Although I am hostile to religion I do very much believe in God, although I have problems with how God is conceptualized by most people. However, I believe in the concept of "God-given" rights, which is something that I know you also believe strongly in as well. You go Yahweh, I'll go mine, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that we'll both meet again somewhere in a better place than this...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#115. To: Neil McIver (#110)
Neil, Yes, I do consider myself neutral. It was EASY to see what happened. Drunk girl asked to stop skating in the street. She does not stop. She was arrested. She was not pleased with being arrested. She displayed a lot of "attitude." She took swipe at officer. She got put on the ground and handcuffed. Michelle screwed up and paid the price. Pretty simple.
#116. To: Elliott Jackalope (#114)
I appreciate that Elliott. We can argue endlessly on religion as you say. and the bible says that god's the judge, not us. I can't stand a lot of the christians myself, and I am christian (allegedly anyway).
#117. To: Richard (#115)
She got put on the ground and handcuffed. And in the process ended up getting beaten bloody. A little 100 lb girl beaten bloody by a 250 lb cop. Some of us have a problem with that. Apparently you don't, and that is the difference between you and the rest of us on this forum.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#118. To: Neil McIver (#113)
There are, in fact, people who have already done such a thing. See: Belize, Costa Rica, British Columbia, Switzerland, Chile, and so on...
There are, in fact, people considering just such a thing.
#119. To: Red Jones (#116)
You're a good man, Red. A little stubborn sometimes, but a good man to the core. You got a lot of heart...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#120. To: Elliott Jackalope (#111)
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.
#121. To: Richard (#120)
Gosh, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
SHE WAS NOT BEATEN BLOODY.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#122. To: Richard (#88)
Roads are designed to for cars to use a certain way and up to a certain speed. Road engineers know all about this. Driving a car on a road inconsistant with it's design, such as going too fast or straying into the opposite lane, is reckless endangerment. That's when the line is crossed (so to speak). It may be that somewhere, 120 MPH on main street is consistant with it's design. If so, then it's okay to go that fast. But otherwise, the victims are the locals who are put at unreasonable risk by the excessive speed. Uhhh... the bank owner? Customers with deposits you steal? Perhaps you think stealing money from someone doesn't hurt them. If so, would you mind if I steal $50,000 from you? I promise it won't hurt. Many of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws say you're wrong. (as an aside).
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#123. To: Red Jones (#112)
Red, Wow, you really paint with a broad brush. I have no desire to maliciously punish ANYONE. I do believe that there are laws on the books, and there are people in place to enforce those laws. Those people should be listened to, and should not be attacked. Those who choose to attack the police are in effect, attacking the law. The law was created by society, so they are attacking society as well. Apparently you and your Boogeyman have a lot of room for people to disrespect the law... But wait... not according to your god.... your god also says that homosexuals should be killed and that I can sell my daughter into slavery, and that all football players should be killed for touching pigskin. Your god is a deep thinker...
#124. To: Elliott Jackalope (#117)
Elliot, A 100lb girl who was NOT BEATEN BLOODY. She was ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER and was taken to the ground. She was not BEATEN in any way. You were NOT there. I WAS. I saw what happened and what both parties did. She was fighting with a cop and got subdued. The pictures simply show the result of her fighting with the police. Are you now advocating that anyone who is a woman weighing less than the arresting officer be allowed to attack that police officer? Her weight does not come into play here.
#125. To: Elliott Jackalope (#121)
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.
#126. To: Richard, christine (#93)
This is the common notion that people use to disregard general libertarian thinking that people should be free to do what they want as long as they hurt no one. "What about children?" I agree that libertarians who believe children/minors should have full right to choose their own destinies in all matters of life are wrong, though I don't know any who say that. That right applies only to adults. As a libertarian, I believe children/minors need to be bound from such decisions until they reach the age of consent.
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#127. To: Neil McIver (#122)
If I am driving fast or drunk, and no one gets hurt, there is no victim. Show me the victim. If I walk into a bank, point my handgun at the teller and ask for $50,000, and she kindly gives it to me with out my having to discharge my firearm, then there is no victim. She gave me the money willingly. Any supposed "threat" was imagined because I did not harm her. The bank has the money insured, so they are not victims. The insurance company gets paid premiums for exactly these kinds of occurances, so they are not victims. If I rob a bank and don't harm anyone... according to Elliot... I have not committed a crime. We are not looking at the existing laws, Neil.... We are looking at the world thru ELLIOT'S eyes.... Neil,
#128. To: Neil McIver (#126)
The "age of consent" varies in cultures from 12 to 18.
#129. To: Elliott Jackalope (#121)
Elliot, All your pictures show is the police arresting a woman who happens to be bleeding. I see no evidence of police brutality in those photos. A woman who is bleeding is sitting on the ground, and being handcuffed in one photo.
#130. To: Richard (#125)
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..
You were not there.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#131. To: Richard (#107)
If it's an unlawful arrest, then the officer is not acting as a police officer but merely as his own person under color of law. It *IS* lawful to resist an unlawful arrest, and there has been at least one case where the courts agreed. Granted, courts won't decide until well after the fact whether the arrest was lawful or not, so the consciencious resister does take the chance of a favorable outcome upon choosing to resist. True, but it's not the only course open. And circumstances may well make resisting arrest the preferred moral response, such as to take immediate action to save a life that the police will not save for whatever reason. For the second time, I did not say this, nor did I imply it. After you....
If you have been arrested by the police, you do not have the right to resist.
If you feel your arrest is unlawful, you have the courts sytem as your point of recourse.
If you are NOT saying that it is "Ok" for Michelle to attack the police officer, then this entire conversation is moot. The only reason she was taken into custody was because she resisted arrest.
Care to try again?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#132. To: Elliott Jackalope (#130)
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.
#133. To: Richard (#115)
You may well be a witness as you say, but you lose credibility by saying you are sick of drunk people on your street, and yet claim to be unbiased in this incident. I consider everything you said after this statement to be hogwash, whether it's accurate or not. If you do get to the witness stand, you can bet the girl's attorney will be questioning your credibility as an unbiased witness before the jury, and rightly so.
Yes, I do consider myself neutral.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#134. To: Richard (#132)
There are also statements by witnesses who claim to have seen excessive force. Here's the bottom line: This looks bad. Now, if we all lived in Mayberry and knew that good ol' Sheriff Andy and deputy Barney were on the job, we'd all be more inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt. However, we live in the USA of 2005, a place populated by fear-biting cops who hand out 10k DUI citations to people who had one drink, who practice "testalying" and who have largely turned themselves into black-clad robocops who shoot first and ask questions later. Being as this is the ugly reality of our times, don't be surprised when incidents like this result in a whole lot of pissed off citizens screaming for cop heads on a platter. That's what one gets when one's profession becomes taken over by fear-biting robocops.
"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."
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#135. To: who knows what evil (#118)
Quite a few, in fact. I remember watching cspan some 10 years ago and it was a hearing before a congressional committee where IRS guys were essentially lobbying for an increase in penalties for people who expatriated to avoid taxes. Apparently they figured these guys should get some kind of expatriation tax. I thought perhaps putting up a wall & barbed wire fence and machine-gunned guard towers around the USA would be a good way to keep people IN who wanted to leave. Hey, one form of coersion is as good as another, right? So much for "if you don't like this country, why don't you leave?"
There are, in fact, people who have already done such a thing. See: Belize, Costa Rica, British Columbia, Switzerland, Chile, and so on...
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#136. To: Neil McIver (#131)
Neil, Let me be more clear for you. WHAT NOT TO DO IF ARRESTED Any law enforcement officer such as a policeman, sheriff, deputy sheriff or state trooper can make a lawful arrest. The arrest may be made with a warrant or, under certain circumstances, without a warrant. Do not resist a law enforcement officer who attempts to arrest you - even if you are innocent. The fact that you are innocent will not make the arrest illegal if the officer’s action conformed to the requirements of a legal arrest as stated above. If the arrest is legal and you resist, you may be guilty of the crime of resisting lawful arrest. If the arrest is illegal, you are entitled to bring an action against the law enforcement officer for false arrest. Do not resist a law officer’s attempt to search or "frisk" you. It is legal for an arresting officer to search your person and the area in your immediate presence. Even if he does not arrest you, an officer - after identifying himself - may stop you in any public place if he has reason to believe that you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime. He may demand your name and address and an explanation of your actions. If he reasonably suspects that he or another is in danger of being attacked, he may search you for weapons. Now... Getting back to the matter at hand... We can clearly see where Michelle screwed up and got herself promoted from "Simple Citation" to "Arrested and Jailed."
#137. To: Elliott Jackalope (#134)
Elliot, So, now that you have conceded that Michelle was in the wrong, now you go with IT LOOKS BAD? Tough. She broke the law. If she had been hit by a car after the police had warned her against skating in the streets, you would be first in line asking for the cops who DIDN'T stop her to be fired. If you fear your safety in this city so much, perhaps you should move.
#138. To: Richard (#137)
I have had no problem with the idea that she was in the wrong, my problem is with her being beaten in the streets by a cop. As far as the whole "she broke the law" argument, hell, that can be applied to everybody in this country. There are so many things "against the law" nowadays that everybody is always guilty of something. As far as if she had been hit by a car, my response would have been "tough titty", she gets drunk and rollerskates in traffic, then she's a grown girl and she takes her chances. And no, I don't live in Texas, and I wouldn't live in that state for any reason. I visited there once for about a month twenty years ago, and got my fill of it in that time. Once again, there is a difference between deserving to be arrested and deserving to be beaten. If this girl had instead been a 250 lb guy, we would not be having this discussion. But officer FearBiter decided to smack around a little girl, and now he's all upset because people like me are pissed off about it. Tough. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#139. To: Richard (#136)
WHAT NOT TO DO IF ARRESTED All well and fine. Nonetheless, it is lawful to resist an unlawful arrest.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#140. To: Elliott Jackalope (#138)
Elliot, She broke the law. MORE IMPORTANLTY. She RESISTED ARREST AND ATTACKED A POLICE OFFICER. She was NEVER beaten. NEVER BEATEN. Get it thru your head. I was there. She was wrestled to the ground, and other than cutting her face on the ground while she was struggling, she was not harmed. SHE WAS NOT BEATEN. Being as how YOU were not there and I was, you have no business even suggesting such a thing.
#141. To: Neil McIver (#139)
Neil, How does one determine an "unlawful arrest?" Do you have a law degree and have you passed the bar in every state in the union? You are free to fight with the cops all you want, just be prepared to get your head handed to you for your troubles, and rightfully so.
#142. To: Richard (#100)
There ARE laws against INCEST ya know. BTW, how long have you been screwing your 17 year old daughter? 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years?
she is of the age of consent and can have sex with whomever she pleases
#143. To: FormerLurker (#142)
Lurker, You need to read the whole thread before you go of on your little rant. The comment you read was made inside of "Elliot's World." In Elliot's World, if there is No Victim, there is No Crime. Keep things in context.
#144. To: Richard, Red Jones (#56)
Wow, you must be quite a dolt if you think anyone believes that some witness to this incident just happened to find 4um in order to "relate" his side of the story. Is this the sort of piss poor quality psy-op that our tax money buys these days? Sheesh.
Wow, you are quite the conspiracy theorist to presume that I am lying about being an eye-witness to this idiotic woman's behavior.
#145. To: Richard (#140)
Oh yes, the ever popular "s(he) fell" argument. That used to work all of the time back in the day, but you are missing the larger issue here, which is that too many of us have seen too much abuse of authority by too many cops, and we are no longer inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the police any longer. If the robocops had shown some restraint over the last twenty years they would have a lot more support from the community, but since they have largely acted like aggressive jerks too many times to too many people they can no longer count on that support. Maybe it's not fair, but it is reality.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#146. To: Elliott Jackalope (#145)
Elliot, You don't live in the city, much less the state. You were NOT there. You are going off of photographs that tell you NOTHING. If you go by the photos, there is NO evidence that she was harmed by anyone. You can't tell if she inflicted the wounds herself or not. Just because you have seen abuse of authority does not mean it existed in this incident. Being an eyewitness observer, I can tell you that it there was no abuse of authority in this case. Being as how you have no clue what happened, all you can do is try to stir the pot when you don't actually know squat.
#147. To: Richard (#143)
That's odd, as from looking over the thread, I saw you making a lot of comments about screwing your daughter, so to me, it was more of a "Richard's World" sort of thing.
The comment you read was made inside of "Elliot's World."
#148. To: FormerLurker (#144)
Lurker, I was a witness to the event. Then I saw the news report on TV and was upset by the biased and unbalanced coverage. I searched the web to see if people were talking about it. I found this site and joined it. Why is that so hard to believe?
#149. To: Richard (#146)
You have repeatedly proven incapable of understanding the larger issues at stake here, and so I am done trying to convince you of anything. However, you might consider that every single other person here disagrees with you. Perhaps that might tell you something?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#150. To: FormerLurker (#147)
Lurker, Again with your ignorance. I was illustrating how Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime just does not work in the real world. Too bad you are not bright enough to grasp that concept.
#151. To: Richard (#146)
I doubt you were either. Why don't you tell us the name of the officer that interviewed you, and what time of the evening it was when the interview was conducted.
You were NOT there.
#152. To: Richard (#150)
Too bad you are not bright enough to grasp that concept. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that a man screwing his daughter is not a victimless crime. So how long have you been banging her?
I was illustrating how Elliot's concept of No Victim No Crime just does not work in the real world.
#153. To: Elliott Jackalope (#149)
Larger Issue At Stake? What we have is a woman who broke the law and fought with the police. She was not beaten. The police used reasonable restraint. They did not mace, tazer, shoot or use their batons on her. You don't like the police. That is fine. But to immediately presume that the police are wrong when you weren't there... that is ignorance. I was there. You disagree with me because you weren't there. You know the 'myth.' I know the Facts.
#154. To: FormerLurker (#152)
Lurker, Not in Elliot's World. If my daughter is 17, she is able to make her own decisions and can legally have sex with whomever she pleases. So, in Elliot's World, we could have sex legally. No victim. She is volunteering. Once again, you are too slow to see what is going on here.
#155. To: Richard (#148)
Why you ask? Because 4um doesn't come up in Google that easily. Why don't you provide the search terms you used to find this site. I'd be highly surprised if you did.
I was a witness to the event. Then I saw the news report on TV and was upset by the biased and unbalanced coverage. I searched the web to see if people were talking about it. I found this site and joined it. Why is that so hard to believe?
#156. To: Richard (#154)
You are forgetting about the INCEST laws, which are written in order to prevent various genetic disorders in offspring, in addition to preventing the psychological damage caused by those acts.
If my daughter is 17, she is able to make her own decisions and can legally have sex with whomever she pleases.
#157. To: FormerLurker (#144)
it's pretty funny really. hard to believe a witness would go out of his way to glorify police like Richard.
Is this the sort of piss poor quality psy-op that our tax money buys these days? Sheesh.
#158. To: FormerLurker (#156)
Lurker, In Elliot's World... Those laws don't exist. At 17, she would be at the age of consent, and not being bound by our laws, open to do what she would please. You can't prove any psychological damage if she wants to do it, she is old enough to make her own choices and free from "real laws" in Elliot's World. Furthermore, as for genetic disorders, well, those can occur any time there is a pregnancy. So, two swings and two misses for the FormerLurker Again, you are too stupid to realize that this entire issue is taking place in a theoretical place where if there is No Victim, there is No Crime. Elliot's World.
#159. To: Red Jones (#157)
Red, I am not glorifying anything. I am simply not standing by and letting people form their own lynch mobs. I was there and I saw what happened. She was not beaten, the police were not out of line.
#160. To: Richard (#154)
I don't think that is true. the law is different in every state. It is really odd that you picked this example. It just goes to show the Jeff Gannon rule. People who glorify the government and the police are usually perverts.
If my daughter is 17, she is able to make her own decisions and can legally have sex with whomever she pleases.
#161. To: Red Jones (#157)
Especially when the 4um article doesn't come up in Google until after 100 pages or so, if at all.
it's pretty funny really. hard to believe a witness would go out of his way to glorify police like Richard.
#162. To: FormerLurker (#155)
FormerLurker. Here was the intricately designed search term I used. "Michelle Metzinger" Your forum is on the first page if hits, dumbass. http://search.msn.com/results.aspx? q=Michelle+Metzinger&FORM=MSNH&srch_type=0 here is the results link, in case you are too stupid to actually form the querry yourself.
#163. To: Richard (#158)
Under the Common Law this is a fact. You've been blowing smoke at everyone on here the whole time, little do you know.
No Victim, No Crime.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#164. To: Red Jones (#160)
Red, I was working with Texas, cuz that is where I live. Nice to see you are happy with your bigoted statements that people who glorify the government are usually perverts. I am not glorifying anything... just keeping the truth in this conversation instead of letting those who WEREN'T there, like yourself, let these lies of yours continue.
#165. To: BTP Holdings (#163)
BTP... And if our nation was run solely under Common Law that would mean something. Being as how it is not, it does not matter.
#166. To: FormerLurker (#161)
Lurker, you do a MSN search for "Michelle Metzinger" and it is in the first 25 hits. First page. Lord you are a dolt.
#167. To: Richard (#158)
In Elliot's World... Those laws don't exist. No, in Richard's World they don't, as this is YOUR example, not Elliot's. At 17, she would be at the age of consent, and not being bound by our laws, open to do what she would please. Again, that is not necessarily true in regards to the age of consent laws, as many are written to state that one in charge of a minor, such as a parent or school teacher, would be guilty of statutory rape if they had sexual relations with that minor. You are still forgetting the fact that there are reasons for those laws. Why did you even use that as an example? It is quite lame from a legal standpoint, and only infers that you have such thoughts running through your mind. You can't prove any psychological damage if she wants to do it, she is old enough to make her own choices and free from "real laws" in Elliot's World. So you acknowledge a need for age of consent laws, yet you say that there is no real need for incest laws. The same underlying principle is common between both, in that both laws are written to prevent psychological harm. If the age of consent laws have any legitimate basis, then so do the laws against incest. Furthermore, as for genetic disorders, well, those can occur any time there is a pregnancy. The possibility of genetic disorders is drastically increased in cases of incest.
#168. To: FormerLurker (#167)
Lurker, Good lord, you are an idiot. You have a taken a concept that was introduced to rebut Elliot's idiotic concept and now are trying to apply it to other circumstances. The comment that you first latched onto was specifically designed to be applied in ONE situation, in Elliot's World. No where else. You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know why you are talking about it. Be still, child.
#169. To: Neil McIver (#135)
Don't give them any ideas...taxpapers are sources of revenue for Leviathan...can't have 'em running off.
I thought perhaps putting up a wall & barbed wire fence and machine-gunned guard towers around the USA would be a good way to keep people IN who wanted to leave.
#170. To: FormerLurker (#167)
Notice how the replies are becoming increasingly testy and insulting? Such a common pattern, once I've observed many times before.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#171. To: All (#170)
once I've observed s/b ONE I've observed - oops.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#172. To: Richard (#168)
Good lord, you are an idiot. Coming from one that approves of a 250 lb cop sticking his knee into the back of the neck of a 100 lb girl and scraping her face into the pavement, all for the simple crime of rollerskating, I take that as a compliment. All of the real witnesses tell a different story than you. You may well have found this forum via MSN, but you'd be in the minority if you use MSN as a search engine, as most people use Google or Yahoo. If you were unhappy with the news reports, you would have written an editorial for the local paper. There is a marginal chance that you found this forum in the manner that you claim, but the odds against it are high. Go back to licking the boots of the boys in blue (or black, camouflage, or whatever color tickles your tongue). Apparently your daughter knows what tickles your tongue as well...
#173. To: Elliott Jackalope (#170)
It's a time tested formula, that's for sure.. :)
Notice how the replies are becoming increasingly testy and insulting? Such a common pattern, once I've observed many times before.
#174. To: Richard (#89)
R, Please show where I indicated you cared?
I don't care if I have "credibility" with you. I don't need it.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#175. To: Richard (#162)
Actually no, it appears on the 2nd MSN page, shit for brains.
Your forum is on the first page if hits, dumbass.
#176. To: Richard (#162)
BTW, you DO know how to count past one, right? Are you sure your daughter's really 17?
#177. To: FormerLurker (#172)
Lurker, Coming from one who approves of a 100 lb girl attacking a police officer after she has been arrested for public intoxication and rollerskating in the middle of traffic, I am not surprised. All of the real witnesses do not tell a different story. Both of the people I was standing with saw and said similar things. If I was unhappy with the news reports I would have written an editorial? What makes you think that everyone who is upset with things they see on the news immediately goes and writes an editorial? MOST people do not do this, Lurker. Again, I don't glorify the police, I simply agree with their actions in this specific case because I was there and saw what happened.
#178. To: FormerLurker (#175)
Lurker, Sorry you have a tiny monitor... I am sure that is not the only tiny thing you have, starting with your brain... but it is on the first page on mine. I don't have a daughter, you idiot. As I said, I was illustrating a point. Perhaps such intricate concepts are beyond your ability to comprehend. Hopefully you are not allowed to use the sharp scissors.
#179. To: Richard (#132)
Now thats funny! Richard, you such a silly man.
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#180. To: tom007 (#174)
Tom, I was simply informing you that your opinion of my credibility did not matter. Have a lovely day.
#181. To: tom007 (#179)
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.
#182. To: Richard (#177)
If she was under arrest, she'd be in cuffs. If she was in cuffs, she wouldn't have been able to harm the officer. If she was attacking the officer, he would have simply pepper sprayed her to subdue her. If she was physically assaulting the officer, he could have simply grabbed her arms while an other officer cuffed her if necessary, etc., etc., etc. You are just an agent provocateur looking for attention.
Coming from one who approves of a 100 lb girl attacking a police officer after she has been arrested for public intoxication and rollerskating in the middle of traffic, I am not surprised.
#183. To: Richard, Elliott Jackalope (#137)
A very rash assumption, Richard. Statements like this is why you have no cradibility with me. And don't bother telling me you don't care.
you would be first in line asking for the cops who DIDN'T stop her to be fired.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#184. To: FormerLurker (#182)
Lurker, She was stopped and being placed under arrest when she swung on the officer. He should have pepper sprayed her? Or perhaps tazered? Hell, why not whack her with the baton a couple times? Have you ever been pepper sprayed? It is a MUCH more injurious method of subdual than simply taking her to the ground. He did simply grab her and put her on the ground. He did not require the assistance of another officer. Once on the ground he put the cuffs on her. She would not have been injured if she had not attacked the officer. But she did choose to attack the police officer. Her choice. Her consequence. Etc, etc, etc...
#185. To: tom007 (#183)
Gee, tom... Sorry, but I just don't care about your opinion. She broke the law by being drunk in public and rollerskating in traffic. Then, she broke another law by attacking the police. She payed the price. That is how our country works. Lesson here: Do not attack the police when you are under arrest.
#186. To: Richard (#178)
Sorry you have a tiny monitor... I am sure that is not the only tiny thing you have, starting with your brain... but it is on the first page on mine. I'm sure your sexual fantasies require large monitors, such as a wide screen behomouth in order to get a crystal clear image when you watch your "Big Black Cops in Luv" DVDs. I don't have a daughter, you idiot. As I said, I was illustrating a point. You were fantasizing about what you'd do if you did though. You obviously wouldn't care if she got slammed to the ground by a big ole cop, as long as she could still put out for you. Perhaps such intricate concepts are beyond your ability to comprehend. I understand you all too well. Hopefully you are not allowed to use the sharp scissors. Do scissors scare you enough to make you want to ban them? I bet you REALLY hate guns, don't you...
#187. To: Richard (#181)
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.
Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#188. To: FormerLurker (#186)
Lurker, I have a nicer computer than you do because I have a better job, not because of some need to fulfill a sexual fantasy. I have no problem with guns. I own a licensed firearm and have my CHL. Nor was I fantasizing about anything with my point to Elliot. So, wrong, wrong and wrong on your assertions. That is ok, I am now certain that you are used to being wrong.
#189. To: Richard (#185)
"Sorry, but I just don't care about your opinion." That has been established, and I asked you not to bother telling me. Besides isn't there some Police reality TV show you're missing?????
And don't bother telling me you don't care.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#190. To: tom007 (#187)
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.
#191. To: tom007 (#189)
Sorry tom, But I just don't care about your opinion, or what you do or don't want me to comment on here. Have a lovely day
#192. To: Richard (#188)
I doubt that.
I have a nicer computer than you do because I have a better job, not because of some need to fulfill a sexual fantasy.
#193. To: Richard (#188)
It isn't normal for a man to bring up having sex with his daughter as an example. You have a rather disturbed mind.
Nor was I fantasizing about anything with my point to Elliot.
#194. To: FormerLurker (#193)
Lurker, It is not normal for Elliot to assert that if you have no tangible victim, then no crime has happened. I was using the absurd to illustrate the absurd. Again, I realize this is far to sophisticated of a concept for your neanderthal intellect, but perhaps one day you will understand.
#195. To: Richard (#190)
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.
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#196. To: Richard (#188)
Richard, are you a betting man? I'm here to tell you that this cop is going to
face civil charges as a result of this. If this young girl doesn't already
have an attorney, she will shortly. Those pics are real damaging, despite what
you claim to have seen. Incidentally, eye witnesses make the worst of all
possible witnesses. Give me 10 people at the same scene, all seeing the same
event in real time, and I’ll give you 10 different versions of said event.
The criminal matter is quite different. Here the cop wins (whether right or
wrong). Judges, cops, and lawyers all rely on the fact that a jury would
indict a ham sandwich if presented correctly, and once that happens most folks
cop to a lesser charge. It’s a simple matter of economics; people can’t afford
to fight a fixed system. So, here's the bet. $50 bucks says this cop loses
this matter civilly.
#197. To: Richard (#194)
Most people wouldn't associate the act of a man screwing his daughter with the notion of a "victimless crime".
It is not normal for Elliot to assert that if you have no tangible victim, then no crime has happened.
#198. To: Richard (#194)
BTW, did/does your mom "mess around" with you Richard? These things are inter- generational from what I've read.
#199. To: tom007 (#195)
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.
#200. To: FormerLurker (#197)
Lurker, Good grief, you just don't know when to let it go, do you? LOL... why am I not surprised. Oh, please do keep it up, you are amusing.
#201. To: All (#199)
Tom, To further show that the photos don't show the police caused the injuries. She has a cut on her left cheek. In the photo where he has his knee on her shoulderblades, her left cheek is NOT on the pavement, so the injuries could not be attributed to that photo. Sorry, Tom, but based just on the photos, you cold not make your case. If anything, the photos go more towards making the case that she injured herself.
#202. To: Richard (#200)
You might find me amusing, but I find you disturbing, as well as disturbed.
Oh, please do keep it up, you are amusing.
#203. To: Jethro Tull (#196)
Jethro, Of COURSE he will face civil charges because America has become the nation where everyone is the Victim. It wont go to civil court, however, because she could never win. She was not beaten. All she got a cut on her face because she was taken to the ground after she assaulted a policeman. She does not have a chance in hell in civil court. Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial.
#204. To: Richard, tom007 (#199)
Not only are you not credible, but you can't even see where the cop's knee is in this HUGE photo that should be EXTRA HUGE on your ENORMOUS MONITOR. The end of the knee is up against her chin, and the rest of the knee is on top of the left side of her neck, NOT her back. Her back is facing the ground. And you expect us to believe ANYTHING you have to say concerning this (or any other) incident?
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.
#205. To: FormerLurker (#202)
Lurker, then why do you bother to continue to respond? Also, you have taken things to a whole new level by suggesting I have sex with my mother, watch porn on the web and fantasize about having sex with my daughter. THAT is a disturbing extrapolation of the situation, Lurker... You need psychiatric help...
#206. To: Richard (#199)
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.
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.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#207. To: FormerLurker (#204)
Lurker, This photo does more to prove he DIDN'T cut her left cheek because it is facing UP and is blood FREE in this photo. Good of you to point it out to everyone, as this photo CLEARLY shows that he did NOT cut her face.
#208. To: tom007 (#206)
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.
#209. To: Richard (#207)
Richard, the cop's knee is obscuring her left side of her face, as can PLAINLY be seen by any one who wanted to. You don't, for some reason. "Good of you to point it out to everyone, as this photo CLEARLY shows that he did NOT cut her face." It does no such thing. Lying will not gain you credibility here. At LP and FR it works.
This photo does more to prove he DIDN'T cut her left cheek because it is facing UP and is blood FREE in this photo.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#210. To: Richard (#207)
For one, it proves that you are a liar in that he WAS kneeling on her neck, contrary to your adament claims. For two, one photo does not disprove that he had contact with her prior to the time the photo was taken, nor afterwards. In fact, it is hard to tell exactly what he's doing to her face in this following image.. He obviously switched positions, as here his right knew is on her back, where in the previous image, his left knee is on her neck. A lot could have happened between those two photos.
Good of you to point it out to everyone, as this photo CLEARLY shows that he did NOT cut her face.
#211. To: tom007 (#209)
Tom, I am not lying about anything. I never said that her injuries were not a result of her assaulting the police officer who arrested her. I said that you can not, from the photos alone, prove that they were. She fought with the police and got a little bloody as a result, so what? She should not have attacked the policeman. How can you overlook that she ATTACKED a policeman? LP and FR? What the hell are they?
#212. To: Richard (#205)
You're the one that suggested having sex with his daughter as an example of a "victimless crime", not I.
You need psychiatric help...
#213. To: All (#210)
Oops, meant right knee, not right knew...
as here his right knew is on her back
#214. To: FormerLurker (#210)
It does not prove that I am a liar, Lurker, it proves nothing more than I did not recall the photo in question. I remembered the photo you just posted where his knee was on her back. Just because he had contact with her does not PROVE that he caused the injuries. Again, Lurker,you are missing the forest for the trees. I asserted that based SOLELY on the photos you could not prove anything. Did she get bloody as a result of fighting with the police? Yes. Do the photos prove that? No. As you say "A lot could have happened between those two photos." Yes, she may have banged her own face on the ground in an attempt to garner sympathy, she may have continued to struggle and cut herself writhing about... but according to the photos, WE DON'T KNOW.
#215. To: Richard, ALL (#208)
Time to archive this thread to send to the defense and and flush this Richard turd, or whoever it is.
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.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#216. To: Hmmmmm (#215)
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.
#217. To: Richard (#216)
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#218. To: Hmmmmm (#217)
Given contradictory information? Where? I am not prejudiced against Michelle, I simply am reporting what I saw. I saw Michelle appearing very drunk, and disregarding the instructions of the police, then I saw her arrested and while in custody she attacked the police officer. I have not offered contradictory testimony. Don't be cofused about the conversations about the photos... that conversation was based solely on the strength of the photos alone. The photos prove nothing other than Michelle was bleeding at the scene. They do not indicate how she came to be bleeding nor whether or not the wounds were self inflicted.
#219. To: Richard (#165)
Being as how it is not, it does not matter. OK, smartass, what does this country operate under if the Common Law is of no effect? Let's see how you spin your way out of this one. ROTFLMAO!
And if our nation was run solely under Common Law that would mean something.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#220. To: BTP Holdings (#219)
I didn't say that Common Law was of No Effect. In America, Common Law is the basis but it is not the only guiding principle. For example, California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. New York also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, and began a codification of its laws in the 19th century. The statutes which reflect Common Law are understood always to be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre- existing case law and custom. This can readily be seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law, has been entirely codified in many US states. There ya go, BTP. You really are not very good at this.
#221. To: Richard, Hmmmmm (#218)
Not prejudiced? Balderdash! #110. To: Richard (#56) Then you are not unbiased in your testimony. You live there and are sick of drunk people being about. Thus, she got what she deserved, not necessarily because of resisting arrest, but (perhaps?) because she was one of those drunk people, and anything done to clean up the town is fine with you.... ?? (I'm asking respectfully.... do you consider yourself a neutral observer in this case?) Neil McIver posted on 2006-01-19 18:04:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I am not prejudiced against Michelle
What would I possibly stand to gain? The police have my information and I told them I would be happy to testify if needed. Perhaps you think they are paying me? Sorry... I live in Deep Ellum and am sick to death of the drunken idiots that think that "the man" is there to keep them down.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#222. To: BTP Holdings (#221)
I don't know Michelle personally. I do know what I saw. Just because I witnessed her actions and I disagree with them does not make me prejudiced against her.
#223. To: Richard (#220)
Spoken as a true pettifogger shyster. BTW, what line of work are you in?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#224. To: BTP Holdings (#223)
I don't see how my line of work enters into this discussion.
#225. To: Richard (#222)
To get around your spin tactics we must visit dictionary.com where we find the definition of bias. bi·as n. 2. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice. Then refer back to Neil McIver's post which I copied above. You were saying? ;0)
not prejudiced?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#226. To: Richard (#224)
Just wondering. Are you a lawyer or paralegal? Do you have a source for your little dissertation on the historical bases of the codes you cite above? Or what is your source of knowledge on this. You leave out the fact that California operates under the Penal Code. Define this if you are able. What type of law is the Penal Code of California? This is not a multiple choice question.
I don't see how my line of work enters into this discussion.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#227. To: Richard (#214)
Richard posted on 2006-01-19 21:55:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Thought you, Richard were there. Pathetic. Silly man.
Yes, she may have banged her own face on the ground in an attempt to garner sympathy, she may have continued to struggle and cut herself writhing about... but according to the photos, WE DON'T KNOW.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#228. To: Richard (#141)
Maybe. Then again, it makes no difference what my background is. It remains true that it's lawful to resist an unlawful arrest. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this simple legal fact?
How does one determine an "unlawful arrest?"
Do you have a law degree and have you passed the bar in every state in the union?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#229. To: Neil McIver (#228)
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this simple legal fact? I agree with you. Is is legal to resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force?
Maybe. Then again, it makes no difference what my background is. It remains true that it's lawful to resist an unlawful arrest.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#230. To: Richard (#146)
Wrong. Photographs do, in fact, tell a lot. Not everything, but a lot. Your overbearing statements give away your true intent here. You're here solely to put a spin on this incident.
You are going off of photographs that tell you NOTHING.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#231. To: Neil McIver (#230)
He sure is making lots of friends here, isn't he?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#232. To: Jethro Tull (#196)
One of the photos shows a woman pointing at the girl. I'm betting her testimony would not match Richard's.
Give me 10 people at the same scene, all seeing the same event in real time, and I’ll give you 10 different versions of said event.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#233. To: Neil McIver, Elliott Jackalope (#230)
Yep, he's a dead ringer for a bot award. Too bad I was tied up on other things today. I didn't get to give him a quarter the dose he had coming. ;0)
Your overbearing statements give away your true intent here. You're here solely to put a spin on this incident.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#234. To: Richard (#201)
If anything, the photos go more towards making the case that she injured herself. No way, little man. This is silly. A video of the event would be needed to provide the level of evidence you're asking for. Even if one of the still's showed her full face uncut beforehand when she had her hands on the cruiser, you'd argue someone else could have whacked her up side the head just before the cop wrestled her to the ground. If you suggest that it will be disputed that the blood spill was caused by the cop wrestling her to the ground, then do enlighten us as to *everything* that happened. Write your full statement out for the police and post it here.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#235. To: Richard (#203)
What is your source for this? Is it posted here yet?
Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#236. To: Neil McIver (#232)
You know it. The guy that took the pics says there was maybe 50 people standing nearby who witnessed this. He said the girl's feet were up in the air when the cop slammed her to the pavement. My own professional opinion is that this would be excessive force. And I have 11 years experience in hands on crowd control and security. BTW, PING to #225, and I didn't even got to the transitive verb part of it.
One of the photos shows a woman pointing at the girl. I'm betting her testimony would not match Richard's.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#237. To: Neil McIver (#235)
Didn't you know? Richard is also capable of seeing into the future. His prediction is that Michelle will be convicted of whatever charges she is facing at this point. Somehow, I doubt this will occur if she has a good lawyer who smells the blood that was spilled on Elm St.
What is your source for this? Is it posted here yet?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#238. To: Hmmmmm (#217)
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.
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#239. To: A K A Stone (#229)
I think you are limited in the force you use just as police are supposed to be limited. That is, you can only use the minimal amount of force necessary to thwart the aggressor. So I think you can only use deadly force to resist unlawful arrest if the unlawful arrest would be likely to kill you. And if that is the case, then it's most likely not mere "unlawful arrest" that you are thwarting, but attempted murder. So I'd say "no" to your question. One difference between law enforcement and military action. Law enforcement uses minimum force necessary, and military action uses any force necessary.
Is is legal to resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#240. To: BTP Holdings (#225)
Thank you BTP. Even in the face of his statement he pretty much denies being biased, which to me proves his intent here is just to spin. An honest guy would have simply agreed that he was biased. (I did learn *something* from my LP days, even if I still give the benefit of a doubt too often). It sounds like Richard is connected with law enforcement somehow. It would explain his sympathies.
Then refer back to Neil McIver's post which I copied above.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#241. To: BTP Holdings, Richard (#237)
I'd say she could be convicted of disorderly conduct and STILL win a civil suit. Cops are not there to dispense punishment for crime. That's what due process is for. Being a cop is a tough job I'm sure, but it's not (supposed to be) a vigilante license. It's always possible for cops to act out of line, even if they are dealing with a crook (as we all certainly know). While I'm thinking of it, Richard also said that the cop was written up 3 times in 12 years. Is that public knowledge at this point also? If not, how did he know that? It seems he has some inside connections to the department there. He knows someone, perhaps?
His prediction is that Michelle will be convicted of whatever charges she is facing at this point.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#242. To: Neil McIver, Richard (#241)
Ooops, did you make a little slip, Richard? Where did you happen to come by this tidbit of informtion? I saw this earlier and thought it odd, but wonder where it originated.
While I'm thinking of it, Richard also said that the cop was written up 3 times in 12 years. Is that public knowledge at this point also? If not, how did he know that? It seems he has some inside connections to the department there. He knows someone, perhaps?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#243. To: BTP Holdings (#225)
BTP, I do not have a preference, I simply saw a drunken woman attack a police officer. That does not make me prejudiced. I am able to mete out an impartial judgement based upon what conduct I saw exhibited. If you saw someone shoot a man, would you be prejudiced against them because you are against murder? No, you would just be a witness.
#244. To: BTP Holdings (#226)
BTP, Again, what I do for a living is not your concern. I choose not to answer your question as it is immaterial to the matter at hand. So far as you are concerned, my knowledge of the aforementioned matters comes from my deep desire to learn, and it is accurate. That is all you need to know. I simply pointed out, correctly, that Common Law is not the only principle at play in our system and so you can't go to it for your attempted defense.
#245. To: tom007 (#227)
Tom, You poor ignorant man. The quote you posted was lifted from a discussion of what could be proven SOLELY based upon the photos. Once again, you show your lack of ability to read AND comprehend. Which makes YOU the pathetic, silly man.
#246. To: Neil McIver (#228)
Neil, Because it is an inconsequential and mostly theoretical legal fact, not one that comes into play in daily life. Yes you can find caselaw to support it, but there are not a dozen cases a decade, and nearly all of them lose. The only way you can resist arrest and stand any chance is if it can be proven that you resisted in the course of fighting for your life. Even so, you will be charged with resisting arrest and the courts will handle the matter. It does not enter into the matter at hand, and for all intents and purposes, when you are stopped by the police, you do not have the right to resist arrest. You are free to think you are... enjoy! Michelle was CLEARLY not fighting for her life when she swung on Officer Gordon.
#247. To: Neil McIver (#230)
The photos tell us that the woman was arrested, and that she has a cut on her face that did not occur while she was being handcuffed. The don't tell us much more than that. They dont tell us HOW she was cut or by whom. Again, for Tom, who is too stupid to follow the conversation... based SOLELY on the photos, that is.
#248. To: Neil McIver (#232)
Neil, Yes, I doubt that her drunken rollerskating girlfriend would say a word against her. Good point. Next you will tell me that the girl who swung at the cop would have a different story as well. You are brilliant!
#249. To: Neil McIver (#234)
Again, for Tom, this is just using the photos ALONE as evidence. There is NO way to PROVE (that is big word, but it is important) how she got cut based upon the PHOTOS alone. You could argue that the girl, who was on rollerskates, fell to the ground because she was drunk just as easily as you could argue any other reason she was cut on the face. The photos do NOT tell you how she got cut, they just tell us that she had blood on her face. Hell, they don't even show us that it is HER blood, you can't see the cut. I have seen fights were people are bloody and they are not cut, they just have someone else's blood on them. The cop was cut as well, the blood on the ground could be his. I did not "write" a statement for the police, I gave the officer a verbal statement, and he took my name, address and phone number. Again, that commentary was based on what could be descerned on the photos alone, not on how she got cut. She got cut shortly after she attacked the police officer, who correctly took her to the ground and put her in cuffs. Neil,
#250. To: Neil McIver (#235)
Neil, I spoke with the officers at the scene when I gave my statement. I was THERE, idiot. I know what she was charged with because I asked.
#251. To: BTP Holdings (#236)
BTP, She was on ROLLERSKATES, so her footing was not the best. Shouldn't start a fight with the police when you are drunk and on skates. Your professional opinion does not come into play as you were not a witness to the event and are only responding to hearsay. Sorry
#252. To: Neil McIver (#238)
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.
#253. To: Neil McIver (#241)
Neil, She has no chance of winning a civil suit. She assaulted a policeman who used minimal restraint to subdue her. She was on skates and she naturally lost her balance when the officer tried to subdue her after she attacked him, resulting in her hitting the ground. He did not try to mete out any "street justice," he simply put the cuffs on her. Oh, and Neil, the officer's record was made public by every news story in town, but then again, I would not expect you to be anywhere near the facts of the case.
#254. To: Elliott Jackalope (#231)
This was in my inbox tonight. I have only been on for a day, and thsi is the only thread I have commented on, yet I have a supporter who took the time to write me. I am sure you will simply attack him instead of looking at his very valid comments. "Date: Jan 19 8:11:35 PM From: markm0722 To: Richard Subject: Re: (Dallas) Police Deny Excessive Force In Bloody Arrest (black cop, white girl) Most seem willing to judge the police officer, who also happens to be an American citizen and therefore has rights, based on photos of blood and hearsay. I find that very disturbing, especially on a forum which prides itself on freedom and liberty. Maybe we should just form a lynch mob first and ask questions later. At least know that somebody out there agrees with your points." He makes some VERY good points.
Making more friends than you know, Elliott...
#255. To: Richard, All (#254)
Now that I'm dragged in I might just as well elaborate on the points I agree with. First, I can't tell much from looking at the pictures. I can say the picture where his knee is on her neck doesn't look good but I do not know the circumstances leading up to that point nor can I determine them from looking at the photos. It is possible she was beaten. It is also possible she was not beaten. Second, my imagination can come up with plenty of ways that the injuries could have happened when a police officer tries to subdue someone wearing roller skates, especially if that person is under the influence and/or resists. My imagination can also come up with plenty of ways that the officer inflicted the wounds. My imagination isn't worth anything here though and I refuse to use it to fill in the missing blanks. Third, I don't see how her weight is much of a factor. If, and this is a big if, she did attempt to go for his eyes and/or kick him with her skates (as reported here, not that I necessarily believe that version, another story claims the officer was treated for scratches on his face and bruises to his shins, we'll see if that holds up) I can certainly imagine how the results of that might play out, once again in more ways than one. Further, I have a parrot that weighs less than 1 pound. I'm fairly confident a 100 pound woman could do at least as much damage as it could, as scary as that might sound to any of you bird owners. My girlfriend very much respects the damage output of the bird after once mimicking what she thought were playful sounds while he was sitting on her shoulder. Fourth, the face does bleed quite easily. At one point in my life I had an 80 pound German Shepherd attached to mine for a few moments. 2 wounds (one bite) not much more than 1 inch each provided enough blood to cover both my hands completely and it just kept on coming. It took 78 stitches. (Bleeding of the head or face, The head, scalp, and face have many blood vessels close to the surface of the skin, and even small cuts may bleed profusely.) Most importantly, I was not there. I only know what I read and see, which isn't much. I don't know what happened so why would I wish to immediately lay blame? And to repeat, isn't that how lynch mobs are/were formed? Blame first, hang, don't bother asking questions later? Richard, it does bother me that you say she got what she deserved. You are entitled to your opinion of course but it certainly doesn't help your version of the story. If the police officer had any part in helping her get what you claim "she deserved", that's another story altogether. Generally, would a witness who thinks she's getting what she deserves be willing to overlook a few things? That being said, I'm sure that there are also witnesses who would only be able to see police brutality in the hopes that he would get what "he deserves".
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#256. To: markm0722 (#255)
Well thought-out post, I agree with it.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison
#257. To: Richard (#247)
As you can't explain your own argument R, I guess calling me stupid is the only way out for a worm like yourself. I don't believe you were there. I think you make things up.
Again, for Tom, who is too stupid to follow the conversation... based SOLELY on the photos, that is.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#258. To: Neil McIver (#232)
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. -- George Bonser Neil McIver posted on 2006-01-20 01:58:33 ET She looks angery and appalled and the other officer looks ashamed. But I'll have to ask Richard to explain what I thought my eyes see.
One of the photos shows a woman pointing at the girl. I'm betting her testimony would not match Richard's.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#259. To: tom007 (#258)
one time on a crowded street in Tempe AZ on a weekend night when the crowds were out at bars I saw the police chase and arrest a fellow. The police first called to him, then he began to run, he ran for maybe 15 feet, then he stopped put his hands behind his head ready to be arrested and waited for the police to catch him, when the police reached him they shoved him immediately to the pavement face down, then three men stood on top of him, he offered no resistance whatsoever. The three police officers stood side by side, each man with two feet directly on top of this individual's body. I think they wanted him to protest so they could punish him further. Then I heard people in the crowd cheer the police. Richard is like one of those guys cheering the police under these conditions.
#260. To: markm0722 (#255)
Nor were most of those on this thread who nonetheless have strong but not well- informed opinions. Well said, Mark.
Most importantly, I was not there.
#261. To: tom007 (#257)
Tom, You are free to believe what you will. Remember, I dont' care about your opinion. The police at the scene seemed to feel my comments were worthwhile enough to record, and I care about that.
#262. To: tom007 (#258)
Tom, She was angry... and drunk. The officer was not ashamed, he was simply telling her to step back. So you were one for two.
#263. To: markm0722 (#255)
the situation wasn't funny, but your wording there is. :P good post.
At one point in my life I had an 80 pound German Shepherd attached to mine for a few moments.
#264. To: Red Jones (#259)
Red, I was there and saw a civilian attack a police officer. Her weight and his race never entered into my mind, though surprisingly it matters quite a lot to many of you. What I saw was a police officer being attacked by Michelle in the course of doing his duty. I did not cheer for either party, I found the whole thing rather sad. It was sad that Michelle allowed herself to get that drunk. It made me sad that she would be so disrespectful to a man who was paid to do the job he was doing. It made me sad to see that she thought so little of the police that she would attack a police officer. It made me sad that the officer had to subdue her and take her away - when if she had behaved herself she would have received a ticket and been released. And it made me sad to see the people on the street get upset at the officer for doing his job and NOT get upset at Michelle for attacking the policeman. There was nothing to cheer about, Tom.
#265. To: Richard (#251)
From where I'm standing what you are saying is only heresay and nothing more. And damn right my professional opinion counts. What would you know about it anyway? I've worked with and known more good cops than you will EVER have the pleasure of in your short and misdirected life. OK, wiseguy, you claim to have been there. You claim the girl took a swing at the cop. Another witness claims nothing of the sort happened. What took place between the time of the photo that shows her with her hands on the car and the other witness saying her feet were up over her head as the cop took her down? And don't leave out what the cop was doing at the time. If she was just in line for a ticket, there is no reason for her to have gone off on the cop. If she was under arrest (actually she was a victim of a detainment arrest, but we will leave the semantics aside for now) she would have been cuffed at that point. But we do not see the cop near her as he would have to be under thsoe circumstances. Quite frankly, your whole story stinks to high heaven. You come on here pontificating about how she "broke the law" but you don't expound on it. I think you are full of shit.
Your professional opinion does not come into play as you were not a witness to the event and are only responding to hearsay.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#266. To: markm0722, Richard, Jethro Tull, Neil McIver, Elliott Jackalope (#255)
Well, mark, I agree with what you say. And the part above is another reason that Richard is biased. Of course he doesn't see it that way. As I've said before, in my own professional experience it looks as if the cop went overboard and used excessive force. And I've had to deal with plenty of drunks inmy time. They are much easier to deal with and usually require less effort (unless they happen to be on PCP). Have either of you ever had the pleasure of jumping into and breaking up a drunken brawl before it gets out of hand? Well, I've done it and without drawing one drop of blood in the process. I can say that the cop in the photo is clearly using excessive force to subdue the girl. The results may even have been worse than what we see. It's just pure luck that it wasn't. Bones break easily at times and there are numerous ways to incapicitate and even come close to crippling people, as I've seen happen in instances of excessive force. Oh, yes, I've had to thump a few at times, and even put people down to get them under control. I've done it to a few big boys who were lean and mean and wrapped a few up tight as a drum without having to do it as well. If that girl got out of control, the cop allowed it to happen. In other words, he did NOT have control of the situation. That is inexcusable from a professional standpoint. She most certainly looks in control from the first photo with her hands on the car. So, clearly, there is something that may have provoked this; something the cop did or didn't do. Oh, Richard, the fact that this cop only has three write ups in his jacket really doesn't mean much. Lots of people get roughed up by the PD and just go on and do not make the complaints they should be making. This jerk is caught on film this time and he is going to have to pay the fiddler.
Richard, it does bother me that you say she got what she deserved. You are entitled to your opinion of course but it certainly doesn't help your version of the story. If the police officer had any part in helping her get what you claim "she deserved", that's another story altogether. Generally, would a witness who thinks she's getting what she deserves be willing to overlook a few things? That being said, I'm sure that there are also witnesses who would only be able to see police brutality in the hopes that he would get what "he deserves".
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#267. To: Red Jones (#259)
You know, Red, that brings something to mind from the past. One night at the venue I was working my supervisor was out in front and there was a drunk who had been ejected and was told to leave the are in front of the building. He did not do so and contrinued to harangue people and make inflammatory remarks to the guys on the crew, one of which was my boss. After this provocation, he was told he was going to jail and proceeded to go off on my boss who summarily put him on the ground and stood on him so that he couldn't move. And, yes, he was struggling. An unmarked car pulled up to take him into custody and the cop got out and told this guy, "If you try to get up I'm going to kick you right in the head." Then my supervisor moved off of him so the cop could cuff him and the guy tried to get up. Well, what do you think happened? He did have a fair warning. But once was sufficient to make him compliant. ;0)
one time on a crowded street in Tempe AZ on a weekend night when the crowds were out at bars I saw the police chase and arrest a fellow. The police first called to him, then he began to run, he ran for maybe 15 feet, then he stopped put his hands behind his head ready to be arrested and waited for the police to catch him, when the police reached him they shoved him immediately to the pavement face down, then three men stood on top of him, he offered no resistance whatsoever. The three police officers stood side by side, each man with two feet directly on top of this individual's body. I think they wanted him to protest so they could punish him further. Then I heard people in the crowd cheer the police. Richard is like one of those guys cheering the police under these conditions.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#268. To: BTP Holdings (#265)
You are free to think what you want. I was there when this incident occurred, and whether or not you believe that is immaterial. Your pseudo-professional opinion does not matter here. To answer your question about "What took place between the time of the photo that shows her with her hands on the car and the other witness saying her feet were up over her head as the cop took her down? And don't leave out what the cop was doing at the time. " The suspect was directed to put her hands on the car. She took her hands off the car and began communicating with people on the sidewalk. She was directed by the officer to put her hands back on the vehicle but did not comply. The officer came over to reposition her back with her hands on the car. When he went to touch her, she reacted violently and resisted. I agree with you completely... there WAS no reason for her to have gone off on the cop. Sadly, she was drunk off her ass and did not think that one through completely. Had she simply listened to the officer and accepted the citation, none of this would have happened. As for why the photos don't show you the officer where you feel he should be when YOU say he should be there... well, too bad. The poice were dealing with a mob situation. The moment that he stopped her and was giving her the citation, the crowd descended and was quite unruly. A lot more people could have easily gone to jail that night for obstruction, but did not. The only thing Michelle was a "victim" of was her own stupidity, BTP. She did break the law, BTP, and I have talked about that the whole time. BTP,
#269. To: BTP Holdings (#266)
You can say the cop used excessive force if you like, but you are incorrect. You were not there, you are talking out of your ass. I am sure you are used to that. "She certainly looks in control from the photos" ROFLMAO!!! We saw this girl 45 minutes earlier on Main Street skating with her friend. She fell down TWICE in a 5 minute span, and this girl is a PROFESSIONAL ROLLERSKATER. Oh boy, was she ever in control! She was drunk as a skunk. BTP,
#270. To: Richard (#247)
You are an absolute fruitcake!
The photos tell us that the woman was arrested, and that she has a cut on her face that did not occur while she was being handcuffed.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#271. To: Richard (#250)
You said: This is what I was asking about. You've got inside info on her past criminal history? From all you've said, I'd say you are a cop and you know this cop personally, and you are on PR patrol right now trying to save your buddy's butt.
I know what she was charged with because I asked.
Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#272. To: Neil McIver (#270)
Once again... to clarify for you... that was based on the photos alone.... Neil,
#273. To: Neil McIver (#271)
At the time, that is what I was told she would be charged with by the officers at the scene. However... If you read most of the reports, you could find for yourself that she was charged with those things. She will surely be convicted, and those will be entered into evidence if she presses a civil suit. I don't know Officer Gordon personally, sorry. I am also not trying to "Save" anyone, I'm just telling what I saw. Also, there is no "magic information link" here. I just know how to read better than you do. Neil,
#274. To: Neil McIver (#271)
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. -- George Bonser Neil McIver posted on 2006-01-20 13:21:34 ET Makes more sense than anything else.
From all you've said, I'd say you are a cop and you know this cop personally, and you are on PR patrol right now trying to save your buddy's butt.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#275. To: Richard (#252)
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.
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#276. To: Neil McIver (#271)
Oh, and so you don't ask again, I am not a cop, nor do I work for the DPD or the City of Dallas. I am just a citizen, like you. Unlike you, I was at the scene and have a first hand point of view. Neil,
#277. To: Richard, Neil McIver (#268)
And your opinion is hardly psuedo-anything. You haven't got any idea who you are dealing with here or what my personal and professional experience might be. So your opinion that I am pseudo-professional is all busllshit! BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS BOZO. Neil is right about one thing, you refuse to even give a hint of what your job description is when asked politely. So that leads me to believe you are indeed an agent provocateur here on PR work to save the cop that got caught using excessive force on film. You dance around and evade and use bluff and bluster putting your own brand of spin on your responses. I have more productive things to do than to run around trying to refute your circumlocution. Have a nice day, or don't! ;0)
Your pseudo-professional opinion does not matter here.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#278. To: BTP Holdings, Neil McIver (#277)
Do Not Feed The Troll.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#279. To: Neil McIver (#275)
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. Neil,
#280. To: BTP Holdings (#277)
I told you that I don't work for the City of Dallas in any way and that I am not a cop. Other than that, what I do for a living does not enter into the discussion. There is no conflict of interest in my involvement with this matter. I am not trying to save a cop (mostly because he is not in any danger) nor do I have a grudge against professional rollerskaters. Being as how I have told you that my profession does in no way enter the spheres of the police or the City fo Dallas, what does it matter what I do to make a buck? I was at the scene and I saw what I saw. WhaBTP,
#281. To: Elliott Jackalope, Neil McIver (#278)
LOL He is on the filter now. Good riddance he will soon be. I notice he hasn't made one attempt to comment on any other thread. ;0)
Do Not Feed The Troll.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#282. To: BTP Holdings (#281)
As I stated earlier, I was looking for what people were saying about this incident, which is how I found this forum in the first place. Why have I only commented on this thread? This is the only story I was interested in on this board. BTP,
#283. To: Richard (#44)
What a fascist thing to say. What the hell is wrong with you? If you're so "sick and tired" of drunks, why are you hanging out in Deep Ellum?
She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#284. To: Richard (#279)
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.
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#285. To: Neil McIver (#284)
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. Neil,
#286. To: Richard (#248)
So you can't tell if the cop caused the injuries from the pix, but you can tell that her friend was drunk.
her drunken rollerskating girlfriend would say a word against h
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#287. To: Richard, Jethro Tull, Neil McIver, All (#203)
FYI, I have a Pacer account and I did a US Party/Case Search of all courts (Texas, 5th Circuit, District & Appellate, Civil & Criminal) for any records involving "Metzinger, Michelle" and there were *no criminal records* and no civil records either. Texas courts are included in the ECF/PACER system and if the records are under her name, they ought to show up. But there were no hits. There was only a Chapter 7 filing for a different METZINGER, in a South Dakota BK court in 1992. So, Richard, as you claim to know about these convictions of record which don't seem to be in the system, would you kindly correct any misspelling I might have in her name or otherwise cite the court and docket numbers wherein the records show Michelle Metzinger has prior convictions for "public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer"?
Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#288. To: tom007 (#286)
NO... I could tell she was drunk because I was there watching her drink and bitch. Tom,
#289. To: Starwind (#287)
ah, Starwind, well done.
#290. To: Starwind (#287)
I did not claim that she had any previous convictions. I stated, if you could READ, that she would surely be convicted of the charges stemming from her conduct on Saturday and that THOSE charges would be introduced if she was foolish enough to press a civil suit. Once again, children, you need to work on READING AND COMPREHENSION. Starwind,
#291. To: christine (#289)
You applaud his inability to read and comprehend? How odd... Christine,
#292. To: Richard (#285)
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.
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#293. To: Neil McIver (#292)
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. Neil,
#294. To: Starwind, Tom007 (#287)
Well done Starwind. Add your research to what Tom007 did, and it seems we have a bad apple here....
#295. To: Richard (#290)
In your post #203 your exact words are: Of COURSE he will face civil charges because America has become the nation where everyone is the Victim. It wont go to civil court, however, because she could never win. She was not beaten. All she got a cut on her face because she was taken to the ground after she assaulted a policeman. She does not have a chance in hell in civil court. Especially with the convictions for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer on her record going into that trial. I scanned the entire thread and I don't see where you discussed her conviction on any charges, before your post#203, just her losing a civil complaint because of what you allege to be prior convictions. And following your post #203, the only discssion of convictions were questions posed to you about your post #203. So, if not post #203 (wherein you implied prior convictions on her record) where else in this thread (what post #) did you predict her conviction on the charges of public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assauting a police officer, please?
I did not claim that she had any previous convictions.
Jethro,
I stated, if you could READ, that she would surely be convicted of the charges stemming from her conduct on Saturday and that THOSE charges would be introduced if she was foolish enough to press a civil suit.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#296. To: Jethro Tull (#294)
Are you ALL morons? I never indicated she had any previous convicitons, you dolt. I said she would be convicted of the charges that she incurred Saturday, and that if she went to a civil trial, those charges would be introduced and thus destroy her case. It is a wonder any of you got out of high school with your inability to read and comprehend basic statements. Jethro,
#297. To: Richard (#293)
A defense attorney is an officer of the court, look it up sometime.
You can't represent BOTH the Court and your client as an attorney. You have to represent ONE OR THE OTHER.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#298. To: Starwind (#295)
I will do this REAL SLOW so you can grasp it. She will be CONVICTED of the charges stemming from her conduct on SATURDAY. THOSE CONVICTIONS will be ON HER RECORD going into her CIVIL TRIAL. Ergo, she does not have a chance in hell in civil court. I did NOT imply she had prior convicitons, Starwind. I implied that she would easily be convicted of the charges she incurred Saturday. Wow, you really are not very good at this. STARWIND...
#299. To: Dakmar (#297)
Being considered an "Officer of the Court" does not make you a REPRESENTATIVE of the court. There is a big difference, but apparently you people are not interested in the truth as much as you are interested in the hype. Dakmar,
#300. To: Richard (#299)
By definition an officer of any organization is a representative, but keep spinning if it makes you feel better.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#301. To: Richard (#296)
Now Richard, name calling is the last resort of a losing argument. Look, the cop lost his cool and hammered this kid. The kid - as I thought - hired an attorney. Your chance at testimony will finally be realized. We will follow this case with interest :)
#302. To: Richard (#298)
not very good at reading and comprehending what you had not written prior to your clarification? No, you're right. I'm not very good at assumptions and prejudging as you seem to be. I prefer explicit fact, whereas you rely on implication, inuendo, and insult.
you really are not very good at this.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#303. To: Jethro Tull (#301)
This cop did not loose his cool and did NOT hammer this kid. He did not strike her, he wrestled her to the ground. You do enjoy trying to sensationalize what you did not see. As I said, she won't press a civil case because she can't win. Jethro,
#304. To: Dakmar (#300)
As an Officer of the Court, you EITHER represent the client or you represent the court. You can't be both. Perhaps you are not aware, but there are many different ways to define the word "representative." In the case of attornies, you can't represent BOTH the court and the client. Dakmar,
#305. To: Richard (#303)
Are you serious? Let me google the attorney mentioned in the article Tom007 posted. She's going after punitives. 10-4, Roger Wilko, over and out.
As I said, she won't press a civil case because she can't win.
#306. To: Richard (#304)
You made a blanket statement, I corrected you. Are we supposed to overlook your basic lack of English skills?
Perhaps you are not aware, but there are many different ways to define the word "representative."
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#307. To: Dakmar (#306)
I was directly refuting the incorrect statement "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts." So, the definitional scope of the term "represent" was already defined. YOU were the one who misapplied the term, not I. Wrong again, BettyLou,
#308. To: Jethro Tull (#305)
Of COURSE she is. Every yahoo who gets arrested tries to sue the police, it is the national pastime. She can't go after punitives until her court case for the PI, resisting, and assault. Her civil suit will fizzle out shortly after her convictions. It won't see a courtroom. ROFL Jethro,
#309. To: Richard (#307)
So, the definitional scope of the term "represent" was already defined. Yes, and Neil was correct, a defense attorney is a representative of the court, as is the prosecutor.
I was directly refuting the incorrect statement "As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts."
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#310. To: Dakmar (#309)
Once again you miss the mark. Neil tried to assert that a defense attorney "represents" the interests of the courts. He does not. He can not. He represents his client. Nice try, and thanks so much for playing... Dakmar,
#311. To: Richard (#310)
You want me to argue about what you think he meant when what he said was 100% factual? You really are a fruitcake.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#312. To: Dakmar (#311)
I just want to let you know that, once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and that you are obsessed with fruitcake. Christmas was last month... let it go. No, Dakmar,
#313. To: Richard (#312)
Obsessed? One mention is obsessed? I take back my fruitcake remark, you are an ass-sucking retard.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#314. To: Dakmar (#313)
That clearly puts you in the ranks of those who are fair and impartial. LOL Dakmar, I am truly sorry that you don't have enough intellectual game to play with the big boys, but perhaps you should do a little more reading and a lot less talking. ROFLMAO Wow,
#315. To: Richard (#314)
I'm not the one trying to argue about personal interpretations of factual statements.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#316. To: Dakmar (#315)
Neil did not make a "Factual Statement." He made an assertion, and it was incorrect. Again, nice try, and thanks so much for playing. Dakmar,
#317. To: Richard (#308)
SO now she's a YAHOO? Richard, your pending testimony is worthless.
Of COURSE she is. Every yahoo who gets arrested tries to sue the police, it is the national pastime.
#318. To: Richard (#316)
He said a defense attorney is a representative of the court. It's no one's mistake but yours that you read that as "representing the interests" of the court. Once again, a defense lawyer, being an officer of the court, is by definition a representative of the court.
He made an assertion, and it was incorrect.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#319. To: Jethro Tull (#317)
Makes me want to give Metzingers lawyer a call...
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#320. To: Dakmar (#319)
This info might be worth a few bucks to him :) Our friend Richard has impeached himself with his overt bias.
Makes me want to give Metzingers lawyer a call...
#321. To: Dakmar (#318)
A Defense Lawyer is an Officer Of The Court. That does not mean that they speak FOR the court. It means that they can speak TO the court. The are not the representative of the COURT, they are the representative of the DEFENDANT. Once again, you fail to grasp the situation at hand. Just because YOU read the wrong meaning into the word does not excuse your ignorance. Dakmar,
#322. To: Jethro Tull (#320)
You go right ahead... see how far it gets you. LOL Jethro,
#323. To: Richard (#321)
I read a factual statemment. You read more into it than was there.
Just because YOU read the wrong meaning into the word does not excuse your ignorance.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#324. To: Dakmar (#323)
Sadly you would not know a "factual statement" if it bit you on the lip. Neil did not make a factual statment. He made an ASSERTION. Again, your ignorance of the truth is no defense.Dakmar,
#325. To: Richard (#324)
So a defense attorney is not an officer of the court?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#326. To: Richard (#324)
Welcome to the website for the State of Delaware Public Defender's Office. The office was created to preserve the constitutional rights of indigent defendants in criminal cases, through the assistance of counsel, at every stage of the adjudication process. In addition, case law has established that the Public Defender, as an officer of the court, has the professional duty to assist the court in every reasonable way in the improvement of justice. Golly, Richard, that sure sounds like a representative to me.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#327. To: Richard (#293)
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.
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#328. To: Dakmar (#313)
Noooooooooo.........!!!! Keep the fruitcake. It's just too fitting.
I take back my fruitcake remark,
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#329. To: Richard (#316)
Seems this is a big issue to you. Yes, it is possible for the lawyer to represent the court and the client. I've no interest in arguing it further, so if you disagree, fine.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#330. To: Dakmar (#325)
Lord you are a dolt. A defense attorney IS an officer of the court. That is NOT to say he is a representative of the court. He does, in no way, REPRESENT the court. He represents his CLIENT. Dakmar,
#331. To: Dakmar (#326)
He is a representative of the CLIENT in the courtroom, Dakmar. He knows how the court system works, but does not represent their interests, except to say that EVERYONE should be interested in the improvement of justice. But he is NOT the representative of the court, and the statement you quoted in NO way implies that he is. Sorry, wrong again. Dakmar
#332. To: Neil McIver (#327)
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. Neil:
#333. To: Neil McIver (#327)
This is the BEST evidence that you don't know what you are talking about... "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." It does NOT always take a unanimous verdict to convict. Depends upon the case. Furthermore, a jury of 12 people unfairly charged with DUI would not be an IMPARTIAL jury either. Both panels of jurist would be disqualified. Neil,
#334. To: Richard (#296)
Hoo mee? Howd yu no i dint got out of high skool.
It is a wonder any of you got out of high school with your inability to read and comprehend basic statements.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#335. To: Richard (#322)
For real? Cool. Send me your info in 4 mail. If I score, we'll go drinking and roller skating.
You go right ahead... see how far it gets you.
#336. To: Hmmmmm (#334)
Nicely done! LOL Hmmmmm
#337. To: Jethro Tull (#335)
I didn't say I would assist you in any way. I said that you should go ahead with your master plan. Enjoy... Jethro,
#338. To: Richard (#337)
Actually, you can't assist anyone in any way. But we've been down this
road....
I didn't say I would assist you in any way.
#339. To: Jethro Tull (#338)
Nice try, and thanks for playing... but if I am called to testify, I will do so with a clear conscience. If I am called to testify, it certainly will not be by the defense. However, I doubt that she will take this case to court. She will plead out in the next three weeks. And then that will be the last you hear of her abortive attempt at a civil case... it will fade quietly into the woodwork. Jethro,
#340. To: Richard (#332)
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.
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?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#341. To: Neil McIver (#340)
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. Neil,
#342. To: All (#341)
Perhaps NOW you see how "Random" does not ensure "Impartial" in any way.
#343. To: Richard (#342)
"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.
Richard I think maybe you shouldn't have fucked with Tom, yours isn't the only story out there.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#344. To: Richard (#331)
You keep saying that, all full of sound and fury, but the fact is that Neil's original statement was: That is what you are putting all this time, energy, and negative energy into? That could never be proven in court, although it is absolutely true. No one ever claimed defense lawyers were biased toward the judge, which is either a very silly or very corrupt notion to begin with. As Billy Jack once said, "When the police break the law then there is no law, just a fight for survival."
Sorry, wrong again.
"As long as they hold a license to "represent" clients, they also represent the courts."
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#345. To: christine (#263)
the situation wasn't funny, but your wording there is. :P I know how much it bugs some people, women in particular, if a person has a little something attached to their face. I know cookie crumbs can sometimes get caught in facial hair. I once had an inebriated roommate with a piece of a hotdog bun seemingly magically attached to his cheek. Trust me, these things eventually fall off on their own though. In my case, good old fashioned guy instincts came into play. I ignored the problem on the hopes that it went away. It worked. The dog wandered off. It is a miracle anything gets done around me these days after verifying that important life lesson, lol. I never did mind about the little things. - Maggie (Bridget Fonda), Point of No Return
At one point in my life I had an 80 pound German Shepherd attached to mine for a few moments.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#346. To: markm0722 (#345)
i knew you were an extra smart one. :P
In my case, good old fashioned guy instincts came into play.
#347. To: Dakmar (#344)
So close and yet so far... but you nearly are on point. Dakmar,
#348. To: Dakmar (#344)
You said that "No one ever claimed defense lawyers were baised toward the judge, which is a very silly or very corrupt notion to begin with." Well, hate to prove you wrong again, but Neil sure pointed his finger in that direction when he said "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." Wrong again, little sister. You REALLY are not very good at this, Dakmar. Dakmar,
#349. To: Hmmmmm (#343)
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... Hmmmmmm...
#350. To: Richard, neil mciver, zipporah, christine (#333)
This is the BEST evidence that you don't know what you are talking about... "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." It does NOT always take a unanimous verdict to convict. Depends upon the case. Furthermore, a jury of 12 people unfairly charged with DUI would not be an IMPARTIAL jury either. Both panels of jurist would be disqualified. Richard posted on 2006-01-20 17:19:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply I take it that you are either hired or employed by a law office to represent the violent officer, and are "seeding" the false testimoney you plan to present to the court by offering these conversations as evidence of your actually being at the crime site. You a sicko, Richard. Doing it for money.
eil,
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#351. To: All (#350)
Maybe when YOUR wife's head is ground into the asphalt, or yours, by the state, "for your own good" you'll come to what little senses you have. You could have done this so much better, BTY, because maybe the women was aggresive. I don't think she was, but possibly. Your trooper boot licking mindset, coupled with your arrogent, pompous, I'm of course right and you are all BOOGERS on my moustache, attitude, didn't get you far. And don't try to tell me your wife's head could never be ground into the asphalt, or yours. The police state has a mind of it's own. And that is the problem.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#352. To: Richard (#349)
You were not their either. Did your check clear from the Law Office retained by the PO representing him?? Enjoy the pices of silver.
He was not there and is going off hearsay.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#353. To: tom007 (#350)
I am not affiliated with the city of Dallas, I do not work for or with the Dallas Police department, I do not know Officer Gordon nor do I work for or with him in any capacity. I am not employed by a law office nor am I hired by anyone to represent the interests of any of the parties involved in this matter. I was simply at the scene and saw the incident unfold. I already gave my statement to the police at the scene, so it does not matter what I say here. I don't see how I could benefit from "seeding" any testimony on this board as none of you would be able to be jurors. Anyone who participates in this thread would not survive Voi Dire to make it on the jury for this case... unless of course they lied, which I am now sure many of you would do. Then again, this case will NEVER go to trial. Michelle will plead out inside of three weeks and her pretend civil suit will disappear right behind it. Sorry, Tom, but you weren't there and I was... so I have a lot better vantage point on this matter than you do... your so called "violent officer" simply put a violent offender in handcuffs. Other than the little cut on her face, she was not significantly injured. You are the one stating that he is a "violent officer" although there is no evidence to support that statement. He subdued a subject, and according to ANOTHER eyewitness at the scene stated after she was handcuffed following her assault on the officer that "the girl got checked up, seemed fine..." That is not the expected result of a 100 lb girl (how do you all know how much this chick weighed, by the way?) being savaged by a 250 lb "violent officer". Again, Tom... I will say this for you slowly in case you didn't understand all the words the last time.
#354. To: tom007 (#351)
If my wife was drunk in public, rollerskating on the middle of busy streets and resisting arrest, I would say she got what was coming to her. Of course, my wife has a good deal more sense than to exhibit such wantonly reckless behavior. Michelle is a professional rollerderby chick, so she is naturally more violent and reckless. Don't think that little fact wouldn't come up in court if she tried to take this to a jury. She fights for a living and now claims she was a helpless victim? ROFL Anyone who choses to resist arrest should expect to meet a similar fate to Michelle. Tom,
#355. To: tom007 (#352)
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. Tom,
#356. To: Jethro Tull (#317)
I have to imagine the Law office that heired the goon Richard is going to order a "Stop Pay" on his retainer check when the partners read the 4um thread. Martha Stewart says "Thats A Good Thing".
SO now she's a YAHOO? Richard, your pending testimony is worthless.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#357. To: Richard (#355)
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.
was there, I saw what I saw. You weren't there, you saw nothing.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#358. To: tom007 (#356)
You are free to jump on your conspiracy bandwagon and ride it all the way into town. I have not been hired by anyone involved with this case in any way, nor am I working in any capacity with this case. My "pending testimony" won't involve any of the conversation on this thread, just in case you were thinking it would. It would involve what I saw at the scene, nothing more. Surely they would have many witnesses, for the defense and for the prosecution, and there would be many different versions of what occurred... that is IF this ever went to trial, which it wont. This is a simple slam dunk case, public intoxication, resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. If she gets a decent attorney, she will more than likely plead it down in the next three weeks to the PI and a Disorderly Conduct, pay her fines, and be let go with time served. She will at that point have no shot at a civil case. Tom, you are forgetting that this "frail little 100 lb girl" is a professional roller derby chick. She fights for a living. She can't make a convincing argument in civil court that she was just sitting there sober as a church-mouse, minding her own business, and the big bad police came and jumped on her when she had just gotten thru fighting with a dozen other women on rollerskates all night. Tom,
#359. To: tom007 (#357)
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 Tom,
#360. To: Richard (#359)
Impressive spelling. I am awed.
Sorry, Rumplestiltskien,
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#361. To: Richard (#359)
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 :)
I gave my statement to the officers at the scene, and they believed me,
#362. To: Richard (#359)
Maybe so. With the Police not contesting the charges, the citizens of Dallas will pay $75000 to close the case, the Law Office will collect 40% of that. Nice scam you seem to be a part of. Sicko cop beats up girl on skates, you get money for being a shill. Have a good night. Ever think about carpentry for a living? Most of the carpenters I know are pretty happy people.
Tom, this case will never go to court, s Tom, this case will never go to court, she will plead it out as soon as she can
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#363. To: Jethro Tull (#361)
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) Oh my sad Aqualung, this case will never go to trial.
#364. To: tom007 (#362)
"Sicko Cop Beats Up Girl???" Where did this happen? She was never beaten, Tom. He did not strike her even once. Hard to make the case for beating her up if she only has a scratch on her face. Oh, and please show me your evidence for me being a paid shill of someone involved with this case, this should prove most amusing. You know you have nowhere to stand so you resort to attempting to impune me with your ridiculous and unsupported statements. Just shows that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. Oh, and I am a very happy person, I enjoy my life. You are the one who is spouting all the hatred around here, Tom... sounds like life is not to happy in your neighborhood. Then again, when I see the nonsense you post, I am not surprised that you are just angry and bitter at the world. Tom,
#365. To: Richard (#364)
Hard to make the case for beating her up if she only has a scratch on her face. I will let your words stand on their own. That is all that is necessary.
She was never beaten, Tom. He did not strike her even once.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#366. To: tom007 (#365)
So now you concede that she was, in fact, NOT beaten, and that you are just trying to inflame a situation that you were not present at because of some pictures that you saw and your mistrust of the police. Good to see. Tom,
#367. To: Richard (#364)
You know you have nowhere to stand so you resort to attempting to impune me with your ridiculous and unsupported statements. Just shows that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. Oh, and I am a very happy person, I enjoy my life. You are the one who is spouting all the hatred around here, Tom... sounds like life is not to happy in your neighborhood. Then again, when I see the nonsense you post, I am not surprised that you are just angry and bitter at the world. Richard posted on 2006-01-20 22:46:34 ET No Richard, this is why you are a shill for the state.
Oh, and please show me your evidence for me being a paid shill of someone involved with this case, this should prove most amusing.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#368. To: Richard (#366)
You know you have nowhere to stand so you resort to attempting to impune me with your ridiculous and unsupported statements. Just shows that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. Oh, and I am a very happy person, I enjoy my life. You are the one who is spouting all the hatred around here, Tom... sounds like life is not to happy in your neighborhood. Then again, when I see the nonsense you post, I am not surprised that you are just angry and bitter at the world. Richard posted on 2006-01-20 22:46:34 ET You are getting a little nutty, pal.
Oh, and please show me your evidence for me being a paid shill of someone involved with this case, this should prove most amusing.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#369. To: Richard (#366)
Ah..., make that Double Nutty, if you please.
So now you concede that she was, in fact, NOT beaten, and that you are just trying to inflame a situation that you were not present at because of some pictures that you saw and your mistrust of the police.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#370. To: Richard (#363)
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.
#371. To: tom007 (#367)
How am I a shill for the state? I am not employed by them nor am I to receive any compensation for relating what I saw to the authorities. This case will never go to trial, so I don't understand why you are worried about my eye-witness testimony, as it will never be asked of me in court. YOU are the one who is getting a little nutty, Tom. Tom,
#372. To: Jethro Tull (#370)
Get a whiff of reality. She is charged with Public Intoxication, Resisting Arrest and Assaulting a Police Officer. She pleads to PI and Resisting Arrest so they let her go on the more serious Assualting an Officer charge. Fine. So now she tries to go to civil court saying that the little scratch she got was excessive force, when she fights for a LIVING and admits she resisted arrest? ROFLMAO. Perhaps you were not a very good police officer, Jethro, but those of us in the real world know that she won't try to sing that song, as the band wont play. The city will pay nothing to get out of this mess, because there IS no mess. Officer Gordon will not be moved off the street, but hopefully Michelle will have learned her lesson about drinking and listening to the police. Jethro,
#373. To: Richard (#366)
So now you concede that she was, in fact, NOT beaten, and that you are just trying to inflame a situation that you were not present at because of some pictures that you saw and your mistrust of the police. Good to see. Richard posted on 2006-01-20 22:52:24 ET Man - you're a real deal case. Hope the check clears - though I don't think the law firm is going the 4um ever again for the corraboration. Hang the black cop, and hang the white cop that went along with it. That will send a "message" to the rest of the criminals in the LEC to watch out. Or are they your gods on earth?
om,
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#374. To: tom007 (#369)
She was never beaten, Tom. He did not strike her even once. Hard to make the case for beating her up if she only has a scratch on her face. I will let your words stand on their own. That is all that is necessary. You stated that you will let my words stand on their own, you did not refute them. So you are saying that you agree with them. She was NOT beaten. She fought with the police and ended up with a scratch on her face. She was never struck, which is a crucial element in a good beating. A scratch on her face from falling to the ground after fighting with the police is not a beating in anyone's book.
#375. To: Richard (#371)
Please show me, Richard, where I am worried about his, Richard? Thanks in advance Richard. Or do you just make thinks up, Richard?? Richard, are you there?? Or is is spelled Richeared?
This case will never go to trial, so I don't understand why you are worried about my eye-witness testimony, as it will never be asked of me in court.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#376. To: tom007 (#373)
Wow, what a careful and measured response you have issued here. Hang two police officers, one for successfully detaining a suspect who resisted arrest, and the other... well, I guess for letting him do it. I do agree with you, however, that ALL criminals should watch out, or do you advocate people committing crimes? I suppose you would, being as how you are advocating a lynching even though you were not at the scene. Tom, did you stop taking your medications? Tom,
#377. To: tom007 (#357)
To: Richard 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. This is where you displayed your concern over my potential testimony, Tom... I know it was more than 20 minutes ago, so you more than likely forgot... You REALLY are not very good at this. But then again, I am sure you are doing the best that YOU can do. LOL... that makes it even more sad.
On 2006-01-20 21:59:42, tom007 wrote:
#378. To: Richard (#374)
She was NOT beaten. She fought with the police and ended up with a scratch on her face. She was never struck, which is a crucial element in a good beating. A scratch on her face from falling to the ground after fighting with the police is not a beating in anyone's book. GADman have you no shame> O I guess you have already proven that. A "scratch" on the face??????????????????????????? As I am not being paid I am about done with you Richie. Sad that you embrace the chains so eagerly. The girl may have been totally nuts and Mr Big may have been protecting the widows and orphens amoungst us. Your arguments, however, defending the police state actions are repugnent. Go quietly with your chains around your neck. And give "hosannas " to your masters.
So you are saying that you agree with them.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#379. To: tom007 (#378)
I was THERE, he did not beat her. You were NOT there, you have no idea what you are talking about. What EVIDENCE do you have that proves she was BEATEN? (answer: none, because she was not beaten) Your constantly saying it does not make it so, sorry to tell you. Perhaps it IS best that you go quietly into that good night now. It is clear that you have nothing of value to contribute here. Tom,
#380. To: Jethro Tull (#370)
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?
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.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#381. To: Richard (#376)
Richard posted on 2006-01-20 23:12:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Richard, Thak you so much for this conversation. It has made me think and contemplate upon my, your, and others words and beliefs. I appreciate your time and efforts. I also maintain by the remark above, and here I quote it for all to review, "Tom, did you stop taking your medications? " - Richard-: That this marks YOU as a man devoid of cognate responses to the discussion. It is, essentially the mark of a man, like you, who can no longer reason, but must use his fists to defend his position. Which usually means the position is ideological and not necessarilly rational. Do you not agree?? And have I ever called you a "defective" as a counter argument? An apology is, I think, in order. But no offense if not offered. I don't expect it from other that gentleman.
Tom, did you stop taking your medications?
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#382. To: BTP Holdings (#380)
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.
This cop will be lucky if he can get a job in Texas rounding up wetbacks
#383. To: BTP Holdings (#380)
Officer Gordon has been disciplined three times in his 15 year career. He only has six complaints? Complaints are NOT convictions or disciplines, you know. ANYONE can make a complaint and it HAS to be filed regarless of how frivolous. Wow, most cops have more than that because EVERYONE files a complaint these days. You need to call your local police force and investigate that one for yourself. An average of one every 5 years is not a "ticking time bomb waiting to happen." Especially when he is still working on the streets after those incidents. Oh, and lovely racist comment "rounding up wetbacks" that sure shows us how fair and impartial YOU are. LOL I suppose you don't like it that it was a black officer and a white female suspect. You prolly got all scared that he was trying to take your women! BTP,
#384. To: Richard (#383)
Richard posted on 2006-01-20 23:44:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Just wanted to repost your thoughts.
Oh, and lovely racist comment "rounding up wetbacks" that sure shows us how fair and impartial YOU are. LOL I suppose you don't like it that it was a black officer and a white female suspect. You prolly got all scared that he was trying to take your women!
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#385. To: tom007 (#384)
Richard posted on 2006-01-20 23:44:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Just wanted to repost your thoughts. If you didn't I wouldn't have seen it. I've got the statist creep on the filter. That is simple proof he has become desperate and is grasping at straws. Just so happens the wetbacks need rounding up. And that creep buddy cop of his will not be getting the job. ;0)
Oh, and lovely racist comment "rounding up wetbacks" that sure shows us how fair and impartial YOU are. LOL I suppose you don't like it that it was a black officer and a white female suspect. You prolly got all scared that he was trying to take your women!
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#386. To: Richard (#383)
I think it's important to know when these complaints were received. IOW, did they all come w/i the last year? You get my drift, now go do the research. Thanks.
#387. To: Jethro Tull (#382)
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.
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.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#388. To: BTP Holdings (#387)
I did hate dealing with drunks. Totally obnoxious, but usually quite controllable. Especially if you had a partner. I always got a kick out of telling them what they did the following day :)
#389. To: Jethro Tull (#388)
Oh, yeah, they were. I know once in one of the clubs I worked there was a guy at the bar just about passed out. His girlfriend ditched him. I asked if he wanted a cab to go home, so I found out his name and where he lived from his I.D. and called a cab on the house phone. By the time I called he had gotten up and went into one of the employee stairwells and I found him there when I got back. Then my partner showed up and we picked him up and he said he needed to take a leak so we took him to the head. While in there he had a bit of trouble doing it so my partner told me to turn on the water in the sinks. That worked like a charm, just as you do with a little kid. So we took him out to the front door and put him on a bench and I waited for the cab to show. In the meantime, the owner comes along and looks at him near passed out (the drunk was a little guy) and he shoots off his mouth, "What's wrong with him, he have more than two drinks?" Next thing you know the drunk is up and wanting to fight. I said, "Joe, you better sit back down." And he looks at me and drops his fists and says, "At least you called me by my name." And he just plopped back down on the bench like nothing had happened. I told that story to the county cop who always came by when it was busy on the weekends to "make an appearance" for the yokels. He was laughing his ass off and was amazed. He told me that is what you need to do with them, that I handled it just right. Now that came from a guy who had about 10 years on the Sheriff's Dept at that time. So I took it as a real compliment.
I did hate dealing with drunks. Totally obnoxious, but usually quite controllable. Especially if you had a partner. I always got a kick out of telling them what they did the following day :)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#390. To: tom007 (#381)
Tom, From your very FIRST post you attacked me. You stated that “Richard has no credibility with me.” Even though you yourself were NOT an eye-witness to the event and I was. Attacking an eye-witness to an event simply because you don’t like what they are saying is not the mark of a man who can reason, Tommy. Over the course of this thread here are some of the things you have said to or about me: -You accused me of lying on a number of occasions, while offering no proof of this vile accusation. -You said several times that I was a paid shill for the government who was lying about what I saw for the money. You said about me: “I take it that you are either hired or employed by a law office to represent the violent officer, and are "seeding" the false testimoney you plan to present to the court by offering these conversations as evidence of your actually being at the crime site. You a sicko, Richard. Doing it for money.” You said about me: “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 have called me MANY names, among them: A federal government boot licker. Pathetic A worm A sicko. A fruitcake. Nutty Double Nutty SO, while I do agree that you have YET to call me "Defective" as a counter argument, I do NOT feel that any apology is in order, as you have acted in an extremely irrational mode from the outset of your participation in this thread. It is CLEAR that your position is SOLELY ideological and not the least bit rational, Tommy. Now, I do agree with you that an apology IS in order, but I highly doubt that you will show the manhood requisite for you to give it to me. Nice try, Tommy, but you really screwed yourself with this one...
That this marks YOU as a man devoid of cognate responses to the discussion. It is, essentially the mark of a man, like you, who can no longer reason, but must use his fists to defend his position. Which usually means the position is ideological and not necessarilly rational. Do you not agree?? And have I ever called you a "defective" as a counter argument? An apology is, I think, in order. But no offense if not offered. I don't expect it from other that gentleman.
#391. To: BTP Holdings (#385)
BTP, Wow, you are an unabashed and full-blown racist. Do you have fun at your Klan rallies? Please, do us a favor and don't breed.
Just so happens the wetbacks need rounding up.
#392. To: BTP Holdings (#387)
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.
#393. To: Jethro Tull (#386)
I have no idea when the complaints were received. Nor do I care. I highly doubt they all came in the past few years or the news would have reported that data point when they got his files. It is more likely based upon how the media reported it that they all occured in the first years he was on the job, otherwise they would have made a point of telling us. If you want to know the specifics, I suggest you get off your fat ass and do some looking around yourself. Jethro,
#394. To: Richard (#393)
And that's the problem, you don't care (about the defendant). If these complaints all came recently it would indicate a pattern of abuse that is reaching a dangerous critical mass. If your desire is to look at this event fairly, step back, take a deep breath and gather more information before forming an unwavering opinion.
I have no idea when the complaints were received. Nor do I care.
#395. To: Richard (#392)
this is from "a small cut to her cheek?"
#396. To: Jethro Tull (#394)
I did not say that I don't care about the defendant. I saw an officer use appropriate force in a given situation on Saturday. She was simply restrained and taken to the ground when she resisted arrest and assaulted the police officer. He did not beat her, he did not mace her, he did not use his baton, he did not taze her. He simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her. So, his past history does not enter into the equation because he did not display a behavior that would indicate that he was a danger to the community in any way. As I said, if they were recent, the media would have let us know when they did their research to find out his history. That they did NOT let us know when they occured speaks more the fact that they occured LONG ago. If you are so concerned, then YOU do the research. I was at the scene and did not see him do anything out of line given what he faced. I am looking at this event fairly. YOU are asking that I engage in a witchhunt. Jethro,
#397. To: christine (#395)
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. Christine,
#398. To: Richard (#396)
Scroll up this thread. You called her a Yahoo. That
isn't a term of endearment. And about your observations, others on the scene
report the polar opposite from yours. One pic clearly shows the outrage of one
eyewitness. What did she see that you missed? Time will tell as this use of
excessive force weaves its way thru the system.
I did not say that I don't care about the defendant.
#399. To: Richard (#397)
there's never been one person in the history of the world that cut themselves while shaving and the cut produced the type of blood we saw in the picture.
the face bleeds enormously from the smallest of cuts. If you had to shave your face, you would know this.
#400. To: Red Jones (#399)
While I do apprecaite your reactionary approach to the matter. I did not say that she cut herself while shaving. I said that the cut on her face was small. A cut the size of an M&M on your face would produce more than enough blood than was displayed in the picture. That said, once again, we don't know whose blood that is in the photo. BOTH parties were bleeding at the scene and had to be treated. That could be Officer Gordon's blood in that picture. There is no way to determine whose it is from that picture. Red,
#401. To: Jethro Tull (#398)
Calling someone a Yahoo does not mean that I do not care about them. It speaks solely to my opinion of their frame of mind. I am beginning to doubt if you actually served on the force based upon many of your statements. However, I will not challenge your statement and will take you at your word for now, which is FAR more than any of you have done for me. You stated earlier that eyewitness testimony was the worst kind, but you are more than willing to accept ANY eyewitness testimony other than mine. The outraged eyewitness in the photo next to the policeman is the friend who was skating in the street with her, but stopped when told to. She was also drunk. I can understand that she would be upset if her friend was bleeding. I have never said that I do not care about the defendant or her rights. In this situation, she did not have the right to resist arrest nor the right to assault the police officer. Being as how she did both of those things, I think her only receiving a small cut on her face shows tremendous restraint and use of passive detainment on the part of the officer. She was not beaten, she was not maced, she was not tazered - she was simply taken to the ground and cuffed. As for your feeble wish for this to be excessive force when it clearly was not, note how she STILL has not filed a complaint... Jethro,
#402. To: Richard (#397)
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?
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.
#403. To: christine (#402)
Christine, I just was using the first text box that appeared. I will use the comments box from here forward, thanks. :) The reason you don't see blood on the police officer is because people did not care to take photos of the police officer at the scene and probably did not care if he was bleeding.
#404. To: Richard (#401)
that IS her blood. that's more concrete evidence than an eyewitness account which in many cases has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable due to biases, imperceptions, and loss of memory as time passes. how many times have you yourself forgotten details of a life's event?
#405. To: Richard (#403)
That's plausible.
The reason you don't see blood on the police officer is because people did not care to take photos of the police officer at the scene and probably did not care if he was bleeding.
#406. To: Richard (#401)
Good deal Richard. You can assume I was on the job, and I’ll assume you were actually on the scene. About that witness - her friend, as you claim - you stated she was drunk. How do you know and why wasn’t she also arrested for obstructing and public intox? That would be the normal course of these events, from my experience.
#407. To: Richard (#403)
This is but one of many studies that have been done on eyewitness
unreliability. U.S.
Navy Study: Eyewitnesses Unreliable Abram Katz , New Haven Register --
Science Editor 06/21/2004 Victims who get a good long look at violent
criminals are unlikely to identify them accurately later, Yale and U.S. Navy
researchers have found. This caveat follows from a unique study of 509
Navy and Marine officers undergoing elite survival training at Fort Bragg,
N.C. Results suggest that police and juries may give eyewitness testimony
too much credibility, said Dr. Charles A. Morgan III, a Yale psychiatrist and
lead author of the study. "Memory in healthy people is not inherently
terribly accurate. There's a substantial amount of error," Morgan said. "Maybe
we should demand more evidence." Authors wrote, "The present data have a
number of implications for law enforcement personnel, mental health
professionals, physicians, attorneys and judges." Mario T. Gaboury,
director of the Crime Victim Study Center at the University of New Haven,
said, "Eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate. I don't think anyone
understood the magnitude of the problem until the past few years."
Previous research has called the reliability of eyewitness accounts into
question. The current study, which was published in the International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, is unusual in that participants were
educationally, physically and mentally similar and all underwent nearly
identical stressful events, Morgan said. Groups of top officers undergoing
realistic training at Fort Bragg are placed in a mock prisoner of war camp and
subjected to low- and high-stress interrogations by U.S. officers acting as
the "enemy." The 40-minute high-stress session includes the threat of
physical violence and creates stress levels equal to landing on an aircraft
carrier at night for the first time and actual combat. Details of the
training are classified, but the study implies that participants are also "man-
handled." Twenty-four hours after the grueling sessions, the officers
were asked to identify "interrogators" and "guards." They viewed a lineup, a
group of photos and a sequence of photos. Morgan and colleagues found that
in the live lineup 30 percent of the high- stress group made correct
identifications versus 62 percent of the low-stress group. Using
sequential photos the high-stress accuracy rate was 49 percent, while the low-
stress rate rose to 76 percent. The photo-spread method, which is used
by most police departments, yielded even more lopsided results. About 32
percent of the identifications in the high-stress group were correct, while 68
percent were wrong. Around 88 percent of the low-stress group picks were
correct, with a 12 percent error rate. This means that almost seven out of
10 high-stress officers made mistaken identifications. Furthermore, there
was no relationship between the confidence level and accuracy of the memory,
Morgan said. Officers who were absolutely positive that they had selected
the right person were no more likely to be correct than officers who expressed
some doubt. "Unfortunately, that's what people on juries listen to,"
Morgan said. Morgan said high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol
and adrenaline may degrade spatial memory. Norepinephrine, also produced
under stress, apparently interferes with the brain's prefrontal cortex, where
memories are integrated, Morgan said. Morgan said he hopes to measure
hormone levels in trainees under various degrees of stress. John H. Mace,
professor of psychology at the University of New Haven, said many studies have
cast doubt on the accuracy of eyewitness memories. Mace said the Yale
study is important because it apparently corroborates many previous hypotheses
and results. It may be a long time before defense lawyers start to
challenge eyewitness testimony on the basis of the Yale and other memory
studies, Gaboury said. Court rulings typically lag behind scientific
consensus, he said. "We must be cautious. We don't want the pendulum to
swing too far," Gaboury said.
#408. To: Richard, Jethro Tull, Tom007, christine (#397)
Police to investigate incident involving Deep Ellum skater DALLAS - Dallas police will conduct an internal affairs investigation into a scuffle and the arrest of a woman on roller skates in Deep Ellum. Michelle Metzinger, 25, was arrested Saturday evening by officer Ceaphus Gordon after she was skating in and out of traffic, Lt. Rick Watson said. Gordon told Metzinger to get out of the street, and Metzinger complied before visiting a nearby business, Watson said. The officer followed her in an attempt to identify her, and she became verbally abusive, Watson said. Gordon asked Metzinger to come outside by his patrol car and, once she was there, told her she could not skate in traffic. When Metzinger became verbally abusive a second time, the officer asked her how much she had to drink, and she responded she had had two or three drinks, Watson said. Gordon told Metzinger she was under arrest for public intoxication and to turn around and put her hands behind her back. As Gordon moved around Metzinger she reached up and grabbed the right side of the officer's face "to gouge his eye out," Watson said. "Out of self-defense he took her down," Watson said. "She was scratching him and kicking him with her roller blades." Gordon managed to wrestle Metzinger into handcuffs but not before sustaining lacerations and bruises to his face. Metzinger, who had lacerations on her face, refused treatment on the scene but was taken to an area hospital before being booked into the Lew Sterrett Justice Center on charges of public intoxication and assault on a public servant, Watson said. Police may investigate woman's arrest, scuffle Dallas police may investigate an arrest early Saturday in Deep Ellum that resulted in a scuffle between an officer and an Old East Dallas woman. Michelle Metzinger, 25, was being cited for public intoxication in the 2800 block of Elm Street, where she had been seen roller-skating in traffic. According to a police report, she clawed at the face of Officer Ceaphus Gordon, who then used a defensive maneuver that caused both of them to fall to the pavement. Officer Gordon was treated for scratches and bruises on his chin. Ms. Metzinger refused treatment at the scene but was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where she received stitches. Ms. Metzinger, who could not be reached for comment, also was charged with assault on a peace officer. She was released Sunday morning on $1,500 bail. Photographs of the incident circulated over the weekend, some showing Ms. Metzinger with a bloody face, Officer Gordon pinning her to the ground. Cpl. Donna Hernandez, a Dallas police spokeswoman, said she couldn't comment on the officer's actions. She said an internal investigation could be sparked by a complaint from Ms. Metzinger or a request by the officer's supervisor. "Now seeing how this turned out," she said, "it very well may be looked into regardless." Marissa Alanis So, Richard, you claim as an eyewitness you observed at the scene, paramedics wiped the blood away from Ms. Metzinger and you could see she only had "a very small cut". Yet the police state Ms. Metzinger refused treatment at the scene and at the hospital her very small cut required stitches. How is it that your eyewitness report and that of the police differ? Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face and where were you standing (and how far away) that you could see paramedics wipe Ms. Metzinger's cut and close enough to see it "was a very small cut"?
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.
Posted on Wed, Jan. 18, 2006
By MELISSA SANCHEZ
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER 05:56 AM CST on Tuesday, January 17, 2006
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#409. To: Starwind, Richard (#408)
Gag me with a spoon. This cop was way wrong. If a kid can't have a damn drink and roller skate down the block in America, lets all get chipped and dipped today. This would never have happened 15 years ago.
"Out of self-defense he took her down," Watson said. "She was scratching him and kicking him with her roller blades."
#410. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#402)
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.
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.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#411. To: christine (#407)
Good find, christine. You beat me to it :)
#412. To: Richard (#408)
A follow up question regarding your eyewitness testimoney, if you would please. Regarding that very small cut you saw on Ms. Metzinger's face, on which side of her face was that cut?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#413. To: BTP Holdings (#410)
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.
#414. To: Jethro Tull (#406)
Jethro, I do not know if she was or was not cited for obstruction and public intoxication. I did not pay attention to how her situation played out that night. I saw her drinking alcohol that evening, but I did not administer any test as to whether or not she was drunk, I based my assessment on her behavior and movement. Perhaps you should look into what happened to her...
#415. To: Has this video been posted yet? (#410)
#416. To: Richard (#396)
Richard, another question on your eyewitness testimony if you would please. Police to investigate officer's scuffle with skater From Staff Reports Dallas police have launched an internal investigation into the arrest of a roller derby player who scuffled with an officer trying to cite her for public intoxication and skating in traffic last weekend in Deep Ellum. The investigation will determine whether Officer Ceaphus Gordon, 39, a 13-year department veteran, acted improperly when he fought with Michelle Metzinger, 25, a member of Assassination City, a roller derby team. About 12:45 a.m. Saturday, Ms. Metzinger was skating in traffic in the 2800 block of Elm Street when the officer tried to write her a ticket and arrest her on a charge of public intoxication, according to a police report. The officer stated in his report that she was belligerent and that when he tried to arrest her, she tried to gouge his eye. While trying to control her, the officer lost his balance and both fell to the ground, the report states. Dallas police Chief David Kunkle said the department is taking witnesses' allegations of excessive force seriously. "We just thought it was good to start the investigation now while the memories of the witnesses are fresh and they'll be easy to find," Kunkle said. Police records show since 1994 there have been at least six allegations against Officer Gordon of excessive force, physical abuse or assault. Gordon has been disciplined twice for escalating or participating in a disturbance, and once for conduct discrediting the department. Some of the probes into allegations pointed at the officer were inconclusive, and he has received some commendations for good work. Meanwhile, Metzinger and her attorney said they may also file a complaint against Officer Gordon. WFAA-TV reporter Rebecca Lopez contributed to this report. So Richard, your eyewitness testimony is that Officer Gordon "simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her" but the police report states he lost his balance and both fell to the ground. How do you explain this difference in your eyewitness testimony and the police report?
He did not beat her, he did not mace her, he did not use his baton, he did not taze her. He simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her.
11:00 AM CST on Wednesday, January 18, 2006
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#417. To: Richard (#414)
But in your #401 you state categorically she was drunk. Which of your statements is true?
I saw her drinking alcohol that evening, but I did not administer any test as to whether or not she was drunk,
#418. To: Starwind (#416)
Sounds like he's trying to find a way to explain being 'over zealous'.. if his actions were on the up and up.. why try to doctor the report in this way?
While trying to control her, the officer lost his balance and both fell to the ground, the report states.
#419. To: christine (#413)
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.
#420. To: view the video JT linked! (#415)
excellent find. one witness: "the officer planted his knee in the side of her head."
#421. To: Jethro Tull (#417)
Jethro, She was categorically drunk according to my definition of the term. She had slurred speech, had trouble standing, was overly loud in public, was drinking a lot, ... those are the methods I use. So, according to MY opinion, yes, she was categorically drunk. I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, I am going off my personal experiences. Besides, Jethro, being as how this will never go to trial, what does it matter?
#422. To: Starwind (#408)
Starwind, You know very little it is clear. The statement that she "refused treatment at the scene" means that she declined to have the paramedics stitch her up, not that her injuries were not tended to. It does not take a very big cut on the face to receive stitches, and I can understand why she would not want to be treated at the scene for a facial cut. You are trying to make something out of nothing, Star, you are grasping at straws. She was indeed treated at the scene, triaged, and taken to the hospital for the stitches. Not a big deal.
#423. To: christine (#407)
Christine, As for your statements about eyewitness testimony. Why are you so willing to believe the eyewitness testimony that you WANT to believe if you know that ALL eyewitness testimony is fundamentally flawed? See, you can't have it both ways... sorry.
#424. To: christine (#404)
Christine, There is NO way to determine WHOSE blood that is in the picture. None at all. You would have to do testing on the blood to determine to whom it belonged. Also, Christine, remember that you have thrown out ALL eye-witness testimony as being fundamentally flawed, so you can't go back to it when it suits your points.
that IS her blood
#425. To: Jethro Tull (#409)
Jethro, How old are you?
#426. To: BTP Holdings (#410)
BTP, Wow, you are a racist and an idiot (not surprising, the two often go hand in hand)... it is good to see that you know as little about the human anatomy as you do about proper race relations. The face bleeds far more easily and more profusely than the hands do if you put cuts of equal size on them. Perhaps you should try it on your own face and hands as a test right now? I mean, in the interest of science, of course.
#427. To: Jethro Tull (#415)
Jethro, No video plays when you click on your link.
#428. To: christine (#420)
Christine, Remember: YOU were the one who pointed out that ALL eyewitness testimony is fundamentally flawed. So I guess we can throw out your "excellent find." Sorry.
excellent find. one witness: "the officer planted his knee in the side of her head."
#429. To: Richard (#425)
56 and you?
#430. To: Richard (#424)
the photos we DO see are consistent with all other reports i've read other than yours and that of Lt Watson. it's michelle's head on the ground with the officer atop her. it's his knee i see planted on her back and it's her blood i see gushing from her face. i see no blood on him and it says in a report above that he was treated only for scratches and bruises to his chin. you say Starwind is grasping at straws? you're the one grasping at straws. you really have no more stake in this than a mere eyewitness? doubtful.
#431. To: Richard (#421)
Inadmissible. Next!
She was categorically drunk according to my definition of the term.
#432. To: Jethro Tull (#429)
36
#433. To: christine (#430)
Christine, AGAIN: YOU already threw out ALL eyewitness testimony as fundamentally flawed. You can't go back to it when it suits your cause after you have dismissed it. Christine, I came here to tell you what I SAW. From the very beginning, I have been vilified by this body of people. Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story. I have nothing at stake here other than to defend myself from all these attacks on me and tell the truth about what I saw that night. I am not the judge, jury or excecutioner. I am just an eyewitness to the situation. I was there and I saw what I saw. For saying so I have been crucified.
the photos we DO see are consistent with all other reports i've read other than yours and that of Lt Watson.
#434. To: Jethro Tull (#431)
ROFLMAO! Jethro, you made me laugh. Sorry, but my testimony is not inadmissable because I am not an expert on determining the state of intoxication of an individual. I never claimed to be an expert, so you can't strike it from the record. I am an eye-witness, the jury can draw whatever conclusions they like from my statements. But who are we kidding... this will never go to trial.
Inadmissible. Next!
#435. To: Richard (#422)
Thank you. Will you also kindly answer where she was relative to the scene when she was "triaged" by paramedics that you saw her, and please answer on which side of her face was that "very small cut" that you saw?
The statement that she "refused treatment at the scene" means that she declined to have the paramedics stitch her up, not that her injuries were not tended to.
It does not take a very big cut on the face to receive stitches, and I can understand why she would not want to be treated at the scene for a facial cut.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#436. To: Richard (#416)
Richard you seem to also have overlooked these questions in my post #416: How do you explain this difference in your eyewitness testimony and the police report? So Richard, your eyewitness testimony is that Officer Gordon "simply took her to the ground and handcuffed her" but the police report states he "lost his balance and both fell to the ground".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#437. To: Richard (#434)
I'm not as sure about that as I was. The video that you unfortunately can't see shows me a vulnerable officer. I'd take it to trial if she were my daughter. I don't see a jury believing the cop, not to mention your testimony (g).
But who are we kidding... this will never go to trial.
#438. To: Starwind (#436)
Starwind, There is little difference between "took her to the ground" and "he lost his balanace and they both fell to the ground" from an observational standpoint. She was on rollerskates so I would presume that when she was resisting arrest and assaulting the police officer, he went to grapple her, but because she was unable to keep her footing due to her rollerskates, they both fell to the ground. Sorry, but from my point of view, I was not looking to evaluate whether or not he should be awarded points for a proper wrestling takedown. He subdued his assailant, which is his job, and did so without causing serious bodily injury to the suspect. He did a great job, even moreso if he took her safely to the ground as a result of losing his balance due to her skates. So, to answer your question: there is little difference between the two accounts other than perspective.
#439. To: Jethro Tull (#437)
Jethro, She is 25, so if she was your daughter, you would not have a say in whether or not it went to trial, sorry. Trust me, she will plead this out before Valentine's Day...
#440. To: Richard (#438)
And are you going to answer? Will you also kindly answer where she was relative to the scene when she was "triaged" by paramedics that you saw her, and please answer on which side of her face was that "very small cut" that you saw?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#441. To: Richard (#419)
Were you there, Richard? I ask, only because this is about the 73rd time on this thread that you emphasized the point.
... you were NOT there, and I was.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#442. To: Richard (#439)
I have 2 daughters both over 25 and they would take my advice in this type of matter. I also know attorneys who would drop what they were doing to help me. Trust me, large money awaits young Michelle. Hey, you had a daughter as a young buck, no??
She is 25, so if she was your daughter, you would not have a say in whether or not it went to trial, sorry.
#443. To: Richard (#433)
I believe that
from your very first post was the reason you got a lot of the reaction you
did. I don't think you've been crucified and I saw some posts where some
concessions were made on the part of others. I haven't seen that from you. If
you did, I missed it. I am very curious, though, why you care so much for
what "this body of people" think about this incident that you would spend this
much time here.
She got what she deserved. Perhaps you all will learn a little
respect the police from this lesson.
#444. To: christine (#443)
Respect??? That's not what I learned, Richard. I learned alot about you. Respect the pig so he won't beat me like the vicious dog that he is, Richard? That is repect in your twisted world?? I guess you had alot of respect for the East German Stazi. They were your kinda people, Richard.
Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#445. To: Jethro Tull (#431)
Inadmissible. Next! Right, JT, his definition is subjective. And if he claims my professional opinion based on 11 years in the line is of no effect, then his unprofessional opinion based on subjective views (he said himself he is tired of the drunks in Deep Ellum) is a load of hogwash. In other words, he is a liar and a fraud. ;0)
She was categorically drunk according to my definition of the term.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#446. To: Starwind (#435)
Starwind, The injury that I saw was on her left cheek. I am sorry that I did not diagram the situation, where and how she was treated before going to the hospital was not information that I felt would be important. Why and how she was arrested seemed important, so I focused on those things. It occured in the street between the July Alley bar and the Elm Street bar.
#447. To: Neil McIver (#441)
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.
Were you there, Richard?
#448. To: Jethro Tull (#442)
I can understand your outrage as a parent, but she is not to win a large settlement in this issue. She will plead down the assault and take the Public Intox and Resisting Arrest. She has no shot in civil court if she admits that she resisted arrest and only has a small cut to show for it. Sorry, even if she is cute and little, it ain't gonna wash when she is admitting that she resisted the officer, which predicated her injuries. She will be lucky if the city picks up her hospital bills, and she will still have to pay for the PI and resisting charges. It is not a winnable case. Jethro,
#449. To: christine (#443)
Christine, You are one of the only voices of reason, and I apprecaite your comments. I was upset with the coverage I read and saw concerning this incident. When I searched for internet coverage of the event I found this site. I saw a lot of people who were not there who were laboring under some large misconceptions about what happened. As a witness, I told them my side of what happened and have been attacked ad nauseum since then. I apologize if my being put on the defensive has made me snippy. I was actually hoping to find people much like yourself to discuss this matter with in a civil fashion. In my view, this whole incident is a non-issue where a drunk person resisted arrest. I have seen several drunks resist arrest before, and her treatment was NOT severe, savage, excessive, or, for that matter, even that harsh being as how she took a swing at him. Had she just been sitting there minding her own business and the cop snuck up behind her and started pummelling her, I would be on her side. In this case, she resisted, and she got a little cut. Not a big deal. To hear people on this site talking about hanging the officers being a reasonable course of action it makes me angry. This woman resisted being arrested and got hurt as a result. I would have been happier had she simply listened to the officer and followed his instructions peacefully. No, it is not a good thing that her conduct resulted in her being injured, and I can understand how seeing photos of a woman with blood on her face can be disturbing to those of you who did not see how the blood got there in the first place - but it is a consequence of her actions. She made a choice, and it was a poor one. No one is taking that into account here. Thanks for asking.
#450. To: tom007 (#444)
Tom, Wow, again the fascist reference... how melodramatic... How about simply respecting a person who is charged with upholding the law when they are upholding the law? If a policeman tells you you are under arrest and says to put your hands on the car, or tells you you are under arrest and to put your hands behind your back, you should listen to them... NOT fight them. Respect is listening to the police when they tell you to put your hands on the car. Respect is not resisting arrest when the the police tell you that you are going to jail. Respect is not fighting with a police officer who is attempting to handcuff you. Or is that too much to ask of you, Tom?
Respect??? That's not what I learned, Richard. I learned alot about you. Respect the pig so he won't beat me like the vicious dog that he is, Richard? That is repect in your twisted world??
#451. To: BTP Holdings (#445)
BTP, I claim that your professional opinion is invalid because you did not see the incident and are therefore not in a position to comment upon the actions of either party. That I am tired of drunks in Deep Ellum does not make me a liar or a fraud. It speaks simply to the complete lack of respect for authority that is exhibited by people when they are intoxicated. A lack of respect that, on Saturday, resulted in a suspect and a police officer sustaining injuries. Sorry we all can't be racists like you, BTP. Your blatant racism also disqualifies you from giving any sort of valid opinion.
#452. To: Richard (#451)
Please give us your version of events of the night in question, with time notations. Since you were there and all...
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#453. To: Richard (#451)
Do you live in Deep Ellum?
That I am tired of drunks in Deep Ellum does not make me a liar or a fraud.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#454. To: Dakmar (#452)
Dakmar, I have given you my accounting, read the thread.
#455. To: Dakmar (#453)
Dakmar, Yes, I do live in Deep Ellum.
#456. To: Richard (#455)
Since you are only 36, I have to assume you either bought/leased there once it was already established as a party zone, which makes you popular with your neighbors I'm sure, or maybe you inherited a shoeshine stand from your uncle milkdud or something, who's to say, but if you hate drunks why the fuck do you live in Deep Ellum?
Yes, I do live in Deep Ellum.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#457. To: Richard (#454)
I did, you keep saying you were there, offering no more information than was given in the initial account. It's curious how the parts you don'r remember time up with holes in the police account. Want to argue about what "account" means?
I have given you my accounting, read the thread.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#458. To: Dakmar (#456)
Dakmar, You are free to assume what you please. I do not have to justify anything to you.
#459. To: Richard (#450)
The above is what you said, I do not need a condensendingly smug lecture from you about what respect is, Richard. And this violence is the way we "will learn a little respect to the police from this lesson". GAK.
Perhaps you all will learn a little respect the police from this lesson.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#460. To: Richard (#458)
Sure, but people would respect you if you tried.
I do not have to justify anything to you.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#461. To: Dakmar (#457)
Dakmar, I have offered information that was not given in the initial account. She resisted arrest when the officer told her she was going to jail, which was not in ANY of the media stories... they want to protray her as a little girl who did nothing wrong. Oh, and the officer did not weigh 250 pounds, and the girl was WELL over 100 pounds, but hey, who among you really cares about the truth. Do you want to know what they were grilling in the tattoo place next to July Alley at the time? Oh, the grill is not in any of the accounts, sorry, I probably should have mentioned it earlier as it is a crucial piece of the situation. I don't have a time stamp of the account because I was not looking at my watch, I was looking at what was happening. There was an arrest in progress and a large angry mob to be aware of. I suppose in that situation, you would be looking at your watch and writing notes carefully in your notebook with regards to the situation that was unfolding and not pay attention to what was happening right in front of you.
#462. To: Dakmar (#460)
Dakmar, It is clear from your actions that you will not respect me in any situation.
#463. To: tom007 (#459)
Tom, It sounds like you need to learn a great deal of respect for other people, and for authority. Hopefully if you are detained by the police for some reason you will remember this event and not fight with them. I highly doubt it, but hey, I can dream, can't I?
#464. To: Richard (#461)
I had some friends lived in Broadripple (Indianapolis' own entertainment district :) You seem like the kind of person would book a hotel room in the castro district so you could bitch about the fags.
Oh, and the officer did not weigh 250 pounds, and the girl was WELL over 100 pounds, but hey, who among you really cares about the truth.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#465. To: Richard (#463)
That sounds like a threat, honky.
Hopefully if you are detained by the police for some reason you will remember this event and not fight with them.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#466. To: Richard (#463)
Shit man, you are hilarious. Ever read any Rousseau?
It sounds like you need to learn a great deal of respect for other people, and for authority.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#467. To: Richard (#463)
Hopefully if you are detained by the police for some reason you will remember this event and not fight with them. Your assumptions are confused. The PO, with a hundred pound advantage, does this sort of violence to her, and you somehow conclude I have a alot to learn about respect?????? BTW Please save the dreams of me, I find that picture of you dreaming of the police brutalizing me a disturbing glimpse into your twisted world. Here's your hero - "However, it will not be the department's first look into the 15-year Dallas police veteran's actions. Police records show since 1994 there have been at least six allegations of excessive force, physical abuse or assault. Gordon has been disciplined twice for escalating or participating in a disturbance and once for conduct discrediting the department. Also Online Rebecca Lopez reports Stories differ after officer, skater scuffle Many witnesses who saw the latest incident said they have no doubt that Gordon used excessive force Saturday night. One witness called Gordon's actions "a textbook example of unnecessary, excessive force." "He grabbed her again by the hair, flipped her down on the ground and planted a knee on the side of her head and cut her face up on the concrete," said witness Derek Conway". GOOD JOB OFFICER, I REALLY RESPECT YOU NOW. NOW I KNOW WHAT RESPECT IS ALL ABOUT IN RICHARD'S WORLD - FEAR OF VIOLENCE.
It sounds like you need to learn a great deal of respect for other people, and for authority.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#468. To: Dakmar (#465)
Dakmar, Not sure how you read a threat into sound advice. Also, you call me a honky, yet you don't know what race I am. How very racist of you. You and BTP must get along very well in your world of intolerance.
Hopefully if you are detained by the police for some reason you will remember this event and not fight with them. That sounds like a threat, honky.
#469. To: Dakmar (#464)
Dakmar, I spend many of my weekends with my friends at the various venues in Deep Ellum. You really have no idea what you are talking about here.
#470. To: Richard (#468)
How very racist of you. welcome to pop culture, bitch
Also, you call me a honky, yet you don't know what race I am.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#471. To: Dakmar (#470)
How wonderfully racist of you, Dakmar. It is no wonder that you have problems with people being expected to obey the laws of this country.
#472. To: Richard (#469)
Makes sense, since you said you live there.
I spend many of my weekends with my friends at the various venues in Deep Ellum.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#473. To: Richard (#471)
It is no wonder that you have problems with people being expected to obey the laws of this country. What name do you use on FR?
How wonderfully racist of you, Dakmar.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#474. To: Dakmar (#473)
What the hell are you talking about, Dakmar?
#475. To: Richard (#474)
I feel like I've dealt with you before, you use so many canned insults and retarded cliches. By FR I meant http://Freerepublic.com, an internet board that caters to people who think drunk skater girls need beat up.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#476. To: Dakmar, Richard (#465)
Tell him, Dak, he ain't seen nothing yet. Little does he know all of that PC hogwash about intolerance don't fly around here; only in Richard's World. ;0)
That sounds like a threat, honky.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#477. To: Dakmar (#475)
That's a no shitter. I've come to expect that from people with stunted intellects.
I feel like I've dealt with you before, you use so many canned insults and retarded cliches.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#478. To: Dakmar (#475)
Dakmar, She was not beaten up in any sense of the term. The officer did not hit her. He took her to the ground when she resisted arrest and handcuffed her. You do love to try to insert things that did not occur. I have never heard of http://Freerepublic.com, sorry I missed your obscure reference to it.
#479. To: BTP Holdings (#476)
BTP, You are an unabashed racist, yet you feel that I am intolerant? ROFLMAO!
#480. To: Richard, christine (#449)
Had you posted like this from the beginning, you might not have found yourself having to be so much on the defensive. Picture the police officer thinking, "It is not a good thing that she's being injured, but it is a consequence of her actions." Picture the police officer thinking, "She's getting what she deserves." Night and day difference although the pictures of the aftermath might appear the same. If she was getting what she deserved, a device could be created that bloodies faces, judges could use them to inflict punishment, and none of us would have a care in the world. Right? However, the vast majority of people would not be in favor of such a device, claiming it would not be a suitable punishment. I'd be one of them. Nobody deserves to get their face bloodied during an arrest. In a perfect world, nobody gets hurt during an arrest. We don't live in a perfect world though. Things happen. In fact, I would argue only having a bloody face might be a favorable outcome in the real world if you resist. By resisting arrest, you are entering combat with a person who has a gun. How can that possibly be a good plan? If you are able to formulate bad plans and act on them, what else are you capable of? The officer must not only subdue you and keep an eye on any of your friends who might wish to come to your aid, but must also keep control of his gun. That's a very dangerous situation for all involved. Here's a story from 2002 which happened not far from where I live. I'm biased perhaps, as I don't have much sympathy for people who resist arrest. It isn't a game where the police officer must use the same level of force you do to keep it fair. He can't afford to lose. He's armed and you are showing a willingness to fight. No, it is not a good thing that her conduct resulted in her being injured, and I can understand how seeing photos of a woman with blood on her face can be disturbing to those of you who did not see how the blood got there in the first place - but it is a consequence of her actions.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#481. To: markm0722 (#480)
Mark, Very well said. Thanks!
#482. To: markm0722 (#480)
that was a very interesting story you linked to. You know a lot of people are sick and tired of the police the way the police behave badly and a lot of people who would otherwise want to help the police no longer do as a result. just my opinion.
#483. To: markm0722, Richard (#480)
Richard made it clear that he thought that was the case.
Picture the police officer thinking, "She's getting what she deserves."
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#484. To: markm0722, All (#480)
Within a few minutes, Deputy Herzog arrived on the scene and confronted the man, which seemed to agitated him more. As the man fought with Herzog, the officer went for his pepper spray, but the man barely flinched after several sprays to his face, Porter said. The man somehow managed to release Herzog's gun from his holster, and it hit the ground. That's when several bystanders rushed the naked man and tried to overpower him. "But he just blew them off like water on a duck's tail," said Porter. I can tell you right now the perp was probably on PCP. That is the only way he could have done those things which seem to be of superhuman strength, and especially the pepper spray not affecting him. Clearly, the cop was unprepared and did not have any idea about this. I've seen a 98 lb girl high on that shit and it took six of us to hold her down. But, there is a difference between the two incidents and any attempt to compare them or to say the cop in Deep Ellum was in any sort of similar situation is really pushing the envelope. That's just the way I see it.
As shots rang out, some citizens tried to step in
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#485. To: Richard (#448)
You sure live
in an either, or world. Odd that you’re so dogmatic. I don’t get it.
It is not a winnable case.
#486. To: Richard (#447)
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).
I emphasize it because people like you consistently try to say that I was not there.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#487. To: Jethro Tull (#485)
Jethro, I find it equally odd that you rely so readily on hearsay to support your theory that this woman would deserve to make even a nickel from her criminal behavior. Perhaps we should all resist arrest and assault the police to make money off the nuisance lawsuits instead of getting regular jobs?
#488. To: Neil McIver (#486)
Neil, Trust CAN'T be earned. It is given or not given. There is no magical formula that causes you to trust anyone. It is not like "if I give you three beans, you will trust me." You either choose to trust someone or you don't. It is an emotion, not a scientific formula.
#489. To: Richard (#488)
Do you promise to make that a law once elected?
Trust CAN'T be earned. It is given or not given.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#490. To: Richard (#487)
Now you're falling off the cliff... It isn't like this case isn't controversial. Others at the scene totally dispute your account. Then, of course, we have those nasty pics...the one where Michelle is complying with her hands on the radio car is particularly interesting to me. It shows total compliance. For me to believe that she went from this position to that of an eye gouging beast is a stretch, especially given the cops record of civilian abuse.
#491. To: Jethro Tull (#490)
That does it, I'm writing the Dallas Tourism Board about Richard, they'll have someone beat him up within the hour.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#492. To: Richard (#488)
Trust CAN'T be earned. It is given or not given. This response...... I never would have expected it. I'm floored. "Fruitcake" suits you quite well indeed! Well, buddy, I don't trust you, so maybe you weren't on the seen at all. Maybe you're not even from Texas.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#493. To: BTP Holdings (#484)
Well, I'm glad I made no attempt to compare the two incidents or say the situations were similar. I'd hate to be thought of as an envelope pusher. I merely posted it to show, in general, that there are risks involved for officers when people resist arrest. Further, I even went so far as to say it might even make me a bit biased because of that incident. The things I said to go with it apply to all cases where someone resists arrest, in my opinion. Here's a story from 2002 which happened not far from where I live. I'm biased perhaps, as I don't have much sympathy for people who resist arrest. It isn't a game where the police officer must use the same level of force you do to keep it fair. He can't afford to lose. He's armed and you are showing a willingness to fight. However, you said... I've seen a 98 lb girl high on that shit and it took six of us to hold her down. Holy cow! How many pounds of police officers is that? Just kidding! ;) And lastly... ...seem to be of superhuman strength... Clearly, the cop was unprepared and did not have any idea about this. How does one get prepared to subdue a naked man with superhuman strength? If this is a common occurrence and/or requires lots of practice to be prepared, police officers are very underpaid. That's just my opinion of course, lol.
But, there is a difference between the two incidents and any attempt to compare them or to say the cop in Deep Ellum was in any sort of similar situation is really pushing the envelope.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#494. To: Jethro Tull (#490)
It isn't like this case isn't controversial. Others at the scene totally dispute your account. Then, of course, we have those nasty pics...the one where Michelle is complying with her hands on the radio car is particularly interesting to me. It shows total compliance. For me to believe that she went from this position to that of an eye gouging beast is a stretch, especially given the cops record of civilian abuse. You got it, JT. That was the very first thing that hit me about this whole affair. Richard discredits himself more and more the longer he goes on like this. And I don't give a rat's ass what he says. ;0)
Now you're falling off the cliff...
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#495. To: Neil McIver (#486)
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."
I never said you weren't there.
#496. To: markm0722 (#493)
Holy cow! How many pounds of police officers is that? Just kidding! ;) You better be kidding for taking my comment out of context. ...seem to be of superhuman strength... Clearly, the cop was unprepared and did not have any idea about this. How does one get prepared to subdue a naked man with superhuman strength? If this is a common occurrence and/or requires lots of practice to be prepared, police officers are very underpaid. That's just my opinion of course, lol. There you go again, envelope pusher. If you think cops are underpaid, you should have been getting the lousy $30 I got for risking my ass with a bunch of drunken and doped-up concert goers. Get a life!
I've seen a 98 lb girl high on that shit and it took six of us to hold her down.
And lastly...
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#497. To: Neil McIver, richard (#492)
Trust is slamming a face into asphalt, and screaming "do you trust me yet?".
Trust CAN'T be earned. It is given or not given.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#498. To: Jethro Tull (#490)
Jethro, I will agree with you that there are many points of view from the people at the scene, but you and I both agree that she loses the criminal case hands down. She is in compliance in a STILL PHOTO. That caputures 1/10th of a second of the event in question, it done NOT show that she was in total compliance except for that 1/10th of a second when the photo was taken. You can not infer or imply that she was in compliance for the duration of the arrest from that photo and you know it, Jethro. If she tried to take this case to civil court she knows she would lose. We are not talking about a nun fresh from the convent here, she is a rollerderby chick, she makes her money fighting on skates. No jury will believe that she was just a passive victim who got 'da bomb' dropped on her for no reason whatsoever. Especially when they are looking at her convictions for public intoxication and resisting arrest at the scene.
#499. To: BTP Holdings (#496)
HAHAHAHAHA Cops in Colorado Springs get $50,000 a year , after one year, plus a perk package that is nearly equal to a Oriental Pontiff's. And if a 100 lb girl swings at them (to gouge their eyes)they can claim disability and watch cop reality TV for the rest of their lives. Nice gig.
If you think cops are underpaid, you sho
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#500. To: BTP Holdings (#496)
BTP, Well, well, my racist friend. What a giant surprise that you have led such a successful life. Sounds like you are telling us that YOU have experience wrestling with naked men. Not surprising...
#501. To: Richard (#498)
SO not true. Her attorney won't take it forward if it doesn't have a shot - and it does.
If she tried to take this case to civil court she knows she would lose.
#502. To: tom007 (#497)
No, Tom, Trust is when a police officer says, "place your hands on the car and don't move'... you place your hands on the car and don't move.
Trust is slamming a face into asphalt, and screaming "do you trust me yet?".
#503. To: Jethro Tull (#501)
Jethro, Funny that YOU have so much faith in this case, yet her attorney does not. Note that she has YET to file a complaint of ANY sort. Much lest has she tried to press a civil suit.
#504. To: Richard (#502)
Unless she was under arrest she was right not to comply if they used that fascist tone.
Trust is when a police officer says, "place your hands on the car and don't move'... you place your hands on the car and don't move.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#505. To: Neil McIver (#492)
Holy shit, Neil, did he really say that? I've got him on BOZO and can't read what he posts. "Fruitcake" suits you quite well indeed! Yeah, fruitcake is really apropos. ROTFLOL! Oh, the one thing I do believe is that he is from the Dallas area because of the sarcastic comment he made about doing 140 mph on U.S. 75. I know it well from going thru there in the truck. I told him maybe he should try that going around those turns on the mixmaster. It's ludicrous for him to even say such a boneheaded thing as he obviously does not comprehend what is meant by the common law doctrines Elliott mentioned earlier in the thread. That is simple proof that the people have lost touch with the history of our liberty and what it means. It is also the main reason we suffer a police state tyranny at present. And Richard is a sad representative of that whole scene.
Trust CAN'T be earned. It is given or not given.
This response...... I never would have expected it. I'm floored.
Well, buddy, I don't trust you, so maybe you weren't on the seen at all. Maybe you're not even from Texas.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#506. To: Richard (#503)
It happened the 17th? dude. There will be a filing.
Note that she has YET to file a complaint of ANY sort. Much lest has she tried to press a civil suit.
#507. To: tom007 (#499)
Tom, WOW are you uneducated. Most police forces have disability policies that are extremely limited. For example, here in Dallas, if you got shot by a bank robber and could not work, you are entitled to a maximum 16 weeks of paid time to recouperate, regardless of how severe the injuries you sustained may be. If you don't get well enough to report back to work, you are on your own. Thank Laura Miller for that one.
And if a 100 lb girl swings at them (to gouge their eyes)they can claim disability and watch cop reality TV for the rest of their lives. Nice gig.
#508. To: Jethro Tull (#506)
Jethro, Her attorney has made NO comment supporting your wild claims. Surprising that you have knowledge of what her attorney is thinking when no one else on this planet does.
#509. To: Dakmar (#483)
Richard made it clear that he thought that was the case. O - And we had all had better learn a lesson from that as well. Respect the police state or get beaten if you don't. Great Richard, lick the boot with your tounge extended fully and say"May I lick again, sir?" Show some respect, MAN? Maybe the girl warranted it, no one else but Richard seems to think so. But his "We better learn a lesson from this , Brovo Sierra crap really rubs me the wrong way. And he wants to dream about people getting beaten up by the PO. Richard is got some issues. Pomposity and smugness are among the first.
Picture the police officer thinking, "She's getting what she deserves."
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#510. To: Dakmar (#504)
Dakmar, ONCE AGAIN: WRONG. The police can detain you without placing you under arrest if the feel that there is sufficient reason. They do not have to justify their actions to you at that time and you DO have to comply. That is how they can stop your vehicle when you are driving down the road. For example: If you matched the description of a suspect they were looking for (even if you were NOT the suspect), they could stop you, ask you for your identification, ask you to place your hands on the squad and not move, and you would HAVE to comply, or be immediately arrested. If they had a report of someone selling drugs in the area, and when they got there, they saw you and thought you were selling drugs on a street corner, (even if you weren't), they could stop you and frisk you and you could not do anything about it. It is called Probable Cause. You do not understand the law, Dakmar... among MANY other things.
#511. To: Jethro Tull (#485)
Jethro Tull posted on 2006-01-21 22:58:07 ET Richard is here to tell us like is is, not to worry our little minds what we think we saw. He will take care of us, trust him. Chief Joseph.
You sure live in an either, or world. Odd that you’re so dogmatic. I don’t get it.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#512. To: tom007 (#509)
Tom, Are you sure you are not a woman? You are SO melodramatic. Michelle was NOT beaten. Not even CLOSE to beaten. A small cut on the face from falling to the ground does NOT constitute a beating. She resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer... all she got was a small cut on the face? Oh yeah, a real Rodney King moment there... LOL
#513. To: Richard (#510)
You are an idiot for trying to argue with rhetoric. You think you're important for doing so too, it seems.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#514. To: tom007 (#511)
Tom, You did not "see" anything. You were not there. I was.
Richard is here to tell us like is is, not to worry our little minds what we think we saw.
#515. To: tom007 (#511)
He has touched the face of Todd (thank you les)
He will take care of us, trust him. Chief Joseph.
#516. To: Richard (#510)
I understand sales seminars where they teach you to keep repeating the prospective customers name.
You do not understand the law, Dakmar... among MANY other things.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#517. To: Dakmar (#513)
Dakmar, I am just trying to educate you as you clearly do not understand the law. You can be detained provided that the police can show cause for doing so. They do NOT have to show cause to you.
#518. To: Richard (#508)
Richard my dear friend. It's called experience. One day you too might have some.
Surprising that you have knowledge of what her attorney is thinking when no one else on this planet does.
#519. To: Richard (#517)
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#520. To: Jethro Tull (#518)
Jethro, my dulcet darling, I have plenty of experience in this arena. Her attorney has been VERY quiet considering the publicity this thing had at the start. They would have capitalized on that momentum had they intended on pressing the civil suit. Not to do so is suicidal for their case. Her attorney is not going to pursue the civil case because there is no money in it. She will be going into that trial admitting that she, a professional rollerderby chick who fights for a living, had resisted arrest and was drunk at the scene. The jury would spend most of there time in deliberation just laughing and saying "she wants MONEY for this?"
#521. To: Dakmar (#519)
Dakmar, Thanks for your unbiased opinion. Hey, you are welcome to it. Fortunately for you, you live in a country where those police that you desperately want to fuck will protect your rights to say "fuck the police." Ironic, ain't it? Just wanted to let you know what was what in case you got stopped and thought that you could resist and get away with it. Well, that said... perhaps you should try...
Fuck the Police
#522. To: Richard (#521)
Full of all kinds of assumptions, aren't you chump? You screech about prejudice while you yourself are a textbook example.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#523. To: Richard (#517)
GOOD GOD MAN. GIVE IT UP. THE PO NEEDS TO GO
DOWN, AND HARD,(on a rope) if the citzens are to respect the law enforcement
community. What he did was wholly unnecessary - don't defend it any longer.
Don't shame yourself any more than you already have. Or you could go work
for FOX news - you would fit right in. As matter a fact, the North Korean
Factual Eyewhitness News Agency has an opening for the N. American
correspondent. Apply here.}02;}21;|83;|63;}
[Zapped]I am just trying to educate you as you clearly do not understand
the law.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#524. To: tom007, christine, Zipporah, robon (#523)
tom007 broke this thread :)
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#525. To: Dakmar (#522)
Dakmar, What assumptions are you alluding to?
#526. To: Dakmar (#524)
Are you really the "anti-Christ"? If so, can you cut me in for 27% of the take?
tom007 broke this thread :)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#527. To: Richard (#500)
Well, well, my racist friend. Low.....
BTP,
#528. To: tom007 (#523)
Tom, Remember that your opinion does not matter. But I loved the part where you said ""}02;}21;|83;|63;}05;}22;}40; {91;È13;Þ69;b86;}39;85;12;b86;}39;„67;Þ69;b86;{98;Ç77;|59;Þ69;b86;{98;}13;} 40;}23;{64;c01;|17;|27;|89;|67;}14;USA{98;"CJK namimail" " It was probably the smartest contribution that YOU have made to this discussion since you arrived. ROFLMAO!
#529. To: Jethro Tull (#527)
Jethro, BTP has on many occasions commented on how there is a problem with the "wetbacks" in this country. He is a racist. Not "Low." "Accurate."
#530. To: Richard (#512)
GAK the man want's to dream of cops beating me and seems to want to visualize a man-women. So you want to imply if I feel for the victems of the police state you are gung ho for , I must be a women. No Richard, I am not a women. I do not demand "respect" by beating peoples. I do it the Old fashioned way by slowly earning it. It is much harder that way, but then, you really do have respect. Not groveling fear, which you confuse with respect. Now that you have insulted half of the people here, maybe you should change you attitudes, and apologize, or leave.
Are you sure you are not a woman?
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#531. To: Richard (#525)
" Fortunately for you, you live in a country where those police that you desperately want to fuck will protect your rights to say "fuck the police." Ironic, ain't it? Just wanted to let you know what was what in case you got stopped and thought that you could resist and get away with it. " You think I've never dealt with police before, dope?
What assumptions are you alluding to?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#532. To: Flintlock (#526)
Only during the holiday rush.
Are you really the "anti-Christ"?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#533. To: tom007 (#530)
Tom, Is English your first language?
No Richard, I am not a women. I do not demand "respect" by beating peoples.
#534. To: Dakmar (#531)
Dakmar, I would not be the least bit surprised that you have had several run-ins with the police.
#535. To: Richard (#529)
Ever think that black cop could be a racist?
#536. To: Richard, BTP Holdings, Brian S (#529)
I remember now, you're that creep that pretended to be some sort of Catholic official.
BTP has on many occasions commented on how there is a problem with the "wetbacks" in this country.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#537. To: Flintlock, Richard (#526)
If so, can you cut me in for 27% of the take? I'm in for 5% if you need a pork eater. Not bad Rich, I have not been called the anti-christ since Hi school.
Are you really the "anti-Christ"?
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#538. To: tom007 (#537)
Tom, First off, it is called HIGH school, not HI school. No doubt you did well... Secondly, I did not call you the anti-christ. This all goes back to your fundamental problem of not being able to read and comprehend.
#539. To: Dakmar (#536)
ROFLMAO! Caltholic official? Not in this lifetime, Dakmar! But that did make me laugh!
#540. To: BTP Holdings (#496)
Yeah, I was kidding in both sections you quoted. I get the impression you are not.
Get a life!
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#541. To: Jethro Tull (#535)
Jethro, Nothing he said or did at the scene would indicate that he was a racist. However, I just observed him on this one occasion, I do not know what his personal beliefs are. I would certianly not presume that he was a racist based upon the limited contact I had with him.
#542. To: Jethro Tull, Richard (#527)
Well, well, my racist friend. Low..... Don't call me that, I'm not your friend. And if you think you have insulted me, try again, you missed. And besides, I've seen more hooter shots working those concerts than you've ever imagined, even if you have been lucky enough to have a wet dream. ROTFLMAO!
BTP,
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#543. To: Richard (#539)
You're smart to deny it now.
ROFLMAO! Caltholic official? Not in this lifetime, Dakmar!
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#544. To: Richard (#539)
Richard, your degree of passion in this case exceeds normal boundaries. You're invested heavily, exactly where, I'm not sure. But despite your spin, and incessant posting, this mess is going to punch a hole in the city's coffers, and in the career of this rogue cop in particular. Now promise me you won't run away after he gets his ass chewed up. OK?
#545. To: Dakmar (#543)
Oh, Dakmar, please show us all where I stated that I was some sort of Catholic Official. LOL... that is priceless!
#546. To: Richard (#545)
You never stated any such thing, but you are on record denying it. That's worth something in todays political climate.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#547. To: Richard (#507)
WOW are you uneducated. So you are so parochial to think that being unfamilier with police disability torts equals being uneducated?. Your smug arrogence is really becomming appearent. Sophomores think like this.
Tom,
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#548. To: Dakmar (#546)
Dakmar, Richard should send you money too. He knows it..
#549. To: Jethro Tull (#548)
He should, but he wont.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#550. To: Jethro Tull (#544)
Jethro, I initially wanted to get my side of the story out, but I was attacked from the outset. Now an advesarial relationship has evolved, and I will zealously defend my position in the face of the disrespectful people who try to challenge me. This trivial arrest is not going to damage the city in any way. To call this 15 year veteran of the police force a rogue officer is amazingly disrespectful, especially coming from one who purports to have served himself. You have convicted him on the basis of shoddy circumstantial evidence and hearsay, what a great cop you must have been. The officer will not get his "ass chewed" and the civil case (if it is even pressed at all) will fade quietly into the woodwork once she is convicted on the PI and Resisting Arrest. Perhaps in the course of your career in law enforcement you never had the chance to work around civil law, but this dog just wont hunt.
#551. To: Richard (#507)
If you don't get well enough to report back to work, you are on your own. Thank Laura Miller for that one. Seems, Richard, you know quite a bit about the policies of the Police Departments. And you even know who Laura Miller is. This conculsively domonstrates YOU ARE NOT AN INPARTIAL OBSRVER as you have presentated yourself. Fraud upon the court. Next!
ost police forces have disability policies that are extremely limited. For example, here in Dallas, if you got shot by a bank robber and could not work, you are entitled to a maximum 16 weeks of paid time to recouperate, regardless of how severe the injuries you sustained may be.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#552. To: tom007 (#551)
This conculsively domonstrates YOU ARE NOT AN INPARTIAL OBSRVER as you have presentated yourself. ROFL, Tom... I know about the policy of the police department because I followed the news story about 18 months ago on the topic. It was on the news nearly every day here for about two weeks.. An officer was shot in the line and was getting cut loose from benefits because he had used up all his time. Laura was the one who pushed for the shortening of police benefits. It was a disgraceful thing that she did. WOW, I know the name of the MAYOR! That is very telling! Yep, I live in Dallas, and I know the name of the Mayor! Clearly that shows that I am not an impartial observer. Oh, I also know the name of the GOVERNOR! And I bet I could name a SENATOR or two if prompted! Ooooooooh!
Seems, Richard, you know quite a bit about the policies of the Police Departments. And you even know who Laura Miller is.
#553. To: Richard (#550)
I was a good cop in the sense that I worked in such dumps, that the thought of giving a ticket to a kid roller skating was the last thing on my mind. No time for such nonsense. This guy is part of a new breed; they’re nothing more than revenue collectors for local government. Yes, he's a rogue. Let him try that same shit in Bed Sty and see how long he lasts...
what a great cop you must have been.
#554. To: All (#551)
Police Brova Serria Shill ping
If you don't get well enough to report back to work, you are on your own.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#555. To: tom007 (#547)
Tom, No, as a matter of fact, that is not the only reason I feel you are uneducated. I think that you are uneducated because of a number of things. You make wild claims without even doing the smallest bit of research to see if they are even remotely true. Your spelling and grammar are horrible. Your skills in debate are lacking. Your understanding of the legal system is infantile. I could go on, but that should get the point across.
So you are so parochial to think that being unfamilier with police disability torts equals being uneducated?. Your smug arrogence is really becomming appearent.
#556. To: All (#554)
Police Brova Serria Shill ping Now I can call you STUPID. You have earned it,it is obvious you have studied at this , so you have earned it, Richard. Long and hard. A plus, good job Richarcd, you got an A plus in Stupid. Next semester you can try to pass "Moronic", you has gotten the " Studid" prequisite out if the way.
f you don't get well enough to report back to work, you are on your own.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#557. To: All (#556)
Ok I'll give you that .
you has gotten the " Studid" prequisite out if the way.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#558. To: Jethro Tull (#553)
Jethro, You are so baised that you have convicted this officer even though you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what actually occured. You have no access to the information from the investigation, yet here you are acting as his judge and jury. You don't have a CLUE as to what actually happened at the scene, but here you are ready to throw the cop in jail and give this criminal money for committing a series of crimes. You must have been Cop of the Decade in New York, you did not care one bit about the law, it seems.
#559. To: Richard (#555)
I'll be your huckleberry.
Your skills in debate are lacking. Your understanding of the legal system is infantile.
#560. To: Richard (#558)
Do you want to play with me?
You are so baised that you have convicted this officer even though you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what actually occured.
#561. To: markm0722 (#540)
Well, OK, if you say so. I've been thru some tough shit in my life. I've seen and lived some things that scare hell out of lots of folks and I've never been to war like a lot of people who were lucky to get back in one piece. I'm still lucky enough to be out here kicking ass. Many of the old crowd are gone. I think I recall that story to which you posted the link. I've been in not too dissimilar situations with people high on dope but I was not armed. Though I've never been near with a naked man except in a gym locker room, but there was a toga party once when those two chicks...oh, well, that was a long time ago so I don't have to say any more. It really irks the shit out of me is when I see guys like Richard who are so blind to what is going on. And I think I'm right about him being a lawyer. He fits the pattern I've come to recognize with these parasites only too well. They are nothing more than plundering puppet political prostitutes. And the same can be said for many more payrollers. I have also worked in government service for 17 years and that is on top of the concert gigs, so I know wherefrom I speak. When people really wake up in this country there will be lots of these shysters swinging from lamp posts along with a good number of bankers and other assorted pirates and criminals in government. For the record, I've always supported the cops, but lately most of what they do in abundance is just a racketeering operation. And it is getting worse. The lawyers and judges are mostly all corrupt and they have regular meetings on how they will react when someone does not toe the mark and walk the line in their racketeering operation they call criminal justice. Some time I hope to put together and essay about what I've uncovered and it will not set well with many of those who will read it since it will be an indictment of the average person who has shirked his responsibility to oversee our public servants. I hope your ears are not burning, but I hope Richard's are. ;0)
Yeah, I was kidding in both sections you quoted. I get the impression you are not.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#562. To: tom007 (#556)
Next semester you can try to pass "Moronic", you has gotten the " Studid" prequisite out if the way. Tom, Seriously, did you stop taking your medications? What does "Studid" mean? What the HELL are you talking about here?
Now I can call you STUPID. You have earned it,it is obvious you have studied at this , so you have earned it, Richard. Long and hard. A plus, good job Richarcd, you got an A plus in Stupid.
#563. To: BTP Holdings (#561)
BTP, Thank you... Your racist comments are always welcome here.
#564. To: Richard (#562)
It's a word you, yourself coined, genius.
What does "Studid" mean?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#565. To: Richard (#562)
my fault, I was wrong about that one.
studid
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#566. To: Dakmar (#565)
Among SO many other things.
my fault, I was wrong about that one.
#567. To: Richard (#566)
You are so gracious, no wonder you have crucifixion complex.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#568. To: Richard (#562)
Seriously, did What does "Studid" mean? What the HELL are you talking about here? Grammer and " you stop taking your medications?" A desparate distraction by Richard. Please correct me on spelling and grammer, I'm not the best, by a long shot. Is grammer the issue here? The "medications" you refer to ????, I am not familier with that, it must be your expertise, and world - it is not mine. Good night Richard.
What the HELL are you talking about here? Tom,
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#569. To: Dakmar (#567)
Dakmar, After all the abuse you have given me you are now expecting me to be gracious? Nice try, thanks for playing.
#570. To: Richard (#569)
I didn't start it, pinhead.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#571. To: tom007 (#568)
Tom, LOL... I know you claim to be educated, but the word is GRAMMAR, not grammer. You are right that you are not the best by a long shot, so you got one right! Way to go! You should be happy with that! The allusion to medication was in reference to the fact that your comments seem to be addressed to conversations that are not taking place on this thread. I am supposing that they may be taking place in your head. If you took the medications the doctors gave you, maybe the voices would stop.
#572. To: Dakmar (#570)
Actually, Dakmar, you did. I posted my statements as an eyewitness to the event. I did not address you in my comments. YOU came along and attacked me. Ergo, you started it. You REALLY are not very good at this, Dakmar.
#573. To: Richard (#569)
You have been a pompous, arrogant, myoptic, hubrinic, statist, assssssss. Yse I did misspeLle ASS.
now expecting me to be gracious?
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#574. To: Richard (#572)
You began attacking me first. And you're still using the same tired tactics.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#575. To: Richard (#572)
Good At excactly WHAT, Richard??? Defending the Indefenseable??
ou REALLY are not very good at this, Dakmar.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#576. To: Dakmar (#574)
Dakmar, Show me where I addressed you first.
#577. To: tom007 (#575)
Tom, You are not good at simple conversation, for one. Debate, for two. Intellectual discourse, for three. Spelling and Grammar make four and five... I could go on all night, but hopefully that should give you enough to work on to keep you busy for about 20 years.
#578. To: All (#575)
Please correct the spelling , R, TIA.
e Indefenseable??
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#579. To: Richard (#576)
Show me where I "attacked" you, drama queen.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#580. To: Dakmar (#574)
Dak, he has told that same line of crap to five or six people that they "are not very good at this." He even said it to Neil and me also. What an ass wipe.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#581. To: BTP Holdings (#580)
Yeah, it's fun for a while, but...
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#582. To: Dakmar (#283)
Dakmar, Here is your first comment to me. THIS is where our relationship began. YOU attacked me from the very start. Or do you call people "fascists" and ask them "what the hell is wrong with you" as terms of endearment? ROFLMAO! Care to try again, child?
What a fascist thing to say. What the hell is wrong with you? If you're so "sick and tired" of drunks, why are you hanging out in Deep Ellum?
#583. To: Richard (#577)
Richard posted on 2006-01-22 01:18:45 ET Please leave me out of your All Night Dreams about Beatings by the police, Richard, I don't want to keep you busy. " I could go on all night, " Yeh man you have said enough. Just keep me out of your "going on all night" plans would ya??? Kinda sicko to me, I 'm not in there with you.
I could go on all night, but hopefully that should give you enough to work on to keep you busy for about 20 years.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#584. To: Dakmar (#581)
BTP, Be quiet and go back to practicing your racism.
#585. To: tom007 (#583)
No, I am really serious, Tom... Did you stop taking your medications?
#586. To: BTP Holdings (#561)
Thanks for the lengthy reply. I really was just trying to add a bit of humor and did not intend to hit a sore spot.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#587. To: Richard (#577)
Then you have set youself up for a fool, Richard, if you believe what you have written. Belayed by your own comments.
You are not good at simple conversation, for one. Debate, for two.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#588. To: markm0722 (#586)
No problemo. You heard about the fire at the circus? It was in tents. LOL
I really was just trying to add a bit of humor and did not intend to hit a sore spot.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#589. To: tom007 (#587)
BELAYED? What the hell? be·lay v. be·layed, be·lay·ing, be·lays v. tr. Nautical. To secure or make fast (a rope, for example) by winding on a cleat or pin. To secure (a mountain climber, for example) at the end of a length of rope. Used in the imperative as an order to stop: Belay that order! Uh, Excuse me, Professor Brainic, What the hell are you trying to say here? "Belayed" by my own comments? If you feel that you are skilled in simple conversation and debate, please produce the evidence for this.
"Belayed by your own comments."
#590. To: Richard (#571)
The allusion to medication was in reference to the fact that your comments seem to be addressed to conversations that are not taking place on this thread. I am supposing that they may be taking place in your head. If you took the medications the doctors gave you, maybe the voices would stop. Richard - any evidence of these rash assertations? Of course not. So why would you make obviously false charges. That does not make sense. Unless you are a lier. That makes sense.
I know you claim to be educated, but the word is GRAMMAR, not grammer. You are right that you are not the best by a long shot, so you got one right! Way to go! You should be happy with that!
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#591. To: tom007 (#587)
I wish this guy would go into "setup" and click on "content filters" so he can see for himself I have him on BOZO. It's really a shame he is wasting all of those incendiary remarks that I can't see trying to insult me. Little does he know I've been called every name in the book by better than him. He just fits so perfectly the profile of paid shills it is remarkable. No way in hell he is not on a damage control mission for the city or the city's lawyers. Just too persistent over a happenstance search on the web for this moron to be here for so long.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#592. To: Richard (#589)
BELAYED? What the hell? be·lay v. be·layed, be·lay·ing, be·lays v. tr. Nautical. To secure or make fast (a rope, for example) by winding on a cleat or pin. To secure (a mountain climber, for example) at the end of a length of rope. Used in the imperative as an order to stop: Belay that order! Figure it out Richard, to belay.I am tired with conversation with you. Let the chains fit you well. And spare me your incessent clucking and scratching.
elayed by your own comments."
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#593. To: BTP Holdings (#591)
Makes sense to me. A young arrogent bot, who doesn't understant the seriousnes of the times in which we live.
No way in hell he is not on a damage control mission for the city or the city's lawyers. Just too persistent over a happenstance search on the web for this moron to be here for so long
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#594. To: tom007 (#593)
I want to say sheep, but that would insult the wool bering critter. ;0)
Makes sense to me. A young arrogent bot, who doesn't understant the seriousnes of the times in which we live.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#595. To: BTP Holdings (#591)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, So it would seem. I am done with him. unless he has a flat tire.
He just fits so perfectly the profile of paid shills it is remarkable. No way in hell he is not on a damage control mission for the city or the city's lawyers. Just too persistent over a happenstance search on the web for this moron to be here for so long.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#596. To: tom007 (#595)
Time for this thread to die. But it will come back to haunt that statist creep later. ;0)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#597. To: Neil McIver (#4)
Contrary to the author's claim, the pictures DON'T tell the story... the pictures don't show HOW she ended up on the ground. They don't show the cop DOING anything to her... For all I can tell, she may have fallen down... in fact, the way she's lying on the ground with her legs all willy nilly, SHE LOOKS DRUNK ENOUGH TO HAVE FALLEN DOWN ALL BY HERSELF... Someone afraid of a bigger foe hitting them doesn't sit on the ground challenging them like it seems that she is doing in one pix. The pix fit the profile of a drunken jerk making her own trouble and then yelling foul... Does the video show more? Certainly the witness in the pix whose being told to go (pointed finger photo) is wearing an outfit similar enough to the girl to be assumed to be HER PAL... How reliable is that? I'm holding off judgment till seeing the entire video.
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?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#598. To: BTP Holdings (#588)
tee hee... whatta brat you are...
You heard about the fire at the circus? It was in tents. LOL
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#599. To: siagiah (#597)
Keep looking thru the thread. It's very long but there is lots of links to videos and other stories about this. I'll try to find some of them. More statements from witnesses tell more of the story.
How reliable is that?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#600. To: siagiah (#598)
This has been a long thread and it is mostly the same old shit over and over.
tee hee... whatta brat you are...
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#601. To: BTP Holdings (#600)
There is no way I'm willing to read 500 comments, especially since so many of them are stupid, personal attacks for one reason or another... My response was based on the initial presentation... I guess it's probably better to just stay away from long threads that I'm unwilling to sift through... LOL... btw, Stepp is significantly worse today... )-;
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#602. To: All (#601)
Make that 600 comments... oy vey
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#603. To: tom007 (#590)
Tom, I did not make any false charges. I simply made a supposition. That is what the word "SUPPOSE" should have told you in that statement. As I said, you are extremely uneducated. Nicely done.
#604. To: BTP Holdings (#591)
BTP, My racist friend, it is clear that you are reading my comments, or you would not go to such lengths to show me that you are not. Sadly, calling you a racist is not an insult, it is simply an appropriate label. I could care less that you have me on a filter. How cowardly of you to put me on a filter and then take potshots. But then again, coming from you it is not surprising.
#605. To: tom007 (#592)
Tom, In the context of your statement, the word Belay is improperly used. I am not stopped by my comments, they do, however, assist me in stopping you. Perhaps you are just so ignorant that you don't know what the word means even in the face of the definition. I am prepared to accept that eventuality. For a guy who claims to be tired of conversing with me, you sure do go out of your way to do so.
Figure it out Richard, to belay.I am tired with conversation with you. Let the chains fit you well. And spare me your incessent clucking and scratching.
#606. To: tom007 (#595)
Tom, OOOOH... Do you promise?
So it would seem. I am done with him. unless he has a flat tire.
#607. To: siagiah (#597)
Does the video show more? Certainly the witness in the pix whose being told to go (pointed finger photo) is wearing an outfit similar enough to the girl to be assumed to be HER PAL... How reliable is that? Siagiah! Nice to see a voice of reason amongst the lynch mob. You are correct, the photos really don't tell us much. You should be warned, however, that there are many here who will viciously attack you for saying so. I am not one of them. Glad to see your contribution. Good of you to hold off judgement being as how you were not present at the time. Nicely done.
Contrary to the author's claim, the pictures DON'T tell the story... the pictures don't show HOW she ended up on the ground. They don't show the cop DOING anything to her... For all I can tell, she may have fallen down... in fact, the way she's lying on the ground with her legs all willy nilly, SHE LOOKS DRUNK ENOUGH TO HAVE FALLEN DOWN ALL BY HERSELF... Someone afraid of a bigger foe hitting them doesn't sit on the ground challenging them like it seems that she is doing in one pix. The pix fit the profile of a drunken jerk making her own trouble and then yelling foul...
#608. To: Richard (#495)
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.
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."
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#609. To: Richard (#503)
They probably want to wait for the results of the internal investigation before filing any complaint, and interview as many witnesses as possible. I place no significance on the lack of prompt action.
Note that she has YET to file a complaint of ANY sort. Much lest has she tried to press a civil suit.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#610. To: BTP Holdings (#505)
'fraid so.... Yes. Mindless lack of respect for other people.
Holy shit, Neil, did he really say that? I've got him on BOZO and can't read what he posts.
It is also the main reason we suffer a police state tyranny at present. And Richard is a sad representative of that whole scene.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#611. To: Richard (#514)
74.
You were not there.
I was.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#612. To: Dakmar (#524)
I fixed it.
tom007 broke this thread :)
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#613. To: BTP Holdings (#561)
That's what I'm guessing at this point.
And I think I'm right about him being a lawyer.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#614. To: Neil McIver (#608)
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...
#615. To: Neil McIver (#609)
Neil, It is not the lack of prompt action that should surprise you. It is the lack of ANY action that should surprise you. It is clear that you have not done much work in this arena. If they were going to press a civil case they would be sowing the seeds NOW using the initial wave of PR that was generated to stir public interest. Instead this story has slipped off the headlines and disappeared into the ether. Other than on a few websites, it is now a non-story. If her attorney thought they had a chance in hell of making the civil case, they would not have sat back, they would have taken the offensive and handled the story. Being as how they did not, and are not, doing that... it is easy to see that they will not be pressing the civil suit very seriously, if at all.
#616. To: Neil McIver (#613)
Neil, My only involvement with this case is that I was a witness to what happened. I do not stand to profit in any way regardless of what verdicts may be handed down in this matter. Being as how that I am, other than being a witness, in no way affiliated with any of the parties involved in this matter, why does what I do for a living concern you so much?
#617. To: siagiah (#597)
There are indeed limits to what information can be gleaned from the photos. But the photos do give a fair amount of information. Some of that information reasonable people can agree on. I feel like I've just stated something extremely obvious, but it seems there's one here that seems to make it his goal in life to be as disagreeable as possible with anyone who doesn't trust him.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#618. To: Richard (#614)
Link? I suppose in your binary way of fruitcake thinking, anyone who doesn't trust what you say completely is calling you a liar. If, in your mind, it isn't possible for someone to simply *not know* whether you're telling the truth or not, and all people must be in one extreme or the other, then fine. Put me down as one who calls you a liar. Because until you've earned my trust I'm sure as hell not going to take your word as gospel.
And yet YOU call me a liar and somehow say that it does not mean that you don't believe me.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#619. To: Neil McIver (#275)
Neil, Here is one example of you calling me a liar... see, I have a far better memory than you do.
In insisting you are a fair witness here you've proven to me you are a liar, and THAT does taint your testimony more than your bias alone does. Bias + liar = totally discredited testimony.
#620. To: Neil McIver (#284)
Neil, Here is ANOTHER example of you calling me a liar. Are you starting to remember yet, dumbass?
I consider you a liar and therefore don't care what you say. I'll believe you only when an honest witness says the same thing.
#621. To: BTP Holdings (#542)
Low..... Don't call me that, I'm not your friend. And if you think you have insulted me, try again, you missed. And besides, I've seen more hooter shots working those concerts than you've ever imagined, even if you have been lucky enough to have a wet dream. ROTFLMAO! BTP, I can, and will, call you whatever I please. You are a racist, and make no attempt to deny it. I am not trying to insult you by calling you my racist friend, because you are a racist and you are my friend. No insult implied. I can call you "friend" if I please because I am the one who decides who I call friend. SO, you are indeed my racist friend. OOOH, BTP has seen boobies! WOW, that certainly qualifies him to give expert testimony about the behavior of a police officer in a situation that he did not see, and investigative and medical reports that he has not read. Oh, and I thought you were not reading my posts... ROFLMAO!!! Ooopsies... my racist friend BTP screwed up again....
BTP, Well, well, my racist friend.
#622. To: Neil McIver (#618)
I suppose in your binary way of fruitcake thinking, anyone who doesn't trust what you say completely is calling you a liar. If, in your mind, it isn't possible for someone to simply *not know* whether you're telling the truth or not, and all people must be in one extreme or the other, then fine. Put me down as one who calls you a liar. Because until you've earned my trust I'm sure as hell not going to take your word as gospel. Neil, I posted two links where you were explicitly calling me a liar. I suppose, according to your incoherent way of thinking, calling someone a liar does not mean that you are actually calling them a liar. In your addled brain, calling someone a liar must somehow equate to meaning "someone who simply does *not know* whether or not that person is telling the truth." I don't care if you take my word as gospel, I never said it was. I simply said what I saw at the scene. I have no intention of "earning" your trust, as trust is an emotion and can not be "earned" in any way, it can only be given.
Link?
#623. To: Neil McIver (#617)
Neil, Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos. This should be quite humorous...
There are indeed limits to what information can be gleaned from the photos. But the photos do give a fair amount of information. Some of that information reasonable people can agree on.
#624. To: Richard (#620)
I stand corrected. Thank you. For the record, here are my statements in context: .... My reasoning, however, was impeccable. (You do still consider yourself neutral witness, right, in seeing a girl you are sick of have a rough run-in with a cop?) I guess I was considering my statements more argumentive than conclusive. I'll now consider them conclusive, if there is no argument. You are a liar.
Are you starting to remember yet
There's nothing wrong with being biased. It's just when you lie and claim you are not, as you are, THAT'S where there's a problem. When I first asked if you considered yourself a neutral witness, I already knew the answer. My reason for asking was only to find out how honest you are. Turns out you are not honest at all. In insisting you are a fair witness here you've proven to me you are a liar, and THAT does taint your testimony more than your bias alone does. Bias + liar = totally discredited testimony.
If you care, go and read my first comments on this thread. I try to be fair and my first comments should give evidence of that, if not prove it outright. I never claimed to be there or know all the facts. What irritates me is when a fruitcake comes on board who is bias as all get out and yet claims not to be. You ARE biased here and until you admit it, I consider you a liar and therefore don't care what you say. I'll believe you only when an honest witness says the same thing. Because you'd lied here on this thread about your neutrality, your testimony isn't worth crap, and it doesn't even matter if it's 100% accurate.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#625. To: Richard, Jethro Tull (#498)
Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind. I will concede that wrestlers don't wear skates and Michelle isn't black, at least not in the first picture.
If she tried to take this case to civil court she knows she would lose. We are not talking about a nun fresh from the convent here, she is a rollerderby chick, she makes her money fighting on skates. No jury will believe that she was just a passive victim who got 'da bomb' dropped on her for no reason whatsoever. Especially when they are looking at her convictions for public intoxication and resisting arrest at the scene.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#626. To: All (#625)
PC correction follows: Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind.
black dope addict motorist (Rodney King) from California come to mind.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#627. To: Hmmmmm (#625)
I have neve never seen a witness to what amounts to a summons take such interest in a case. But then the City of Dallas has millions to lose when this goes civil. There is more to our friend Richard than he has allowed us to see. While Richard is out scoring more amphetamine for another long posting day, I'll kick around some possibilities.
#628. To: Neil McIver (#624)
I really don't think it is fair to Richard to put your statments in context as it blows his Whole argument out the window. I believe Richard . . . . . . . . . . . Sorry, where was I? I believe Richard should let his Gerbil out for a while.
I stand corrected. Thank you. For the record, here are my statements in context:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
#629. To: Richard, Neil McIver, Jethro Tull, Tom007, Dakmar, Christine, markm0722 (#614)
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.
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#630. To: Starwind (#629)
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.
#631. To: all (#630)
Yikes... what a complicated pie I have tasted a slice of... For the record, I perceived the ORIGINAL story as a "non-story" that used photos that show only a bloodied girl being arrested. I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. She FITS THE PROFILE of someone trying to blame the cops for her own idiocy. They usually arrive screamin' obscenities at all who approach and taking swings at folks trying to help her... Again, she APPEARS to be doing that in photos. Folks who have been beaten down are usually cowering and pulling themselves into a fetal position... She does none of those things IN THE PHOTOS. Now a reasonable person could assume that the author of the story, who must believe the charges, would present photos that FIT HIS ACCUSATIONS rather than ones that fit the police claims... wouldn't you think? Now, admittedly, I've not seen the videos but I *believe* that they are taken from a poor vantage point that doesn't show the incident at all until AFTER she's on the ground? Otherwise, all would be forced to agree about what REALLY happened. That's the end of this story as far as I'm concerned... I'm not willing to spend another ounce of energy on sorting it out. PEACE...
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#632. To: siagiah (#631)
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?
I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#633. To: Starwind (#632)
It may be different in Texas, but here the police can tell you you're either going to the hospital or going to jail if you are publically intoxicated and injured. Most people choose the hospital. Great post earlier.
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
#634. To: Neil McIver (#624)
Based upon what, Neil?
You are a liar.
#635. To: Hmmmmm (#625)
Hmmmmmmm... How do the former governor of Minnesota and black dope addict in California enter into this? What is your point?
Let's see... Jesse Ventura and some black dope addict from California come to mind. I will concede that wrestlers don't wear skates and Michelle isn't black, at least not in the first picture.
#636. To: Jethro Tull (#627)
Jethro, I took interest in the situation because it happened right in front of me. From the very start there was a large and hostile crowd, so it held my interest. Then, when she assaulted the officer as he tried to put her in handcuffs,... well, that kind of action is hard to ignore, especially when it is less than 20 feet away from you. It is human nature to watch someone who has been detained by the police, we are all curious creatures. Add an angry crowd and a suspect who resists arrest and attacks a police officer... well, it is hard NOT to watch that with interest.
#637. To: Jethro Tull (#627)
Yeah, and when he begins to stttuttter at the keyboard we will know he has done one hit too many. ;0)
While Richard is out scoring more amphetamine for another long posting day, I'll kick around some possibilities.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#638. To: Starwind (#629)
I have answered pretty much every question that I have seen, Starwind. I am sorry that I have left my office to do other things from time to time, but it is the height of paranoia to presume that means I was avoiding the questions. " compared all the news reports and background with what you have reported here, you haven't added anything substantive..." I have mentioned plenty of things that were not stated in the "news reports" that would clearly indicate that I was there at the time. That you choose to overlook or disbelieve them is up to you entirely. "insisting instead on telling us what to decide (you are spinning) about the officer...(that)he's a good cop..." I have never said that Officer Gordon was a "good cop.' Starwind. I have never implied that he was a "good cop." I feel that he did his job and did not go outside the scope of what was required given the situation, but that does not make him a "good cop" or a "bad cop" in my view. It makes him a "cop who did his job and did it well." There IS a difference. I don't know the guy, other than this incident, I have never seen him before in my life. Once again, you are attributing things to me that I did not say. "other testimony adds that the officer grabbed her hair and yanked her down - did you see that?" When he went to put the handcuffs on her she resisted and swung her free arm at the officer. No, I can't say that I saw him grab her by the hair, he may have, but what I recall was seeing the officer grapple with her and they both went to the ground. He was grabbing at her and his arm was about at her shoulder level when they went down, but that was the extent of what I can say clearly. It happend very fast, and I can not say that I saw him specifically grab her hair. If he grabbed her hair to subdue her after she swung her arm at him, so be it. That is not a beating nor is it excessive force being a how she swung her arm at him when he was placing her under arrest. "the girl herself smeared the blood on her face and yet she was handcuffed from behind; That inspite of her refusing treatment at the scene as reported by the police you insist she was 'triaged'..." The stuggle to handcuff her did not take 5 seconds, she was flailing about quite a bit. It is a wonder she was not hurt worse than she was given how much of a fight she put up, to be honest. Then again, as a professional rollerderby chick, she is used to fighting and probably knew what she was doing. I know she smeared the blood on her face with her hand because there was blood smeared across the palm of her hand. If you look at the photo, and have done any work with injured people, you can tell that the blood all over her face could not have gotten their naturally from a small cut, or even a series of small cuts, or even from a 9 inch gash across her entire face. The blood on her face is CLEARLY smeared across her face, down to and around her chin, blood does not do that naturally. Star, again... to say that she "refused treatment" at the scene means that she did not get her cut stitched at the scene. You are trying to make a connection here that does not work. When the paramedics arrive to a scene with police involvement, and the suspect is bleeding, she HAS to be assessed to determine whether or not she is healthy enough to be taken to jail. She CAN'T refuse that, as she was under arrest at the time. She was triaged at the scene and was sent to the hospital for "treatment." I am sure you are smart enough to understand the difference, but you are just being argumentative. I am not "spinning" anything, Star... I am just stating my point of view. "a few times on this thread when asked for details of what you saw, eliciting those details from you was like pulling teeth..."
#639. To: Starwind (#632)
Sia: I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. On 2006-01-22 12:57:18, Starwind wrote: To: siagiah A point of background (about which you may be knowledgeable) if you would indulge me? When a patient has (as reported) "refused treatment" at the scene, what is EMS protocol regarding triage of facial lacerations of said patient? Assuming the patient's refusal was "informed" (admittedly we don't have all those facts yet, but assuming so) does EMS protocol provide for triaging bleeding facial lacerations, anyway, over the patient's refusal? No, if an informed patient refuses treatment at the scene, they sign papers stating that... She would NOT be treated unless her injuries were life threatening in which case the police dept. arresting her would be responsible for authorizing treatment over her objections.. Circumstances vary if she's under arrest or simply in police custody ... which this person most definitely was under arrest... It's complicated legally and most would hold off letting the ER DOC make that call. If her blood alcohol level was high enough, she'd be considered unable to make sound decisions and they'd be made for her. Does that help?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#640. To: Starwind (#631)
Boy did she hit the nail on the head... This IS a Non-Story. That said... I find it rather odd, Starwind, that you do not bite her head off in the same fashion as you have tried to do mine. She sees the same photos you do and she sides far more with me than you. And she has firsthand experience with people who have ACTUALLY been beaten, unlike Michelle, who got a small cut in a fall. How curious that you give her a pass... she was not even there and she DARES disagree with your viewpoint? LOL
For the record, I perceived the ORIGINAL story as a "non-story" that used photos that show only a bloodied girl being arrested. I work in a hospital ER where I see belligerent folks coming in looking just like she does. She FITS THE PROFILE of someone trying to blame the cops for her own idiocy. They usually arrive screamin' obscenities at all who approach and taking swings at folks trying to help her... Again, she APPEARS to be doing that in photos. Folks who have been beaten down are usually cowering and pulling themselves into a fetal position... She does none of those things IN THE PHOTOS. Now a reasonable person could assume that the author of the story, who must believe the charges, would present photos that FIT HIS ACCUSATIONS rather than ones that fit the police claims... wouldn't you think?
#641. To: siagiah (#639)
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.
No, if an informed patient refuses treatment at the scene, they sign papers stating that
#642. To: All (#641)
Oh, and don't forget to include that she was under arrest and being assessed as to whether or not she was able to be sent to jail at the time.... Thanks!
#643. To: Richard (#642)
Football break Richard. Go blow the dust off your Black's Law Dictionary for later use :)
#644. To: Richard, Siagiah (#640)
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed? Be precise. Kindly provide exact quotes from me and links to my posts wherein I made those quotes (lest I weasle out from under your withering accusation) and then show how Siagiah's posts (again please provide exact quotes from her and links to her posts) disagee with mine. And bear in mind "disagree" means to refute, dispute, argue, or contradict. Show us where I stated an assertion that Siagiah has contradicted.
she was not even there and she DARES disagree with your viewpoint?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#645. To: Starwind (#644)
Star, You can parse it any way you want. She does not hold your view that the police necessarily used excessive force, nor does she feel that the woman in the photos was beaten at all. She does not feel the photos tell us anything substantive about the events or how they unfolded. Also, she does not back up your claim that she was NOT treated in some fashion at the scene before being sent to the hospital. Yet you give her a pass...
#646. To: Starwind (#629)
Nothing in the photos shows the girl's bloody face being pressed into the pavement, Starwind. The blood was on her LEFT cheek. In the photo where her face is "pressed" into the pavement as you assert, her RIGHT cheek is pressed into the pavement, her LEFT cheek is not, and there is NO blood on her face whatsoever. The photos do not show anyone's bloody face being pressed into anything. Nice attempt at sensationalizing. Swing and a miss, Starwind...
"even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement..."
#647. To: Richard (#645)
In point of fact, you are the one doing the parsing. My questions and solicitation of fact from you do not constitute a viewpoint, rather they constitute fact-finding. Were my questions otherwise, you would not need to parse them or evade providing proof of your assertion that I posited a viewpoint with which Siagiah disagreed. In light of your blatant evasion to back up your claims of my viewpoint, this is merely another in a long series of unsubstantiated presumptive paranoia on your part in which you impute beliefs (to me at this point) in absence of any fact. Another blatant falsehood on your part. No where did I claim she was not treated at the scene. The police, OTOH, claim she refused treatment at the scene. I was trying to ascertain to what extent if any EMS protocol would treat her at the scene, in spite of the police report to the contrary (read that again - in spite of the police report to the contrary) to reconcile differences between your testimony and that of the police. It is because you conciously persist in making obviously false statements about what is or is not on this thread, and willfully evade subtantiating your falsehoods, that you take on the appearance of a chronic liar. She very politely and seemingly to the best of her ability answered my question. I gave her nothing. She OTOH, gave me information. It also corroborates what I already knew about Texas EMS protocols and informed refusal of treatment.
You can parse it any way you want.
She does not hold your view that the police necessarily used excessive force, nor does she feel that the woman in the photos was beaten at all. She does not feel the photos tell us anything substantive about the events or how they unfolded.
Also, she does not back up your claim that she was NOT treated in some fashion at the scene before being sent to the hospital.
Yet you give her a pass...
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#648. To: Starwind (#647)
This stems from your lack of understanding of what "treatment" is in that situation. She was drunk and under arrest, so she did not have the right to refuse the initial assessment of her condition. Being as how I am not a medical professional, I consider what they did to her, cleaning her face and assessing her condition, to be "treatment" of a sort. She was not sent to the hospital in the condition that you see her in the photo, she was not sent to the hospital with blood smeared all across her face. She did not have the right at that point to demand to be taken to a hospital. They had to determine the extent of her injuries, which entails some cleaning of the area. She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine. That does not mean that they shipped her untouched to the hospital.
in spite of the police report to the contrary
#649. To: Richard (#646)
Nothing in the photos shows the girl's bloody face being pressed into the pavement, Starwind. The blood was on her LEFT cheek. In the photo where her face is "pressed" into the pavement as you assert, her RIGHT cheek is pressed into the pavement, her LEFT cheek is not, and there is NO blood on her face whatsoever. The photos do not show anyone's bloody face being pressed into anything. And here is a prima facie example of your blatant parsing. My fuller quote (with your excerpt underlined) was exactly: You conveniently distort my quote to suit your purpose. I gave an example of how you wish to constrain the discussion to hypotheticals in lieu of the evidence and how you claim to be an eyewitness yet can't witness whose blood your eyes saw on the pavement. The photos show her bloody face. Blood in sufficient amounts that you argue EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life-threatening and needed triage at the scene. Blood on the pavement, ostensibly where the girl's face lay under the officer's knee. Which do you suppose came first? Blood from her face onto the pavement or blood on the pavement onto her face? How did blood get smeared on her face as you testify (while she was handcuffed or being handcuffed) if not for her face being pushed into it. Into her own blood based on the evidence & testimony. Her blood from her face onto the pavement where her face was further smeared in it. Otherwise, where is the testimony or evidence it is the officer's blood on her or on the pavement? So far there is none. Only your allusion to it possibly being the officer's blood, in spite of her being the one needing triage & stitches. The photos show her right cheek on the pavement under the officer's knee and another of her on her stomach (face not visible) presumably face down with either her left or right cheek on the pavement or possibly her nose & forehead. Those are all parts of her face last time I peeked at Gray's Anatomy. Collectively, the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee. You seemingly would have us grant credibility to your eyewitness recollections, yet you can't tell or remember how the girls face came to be smeared with enough blood to ostensibly require triage from EMS to ensure her bleeding was not life- threatening, but you have no recollcetion of the officer bleeding and obviously his face was not on the pavement under her knee, now was it. And afer making such assinine distortions of my questions and the evidence, you want to be believed?
"even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement..."
And yet you equivocate that as an eyewitness, you can't tell whose blood was on the pavement even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement and she received stitches for facial lacerations (plural) which you concede can bleed profusely while the officer only had scratches;
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#650. To: Richard (#644)
And we are still waiting on your eyewitness proof of where I asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed.
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#651. To: Richard (#408)
As this remains unresolved, I would still like an answer as to where the paramedics triaged Ms. Metzinger and where you were standing that you could observe it to be a very small cut, albeit a potentially life-threatening in-need-of-triage, very small cut.
Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face and where were you standing (and how far away) that you could see paramedics wipe Ms. Metzinger's cut and close enough to see it "was a very small cut"?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#652. To: Starwind (#649)
Once again, in case you missed it... If you look in the photo, there is NO BLOOD ON HER FACE when the officer has her on the ground. No blood on ANY of her face. In the photo where her face is away from the camera, even you can not determine whether it is the right or left side of her face on the ground, and in that photo it is CLEARLY not being pressed into the pavement. FURTHERMORE, you can't tell if it has any blood on it at the time. So again, nothing there to support your statements. SO, you can NOT conclude that "her bloody face was pressed into the pavement" no matter how you try to parse the word "face," and your statements are, at best, wild and unsubstantiated assertions. I am NOT distorting your statements in any way, I am taking them at face value, which, it turns out is ZERO. Again, you are incorrect in your statement "Blood in sufficient amounts that you argue EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life-threatening and needed triage at the scene." The blood was not the reason that the EMS had to determine if her wounds might be life threatening at the scene. IT IS THEIR JOB. She was under arrest and involved in assaulting an officer, they HAVE TO DETERMINE if her wounds might be life threatening, even if there is NO BLOOD. She could have sustained a concussion, she could be in the process of an overdose of drugs which is why she resisted, she might be having a heart attack do to the struggle or the thought of going to jail. They have no choice in the matter at that time. It was not that the EMS said "oh, well, there is blood, perhaps we should check her out as long as we are here." They HAVE to check her out before she can leave the scene. "How did blood get smeared on her face as you testify (while she was handcuffed or being handcuffed) if not for her face being pushed into it." I already addressed this. Her palm was also smeared with blood. Looking at how the blood is smeared on her face, no amount of "pressing" a face into the pavement could smear the blood that evenly without causing much more damage. Another wild and unsubstantiated allegation you made is "Collectively, the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee." There is NO evidence to date that supports this wild claim. If there is, then you are the only one who has knowledge of it at this time. "You seemingly would have us grant credibility to your eyewitness recollections, yet you can't tell or remember how the girls face came to be smeared with enough blood to ostensibly require triage from EMS to ensure her bleeding was not life- threatening, but you have no recollcetion of the officer bleeding " Starwind, at the time there was a lot going on, large and hostile crowd, people moving everywhere, lots of police and emergency vehicles, etc. It would be far MORE surprising if I knew every specific detail of what she did at the time. It was a zoo. I did not see her smear her face with her hand. I did see her nicely smeared face AND her nicely smeared hand, and drew a natural conclusion. As for why I did not see blood on Officer Gordon, well, she is white, he is black, it was night (also black), and blood is red. He also was not smearing his blood across his face for effect like Michelle did, nor was he screaming and crying like a baby the way Michelle was. I have not made a distortion of your questions and the evidence, you just are not very good at understanding things. Nice try... thanks for playing. "And yet you equivocate that as an eyewitness, you can't tell whose blood was on the pavement even though the girl's bloody face was pressed into the pavement "
#653. To: Starwind (#651)
Star, I already answered this question. It was in the street where the incident occured. You really do not pay attention very well.
#654. To: Richard (#648)
No, it stems from my lack of understanding of what actually took place, due in no small part to your conflicted testimony. Au Contraire! She has the right to refuse. If she was drunk her refusal may not have been "informed". The police already acknowleged her right to refuse treatment. If it was also informed, she is liable for any consequences of her refusal. Why couldn't you have voluntered that information earlier? Who says she so demanded? More supposition on your part. Your medical opinion or have you some fact you witnessed? So apparently say the police and hospital reports. This is an example of where your eyewitness testimony adds nothing to the record, and yet you seemingly withhold information where you could otherwise shed some light. What's up with that? Agreed. Most certainly she was not untouched. Otherwise she wouldn't have needed the triage or the stitches. (I'm allowed at least one cheap shot - forum rules).
This stems from your lack of understanding of what "treatment" is in that situation.
She was drunk and under arrest, so she did not have the right to refuse the initial assessment of her condition.
Being as how I am not a medical professional, I consider what they did to her, cleaning her face and assessing her condition, to be "treatment" of a sort. She was not sent to the hospital in the condition that you see her in the photo, she was not sent to the hospital with blood smeared all across her face.
She did not have the right at that point to demand to be taken to a hospital.
They had to determine the extent of her injuries, which entails some cleaning of the area.
She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine.
That does not mean that they shipped her untouched to the hospital.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#655. To: Starwind (#650)
Star, None of this has to do with the situation at hand, which is the non-story of the arrest of Michelle Metzinger for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer. Sorry, but I am not interested in playing this game with you, you know that if I had made the same statement she did, you would have attacked me. For you to say that you would not have done so is just a lie. Stick to the case at hand.
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed? And we are still waiting on your eyewitness proof of where I asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed.
#656. To: Richard (#653)
Actually that would be you not paying attention. Here it is again: And now I'll unpack it for you: 2) and where were you standing 3) (and how far away)
You really do not pay attention very well.
Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face and where were you standing (and how far away) that you could see paramedics wipe Ms. Metzinger's cut and close enough to see it "was a very small cut"?
1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#657. To: Richard (#655)
Of course you've lost interest in having your false allegations exposed. Try being as informative without the insults and false allegations as was Siagiah and see what happens.
Sorry, but I am not interested in playing this game with you, you know that if I had made the same statement she did, you would have attacked me. For you to say that you would not have done so is just a lie.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#658. To: Starwind (#654)
She was under arrest and had to be assessed to see if she was able to be taken to jail. She does NOT have the right to refuse the assessment. You need to read up on the law. If she was just a pedestrian who fell down and got a cut, you are right, but this is NOT that situation. She was under arrest, her rights were limited. ""Being as how I am not a medical professional, I consider what they did to her, cleaning her face and assessing her condition, to be "treatment" of a sort. She was not sent to the hospital in the condition that you see her in the photo, she was not sent to the hospital with blood smeared all across her face." Because I did not know that you were so stupid and could not understand simple things. I will be more careful to use small words in the future. ""She did not have the right at that point to demand to be taken to a hospital."" "Who says she so demanded? More supposition on your part." No one says she demanded. I was giving you an EXAMPLE. Not sure if you know what an example is, it IS a big word. ""She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine. "" "So apparently say the police and hospital reports. This is an example of where your eyewitness testimony adds nothing to the record, and yet you seemingly withhold information where you could otherwise shed some light. What's up with that?" I seemingly withhold information that would otherwise shed some light on what, exactly? It is not my fault that you are so stupid that you think that people under arrest have the same rights as people who are NOT under arrest. As for the cheap shot... it made me smile. Why couldn't you have voluntered that information earlier? " "Au Contraire! She has the right to refuse. If she was drunk her refusal may not have been "informed". The police already acknowleged her right to refuse treatment. If it was also informed, she is liable for any consequences of her refusal."
#659. To: Starwind (#657)
No, Star... You are losing your case with regards to the actuall events, and are trying to take this off topic. My allegations are not false. If you wish to disprove them, you may. Show us where every example of where you AGREE with her. I am no longer interested in discussing them.
#660. To: Richard (#655)
Yes, well the situation at hand now is you have impeached your own credibility. Not surprisingly, you'd like to divert the discussion away from your testimony and false allegations of me and others on thread and on to something else.
None of this has to do with the situation at hand, which is the non-story of the arrest of Michelle Metzinger for public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#661. To: Starwind (#660)
Star, is Richard still standing? If this were a prize fight, it would have been a TKO after 5 rounds. Well done.
#662. To: Richard, Siagiah (#659)
And yet here you are evading proof of your allegations. Pretending not to know in which post you accused me of having made assertions with which Siagiah disagreed, and pretending not to know how to post proof of my lies, and pretending to have any credibility yourself. You made the allegation and have three times evaded proving it. Some eyewitness you've turned out to be. Is it not somehwere on this thread, easy for someone like yourself to go back and copy and paste and then rub my nose in it? Your allegation was that I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed. And now your changing your testimony to where instead of my asking questions to uncover facts, I'm supposed to point out where I agree with her. Alright I agree with her it is a complicated slice of pie. Metzinger was likely PI. She likely resisted arrest. I'd like to see the facts of how she resisted and assulted the police officer. I'd like to see what any juror would like to see. And now back to those alleged facts of yours wherein I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed ....
My allegations are not false.
If you wish to disprove them, you may.
Show us where every example of where you AGREE with her. I am no longer interested in discussing them.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#663. To: Starwind, Neil McIver (#662)
Hoo boy. Has anyone else noticed that we are now dealing with someone who is capable of making over a hundred posts a day? Doesn't that make anyone else just a tad suspicious of the real motives of such a poster? You know, the last time I was on a forum that had a certain person who posted over a hundred times a day I finally gave up and left that forum. Am I going to have to leave this forum as well? Because a steam-powered spambot is still a spambot, and cam wreck a forum right quick. Is this going to be yet another forum destroyed by a steam-powered spambot?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#664. To: Elliott Jackalope (#663)
Don't forget the bozo filter.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison
#665. To: Richard (#658)
Quote that law for us all. I'l settle for some actual proofs with links and exact quotes. If you use words to big for me, I'll look'em up. But the ball is in your court to first post those words. Exactly, go back and answer the questions I've posed that you have to date refused to answer. That's what exactly. As if you didn't know.
She was under arrest and had to be assessed to see if she was able to be taken to jail. She does NOT have the right to refuse the assessment. You need to read up on the law.
Because I did not know that you were so stupid and could not understand simple things. I will be more careful to use small words in the future.
I seemingly withhold information that would otherwise shed some light on what, exactly?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#666. To: robin (#664)
The bozo filter is of limited use when dealing with a steam-powered spambot, because threads end up having so many holes in them they become incomprehensible.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#667. To: Elliott Jackalope (#666)
PM
#668. To: Starwind, Richard (#629)
Post #433 The burden is on you Richard to convince us that what you say is accurate. Statements such as "not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt" do not add to your credibility. In my opinion, you wished to make a point and you exaggerated for effect. If you are willing to exaggerate in one place to make a point, how are we supposed to know where else you might be willing to do it, especially when you claimed she was getting what she deserved? Post #254 Those are your own words. Not one person gave you the benefit of the doubt? Does that seem like a factual statement? Of course, you can say that it was only because you felt picked on that you said what you said. However, regardless of the reason, you stated something as a fact ("not one person") and it was not a fact. Post #255 If you came here expecting anyone to believe 100% of what you say, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Using that theory, our court system would simply need to put the first witness on the stand. The prosecutor could ask the witness if the person is guilty. The witness could answer. The jury could then nod approvingly. The judge could impose the sentence. The entire trial would be over within the first few minutes. How fair do you think that system would be? There would be one way to make that system even less fair. The witness could be an anonymous internet poster I suppose, lol.
However true that may be, none of that is a guarantee that you have been accurate. None of that is a guarantee that you have been complete. None of that is a guarantee that you have been unbiased or impartial. And none of that is a guarantee that you have been honest. You are an anonymous, unsworn stranger and an insulting one at times (as are the rest of us). You have no rational reason whatsoever to presume what you post on the internet will be accepted as impartial factual truth. Any sane person would anticipate questions. Any honest person would understand the desire of others to have more facts and less spin.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
This was in my inbox tonight. I have only been on for a day, and thsi is the only thread I have commented on, yet I have a supporter who took the time to write me.
I agreed with your point that I could not tell what happened by looking at the pictures. I agreed with your point that her weight was not necessarily much of an issue. I agreed with your point that the face bleeds easily. I was very clearly listening to your story. The only thing I did not do was blindly believe 100% of your account of what happened (nor did I necessarily disbelieve it either). However, it is very clear from my post that I was willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and therefore your version of the story as well.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#669. To: Jethro Tull (#643)
LOL Mine is in a handy spot.
Go blow the dust off your Black's Law Dictionary for later use :)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#670. To: Jethro Tull, Starwind (#661)
This is something like what happened with a known trouble maker from my old neighborhood in Chicago. We just happened to be in a neighborhood tap on Fridy night. I was with some buddies from work and the jerk was with some of his friends from work. Anyway, later on in the evening there was a little flare up and the jerk got tossed out of the place. He was out in front and proceeded to get into it with someone else. The other guy labelled him once and he went down. From a nearly prone position he tries to get up and is hit again. Next he turns, still half on the ground and says, "C'mon, c'mon," all the while motioning at the guy like he was in a position to overcome the beating he was receiving. Needless to say, he lost big time. Somehow, I got blamed for it all and I never laid a finger on him. The jerk was spreading lies all over about what happened. When his brother found out the truth, he decked the jerk himself for getting him involved in something started by lies.
Star, is Richard still standing? If this were a prize fight, it would have been a TKO after 5 rounds. Well done.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#671. To: Richard, markm0722 (#668)
I would also echo what markm0722 has pointed out in that in my very first post #287 to you, while I misunderstood that you meant Metzinger would have future convictions going into a civil trial rather than past convictions going into her criminal trial, I nonetheless voluntered the facts in detail with links as I understood them asked very civilly for your corrections or explanations of a seeming contradiction. Your response could have been simply factual, but you embellished it with personal insults of me (in post #290). While that is your right on this forum, it was a poor first impression and a harbinger of your ongoing unwillingness to dissect the facts in an impartial and civil manner, at least with those of us like myself who did in fact want to listen to whatever evidence you actually had. You had ample opportunity to strike a different tone, but you never did and seem to relish insulting anyone and everyone who dared to ask the "eyewitness" a question. And you added further fuel to the fire expecting me to overlook your continued insults in your subsequent clarification in your response #298 to my question in #295. And there you are in your post #433 whining about being called names, and yet without any apology from you for your unprovoked ad-hominems, against me for one example.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#672. To: BTP Holdings (#670)
From a nearly prone position he tries to get up and is hit again. Next he turns, still half on the ground and says, "C'mon, c'mon," all the while motioning at the guy like he was in a position to overcome the beating he was receiving.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#673. To: Starwind, Richard (#649)
That type of thing is what reinforces my belief that Richard is a lawyer, and a highly stereotypical one at that -- one who goes out of his way to challenge every last detail of fact not in his favor, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, and denying anything that he can possibly get away with, and beyond that even those things he can't. Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? A: When his lips are moving. Thus goes Richard. A classic, textbook, stereotypical lying lawyer is my estimation. Richard, as for the challenge: Here goes: The female subject was wearing roller skates. Go easy on me now. I am kinda new at this observation stuff, as you already know. As for your query about what it is based upon I called you a liar, my answer: I forget. I figure if you have, I might as well too.
You conveniently distort my quote to suit your purpose.
Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#674. To: Elliott Jackalope (#663)
BE only posts on business days, 9-5 PM and Richard is well outside of that scope. He's a fruitcake and good for sparing exercise. You remember that webols wobble but they don't fall down, don't you? It's true that Richard will never concede anything and will post as long as we do but I've not had this much sparing practice since the good ol days. He's no problem though, if that's what your getting at. Nothing the bozo filter can't handle.
Has anyone else noticed that we are now dealing with someone who is capable of making over a hundred posts a day?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder.
-- George Bonser
#675. To: Starwind (#662)
From my point of view, that is the case. It is not something that I have to prove or disprove in this environment. I stand by it. Being as how you are not going to be a juror, you don't get to see all the facts of the case, sorry.
Your allegation was that I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed
#676. To: Richard (#675)
LOL! Your point of view is all you've got. There are no facts supporting your allegation that I had asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed. Yeah. That's your story and you're stick'n to it. In hindsight, you really aren't as good at this as you thought you were.
From my point of view, that is the case.
It is not something that I have to prove or disprove in this environment. I stand by it.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#677. To: Starwind (#665)
Good, then go look up Texas Law and see for yourself. I don't have to do your work for you. If you fail to find it, or you think you have found evidence to the contrary, come back to me. When you are under arrest you do not have the same rights as a free citizen. Some obvious examples, you have sacrificed your liberty, you don't get to say what jail you go to, you don't get to go home and get a change of clothes, anything you say or do can be used as evidence against you. You are not thinking this thru. If she was obviously injured at the scene and was under arrest, she is now in the care of the State Of Texas. If she were to die on the way to the hospital because no one bothered to see if she was safe to transport, that would be criminally negligent homocide. Then again, based upon how you are treating this incident, you are not thinking several things thru. What question have you posed that I have refused to answer, Starwind? You keep saying this, but do not show me the questions.
Quote that law for us all. If you use words to big for me, I'll look'em up.
#678. To: Neil McIver, starwind (#674)
Look at the bright side boys. The fact that the city fathers send Richard here (or many people using his password) shows me how desperate they are to get out in front of this story.
#679. To: markm0722 (#668)
Those are your own words. Not one person gave you the benefit of the doubt? Does that seem like a factual statement? Of course, you can say that it was only because you felt picked on that you said what you said. However, regardless of the reason, you stated something as a fact ("not one person") and it was not a fact. Mark, Be serious. No one but me knew you had written me, so it would be considered facts not in evidence. My statement was addressing the people on the thread. YOU had not commented on the thread, and thus my statement is factual and accurate.
Post #254 This was in my inbox tonight. I have only been on for a day, and thsi is the only thread I have commented on, yet I have a supporter who took the time to write me.
#680. To: markm0722 (#668)
I certainly did NOT come here expecting people to believe 100% of what I said. However, I also did not come here expecting to be called a flat out liar and a paid shill for the state.
If you came here expecting anyone to believe 100% of what you say, you are going to be sadly disappointed.
#681. To: Richard (#675)
thought you said it wasn't going to trial. ;)
Being as how you are not going to be a juror, you don't get to see all the facts of the case, sorry.
#682. To: Neil McIver (#673)
Neil, For once, you and I are in agreement. (now everyone, try not to have a heart attack from the shock of that) You can tell that the female subject is wearing rollerskates based solely upon the photographic evidence. New Challenge for you Neil: State something that supports your claim that excessive force was used by the police officer based SOLELY on the photographic evidence. Good luck.
Please state for us information about the night in question that YOU believe that Reasonable People can agree on based SOLELY upon the photos. Here goes: The female subject was wearing roller skates.
#683. To: Starwind (#676)
Starwind, I am not allowed to have my own point of view on what your position is in this matter with out first being able to legally defend it? AND I have to justify it to you upon demand? What a strange world you live in, my friend.
#684. To: Richard (#677)
The police said she had refused treatment. The police. Think that thru. Why should I post them a fourth time? You didn't see fit to answer them the prior three times. Your most recent response was Good, then go look up Texas Law and see for yourself. I don't have to do your work for you. Actually that would be you not paying attention. Here it is again: And now I'll unpack it for you: 2) and where were you standing 3) (and how far away) You are not thinking this thru. If she was obviously injured at the scene and was under arrest, she is now in the care of the State Of Texas.
What question have you posed that I have refused to answer, Starwind?
You keep saying this, but do not show me the questions.
Liar. #656. To: Richard (#653)
You really do not pay attention very well.
Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face and where were you standing (and how far away) that you could see paramedics wipe Ms. Metzinger's cut and close enough to see it "was a very small cut"?
1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#685. To: christine (#681)
Christine, You made me giggle.. thanks. :)
#686. To: Starwind (#684)
In a sitting position in the street. 2) and where were you standing Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention. 3) (and how far away) Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention. You really need to pay more attention. 1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
#687. To: Richard (#686)
Liar.
Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#688. To: Starwind (#684)
Starwind, Yes, they did say that she refused treatment. Treatment for the stitches she needed to receive. Their saying "she refused treatment" meant ... and I will say this again because you clearly don't understand that words can have multiple and situational inferences... "She did not want to get stitches at the scene and was sent to the hospital to receive them." Wait, before you even say it... the reason that the police state that "she refused treatment and was sent to the hospital" is because she DID refuse SOME treatment and was sent to the hospital. She HAD to be assessed before she could be moved, and she could NOT refuse that treatment. However, the stitches were not a "necessary procedure" and thus she had the option of getting stitched up in the street or going to the hospital. Most of us would have chosen to go to the hospital to get the stitches, especailly on the face. (while I am hopeful that this clears it up for you, I somehow do not believe you will be able to grasp this simple concept.)
The police said she had refused treatment. The police. Think that thru.
#689. To: Starwind (#687)
Go back and read the threads. I stated explicitly where I was and what was going on around me. Considering your less that gracious tone, I do not feel inclined to restate that which I have already stated for the record. You want to read it, go back and find it, lazybones. You must be used to people doing EVERYTHING for you. Do you chew your own food?
#690. To: Starwind (#684)
I have been asked hundreds of questions by you people, so I missed yours... big deal. You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
Why should I post them a fourth time? You didn't see fit to answer them the prior three times
#691. To: christine (#681)
I think this thread might rival 'homosexuality is sin' thread. michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
#692. To: Red Jones (#691)
Uh.... Good for you? Not sure what you were going for there... but if you enjoy your girlfriend and find her attractive, then good on ya!
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
#693. To: Red Jones (#691)
Lucky....
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend
#694. To: Richard, all (#641)
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,
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#695. To: Richard (#679)
Be serious. No one but me knew you had written me, so it would be considered facts not in evidence. You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way, and now it is considered "facts not in evidence". Okay, whatever. Let's throw that one out then, lol. My statement was addressing the people on the thread. YOU had not commented on the thread, and thus my statement is factual and accurate. That is not true. I did comment. Let's try this again in chronological order. Post #255 Post #433 Even after pointing this flaw out, you continue to believe that your statement is factual and accurate.
I offered benefit of the doubt publicly by posting on this thread for all to see.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#696. To: Jethro Tull (#693)
yes I know.
#697. To: Richard, Starwind (#690)
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth. It is my opinion that disguising opinions as facts is one of your bigger problems on this thread.
You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#698. To: siagiah (#694)
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.
#699. To: markm0722 (#695)
I was under no obligation to get your permission before posting that email. As for your post #255, I did not see it, and I apologize for saying that No One had given me the benefit of the doubt when you did. My bad. I have been barraged with hundreds of questions and accusations, so using a universal qualifier was perhaps not the most prudent choice. I will ammend it to read "at the time, only one person appears to have given me the benefit of the doubt." Duly noted. "You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way"
#700. To: Richard (#698)
you are an expert witness on the subject of morons. it is manifestly obvious that you know practically everything about being a moron.
a lot of a moron.
#701. To: markm0722 (#697)
I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid. I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific.
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth.
#702. To: Red Jones (#700)
Red, Well, I went to all the meetings, passed the final, and I got this handy lapel pin, so.. thanks for noticing!
#703. To: Richard (#698)
Liar. Show where I said the paramedics could not or did not clean off her face. I asked about protocols and what the paramedics actually did, where was Metzinger when they did it, and what you saw and where were you standing and how far away, etc, etc, etc - again, fact-finding. I stated she had the right to refuse treatment, which right the police accepted.
Starwind is saying that this [paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs] could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#704. To: Richard (#688)
(while I am hopeful that this clears it up for you, I somehow do not believe you will be able to grasp this simple concept.) EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street... well, not unless they enjoy getting sued. It would be rather unusal for ANY PATIENT to get stitches "on the scene" except in a Rambo movie... ???
However, the stitches were not a "necessary procedure" and thus she had the option of getting stitched up in the street or going to the hospital. Most of us would have chosen to go to the hospital to get the stitches, especailly on the face.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#705. To: siagiah (#704)
I was not privey to the conversation that occured, but the paramedics did indeed clean her up before they sent her to the hospital. Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street...
#706. To: Richard (#705)
Liar.
Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#707. To: Richard (#701)
I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific. I concede your point. I too should have used your conditional qualifiers in my response. That was not fair of me. I was dwelling on the "truly" choice of wording. Considered paranoid: An opinion that one is paranoid. (Considered: careful thought, "considered opinion") I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid.
Truly paranoid: The fact that one is paranoid. (Truly: truthfully, accurately)
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#708. To: Richard (#699)
Fair enough. Absolute qualifiers As for your post #255, I did not see it, and I apologize for saying that No One had given me the benefit of the doubt when you did. My bad. I have been barraged with hundreds of questions and accusations, so using a universal qualifier was perhaps not the most prudent choice. I will ammend it to read "at the time, only one person appears to have given me the benefit of the doubt." Duly noted.
always often get people in trouble.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#709. To: Starwind (#703)
(Starwind)Au Contraire! She has the right to refuse. If she was drunk her refusal may not have been "informed". The police already acknowleged her right to refuse treatment. If it was also informed, she is liable for any consequences of her refusal. -Your statement speaks directly to your belief that she was not treated at the scene in any fashion because the police report states that the refused treatment and was taken to a hospital. This means that you allege that she was not treated by the paramedics in any way, as your myopic interpretation of the police report does not allow for any form of medical treatment. (Richard)They had to determine the extent of her injuries, which entails some cleaning of the area. (Starwind)Your medical opinion or have you some fact you witnessed? ---This was something I witnessed. (Richard)She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine. (Starwind)So apparently say the police and hospital reports. This is an example of where your eyewitness testimony adds nothing to the record ------My telling you that they did in fact give her basic first aid at the scene DOES add something to the record. You are simply not bright enough to grasp that. I suppose you are now going to hide behind the fact that you did not state the specific phrases "the paramedics did clean off her face" nor "the paramedics did not clean off her face." However, that inference can be clearly drawn from the statements that you made. You feel that if the police said she refused treatment that she was not treated in any way. (Starwind) #649 "the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee." This I just included for fun because it is proof that you do not know what you are talking about and that you are making things up as you go along. There is NO evidence to date that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officer’s knee.
#658 (Richard)She was drunk and under arrest, so she did not have the right to refuse the initial assessment of her condition.
#710. To: markm0722 (#708)
LOL Mark... nice! :)
#711. To: Richard (#698)
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?
To: siagiah saigiah,
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#712. To: siagiah (#711)
Siagiah, Thanks for that informative and well thought out response! Much appreciated. :)
#713. To: Richard (#709)
This is your own continued projection of your deceptions on to me, that I must belive what would be convenient for you to argue - a strawman. That is not what I believe. Well that is the lie that you want to perpetrate now isn't it. I said she had a right to refuse treatment. I did not say what the paramedics did or did not do. I in fact asked you, didn't I. And you've made up my answer for me, a belief you impute to me, haven't you. My issue with all this, my actual belief, is that the paramedics may well have wiped off her face and asked if she wanted treatment (like a neck brace maybe), possibly for neck or other injuries that she may have sustained in the scuffle, which treatment (of whatever, for whatever reasons) she declined, rightfully as the police acknowledged. Time will tell what her injuries actually were. But I do not believe that you witnessed it, or if you did I do not believe you will be honest or objective about it. I believe you're making it up as the questions come to you, from what you've read in news reports. My questions were designed to find out how truthful you have been, what you actually know, and to get your "eyewitness" information on the record for later comparison. The issue for me was never what the paramedics did or did not do. The issue for me is what did you actually witness. This thread has become about your credibility (or lack thereof). And observing your poor witness of the questions and answers on this thread, which are readily verifiable, I'm convinced at this point that you merely lie and distort to serve your own agenda.
Your statement speaks directly to your belief that she was not treated at the scene in any fashion because the police report states that the refused treatment and was taken to a hospital.
I suppose you are now going to hide behind the fact that you did not state the specific phrases "the paramedics did clean off her face" nor "the paramedics did not clean off her face."
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#714. To: Richard, all (#712)
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,
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#715. To: Starwind (#713)
You say she refused treatment, I said that they cleaned her face and sent her to the hospital. You reiterated that that the police report stated she refused treatment… what did you mean by that after I had told you that the paramedics had looked at her? What value would it be to restate your point other than to attempt to impugn mine? She was belligerent as hell when they were looking at her. While the paramedics were working with her she was constantly twisting her head and swearing at them telling them to leave her the fuck alone. They did not check her for neck injuries from what I saw, but they probably figured that if this bitch could swing her head so well, she did not have a neck injury, and they did examine her face quietly and professionally while she swore at them. Officer Gordon was also examined, but surprisingly did not act so violently towards the paramedics. He could have been severely injured when Michelle was kicking at him with her roller skates after he initially took her to the ground, but fortunately, the reports say he only suffered bruises. You don’t have to believe I witnessed the event if you do not wish to. That does not change the fact that I did witness the event. It is a FACT because I did witness the event, yours is only a BELIEF. My FACT trumps your BELIEF. See, people “BELIEVE” in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and God… but those are not FACTS, they are just BELIEFS. Your questions were designed (and poorly designed at that)as a failed attempt to try to discredit me from the start, which is difficult for you to do being as how you only have sketchy third-hand knowledge of what went on that evening, while I was less than 25 feet from the event as it occured. Your approach to this matter has been offensive and confrontational, and you are surprised that you are getting attitude from me about it? You were not there and yet you try to tell me what did or did not happen, and now say that you don’t think I was there based upon what has been said here. Again, you were not there and know less than has been inaccurately reported in the press about what happened that night. Well, the police sure say I was there for a FACT because they took my statement, so once again, your BELIEF is yours to keep, and won’t come into play over the course of the investigation into this matter. Hopefully now that you have established your belief, incorrect though it is, you will let this matter go. I doubt it, but it is my hope.
#716. To: siagiah (#714)
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?
#717. To: Richard (#715)
Give it a break. Michelle was the injured party, not the cop that needs a rope as fashion accessory. "Michelle was kicking at him with her roller skates after he initially took her to the ground," Did it ever occur to you she was frightened and in pain from having her face scraped off? Might she move her legs? You Richie, are a real work. An shill for the Dallas PO. What a statest sucker. By the way, can you prove that from the photos???
He could have been severely injured when Michelle was kicking at him with her roller skates after he initially took her to the ground, but fortunately, the reports say he only suffered bruises.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#718. To: Richard (#716)
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???
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.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#719. To: tom007 (#717)
"Michelle was kicking at him with her roller skates after he initially took her to the ground," Did it ever occur to you she was frightened and in pain from having her face scraped off? Might she move her legs? You Richie, are a real work. An shill for the Dallas PO. What a statest sucker. By the way, can you prove that from the photos??? Tom, "Give it a break. Michelle was the injured party, not the cop..." Actually, once again, you are wrong. The cop was treated for several scrapes and bruises he sustained from his encounter with the suspect. Both parties were injured as a result of Michelle's actions. Furthermore, have you ever been kicked with a roller skate? They can do quite a bit of dammage. They have very solid metal reinforced soles help them to pack a lot of punch. As for your laughable statement about "did it ever occur to me that she was frightened and in pain from having her face scraped off?" A: her face was not scraped off.. the sum total of her injuries were SMALL cuts, one of which required a few stitches. That does NOT equate in any way to having one's face scraped off. B: I am sure she was frightened. However, that does not give her the right to assault a police officer. Which she continued to do. She did not just "move her legs" she was taking aim and kicking. These were not involuntary muscle movements, these were agressive actions. Remember, she fights on roller skates as a profession. I don't need to prove anything from the photos, I was at the scene at the time, I had just left July Alley, not 25 feet from where this went down. Tom, as I have told you before, I don't work for Dallas, the Police, or any other government body, I have no involvement in this matter other than being a witness and being tired of hearing people like yourself who were NOT there try to make it seem like this was an innocent little girl who got jumped.
Give it a break. Michelle was the injured party, not the cop that needs a rope as fashion accessory.
God is Santa Clause for adults.
#720. To: All (#718)
O I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#721. To: tom007 (#718)
--Officer Gordon has never denied subduing the suspect and needing to use force to do so. His actions were the result of the actions of Michelle. Her actions have consequences. --His actions were violent because he had to defend himself against his assailant, but they were in no way abusive. "Glad to see the DAllas Police are protecting you from rogue girl skaters" --I too am glad to see that drunk people who roller skate in busy traffic are being stopped by the police before their drunken, illegal and irresponsible actions cause serious accidents or even death. Had the police warned her and let her go, and then she was hit by a car while skating in the street, I am sure you would be screaming about "why did they just let her keep skating in the street if they thought she was drunk!?!" As I said, from what I saw, the police did their job and did it well. 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.
God is Santa Clause for adults.
#722. To: tom007 (#720)
Tom, I never once said that the police are never guilty of butality. I agree that it does happen and have even said as much on this thread. However, in THIS instance, THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, the police are in no way guilty of butality, nor excessive force. This woman was simply wrestled to the ground and handcuffed after she resisted arrest and attacked the police officer. She was not struck by the officer, who, given that she was continuing to fight with him, would have been an acceptable option. She was not maced, which, given that she was continuing to fight, would have been an acceptable option. All he did was wrestle her to the ground, and when she kept fighting and started kicking at him, he flipped her over and got the cuffs on her. Actually, in my view, he showed extreme RESTRAINT in his use of force.
I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
~~God is Santa Clause for adults.~~
#723. To: Richard (#722)
Tom, I never once said that the police are never guilty of butality. I agree that it does happen and have even said as much on this thread. I said that not you. I agree with your response.
I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
#724. To: tom007 (#723)
I never once said that the police are never guilty of butality. I agree that it does happen and have even said as much on this thread. I said that not you. I agree with your response. Tom, If you are going to agree with my response... then make sure you include the entire response, so people know what it is that you are agreeing with here. You agree with my response when I said: "I never once said that the police are never guilty of butality. I agree that it does happen and have even said as much on this thread. However, in THIS instance, THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, the police are in no way guilty of butality, nor excessive force." I am glad to hear that you agree. Thanks.
I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality. Tom,
~~God is Santa Clause for adults.~~
#725. To: tom007, Richard, All (#720)
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?
To: All O I forgot. Dallas Police NEVER are gulity of brutality.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
#726. To: siagiah (#725)
Siagiah, You are so well spoken that I wanna give you a big hug. :) I enjoy you.
~~God is Santa Clause for adults.~~
#727. To: Elliott Jackalope (#50)
Gotta agree with you Elliot.......I worked LA for 3 years.....and saw some bad officers do some bad things.....We place too much emphasis on Officers tryin to obey the law, and forget that they are, after all...just human, with emotions and feelings......and we ask much of them, in situations hard to imagine...We all react in diff ways in diff situations....2 hours before this incident, the officer may have covered a child rape or abused wife....or perhaps a robbery in progress, who knows what was in his mind?.....never the less, He could have chose a diff way to handle it.....But in his defense....this aint the movies, folks!.....You try takin down someone who dont wanna be taken down...size has little to do with it....a drunk or someone on PCP...can have strength you might find it hard to believe....and they feel very little pain, until after the fact.....Just my two cents.......Peace, ya'all!
I will never agree with those who believe that "if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about".
#728. To: Merlin (#727)
Oh yes, the old "superhuman criminal" story. I've heard that nonsense before too. I don't care how zonked out someone is, you can still take them down with any number of moves, and the cops are taught a whole lot of them. Believe me, I know, my step-father used to practice the moves they taught him on me. Here's a true story of something I saw one day in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara, California). The cops were rousting some guy in a parking lot just off the El Camino by Lawrence Expressway, some bum who looked like he might have thought of himself as a "tough guy", mid-thirties, bald head, no shirt, looked like he worked out. Guess how many cops were there rousting this guy? One? Two? Four? Try more like THIRTY FIVE! No kidding. I counted, but I'm not sure if it was an exact count because there were so many of them. There were so many cops there that they had to have two cops directing traffic around the cop traffic jam created by all of the cop cars who stopped in to roust this guy. Thirty five cops. What were they thinking? I know what I was thinking, "what a bunch of total pussies these blue suited bullies are." Since when are thirty five cops needed to roust a bum? Sheesh. Some may say "support your local police", but I'm not one of them. I don't like cowardly pussy fear biters.
You try takin down someone who dont wanna be taken down...size has little to do with it....a drunk or someone on PCP...can have strength you might find it hard to believe....and they feel very little pain, until after the fact
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#729. To: Elliott Jackalope (#728)
I gather two things from your comments....One, that you are probably a Libral....and Two.....at some point in your life, You have been "Rousted" by some police or authority figure. It kills me to read all of the horror stories about the law enforcement community. Your solution is what?...to disband all police forces? I will totally agree with you, that we have some bad officers out there...But all of them, or MOST of them, are not the "storm troopers" you try to portray them as. I resided in Mexico for a time...The police there pretty much enforce the law, according to how much money a person has, or the social status of an individual. What a country this would be, if that happened here. And yes, my friend, I DO support my local police...I dont always agree, or condone some of thier actions, but I'm not quite ready to just dump our system, just yet.
Some may say "support your local police", but I'm not one of them. I don't like cowardly pussy fear biters.
#730. To: siagiah (#725)
Just saw your post......We need more clear thinkers like you in the world!....Very well said!
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)
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.
#732. To: Merlin (#729)
First, no I'm not a liberal, but I'm not a fan of conservatives any longer either. As of now I no longer see things as "right or left", I see them as "right or wrong". And two, yes, I've been rousted before, many time when I was living on the streets. I was rousted and harassed for the crimes of sleeping, and the crime of loitering, and the crime of asking people for money. Did I mention that I came from a really fucked up family background? But I overcame it because of my natural tendency to be a workaholic. Meanwhile, Ken Lay, who stole billions, still has yet to see the inside of a courtroom. Five years later, still has not even been put in handcuffs. Him and thousands of other corporate criminals buy their way out of their crimes that cost people billions. Oh, and another experience I got to live through, about fifteen years ago I came up with "a really good idea", something worth a whole lot of money. I put together a team of engineers, and tried to get venture capital financing. Guess what happened? The VC's stole my idea, and made billions off of it. No shit. I got to spend five years fighting in court, just to end up with a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what my idea was worth. Why? Because our system is just like the one you described in Mexico. It does, in fact, enforce the law according to how much money a person has. So there you have it. The fact of the matter is I deeply resent and despise cops and our legal system (don't insult us all by calling it a "justice" system), but I also get a big laugh watching what happens to cops after they retire. They usually drink themselves to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes. They sure do have a lot of television shows portraying how "brave cops" save us from all of the "street criminals", but they don't have any shows portraying law officers going after corporate criminals and evil lawyers who make a mockery of justice with their manipulations of the law, do they? No, they don't, and the end result is to manufacture people like me who would not piss down a cops throat if their lungs were on fire. Fuck the cops, and fuck this corporatist empire. I hope I live long enough to see the power elites given the French Revolution treatment. I will personally volunteer for executionor duty when that day comes. Heck, I'll do it for free.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#733. To: Elliott Jackalope (#732)
anyone who's got their eyes open is *there*. good post, as usual. ;)
First, no I'm not a liberal, but I'm not a fan of conservatives any longer either. As of now I no longer see things as "right or left", I see them as "right or wrong"
#734. To: Elliott Jackalope (#732)
Elliot, the world is not black & white and neither is our system of justice. Certainly there are bad cops but there are more good ones overall. From my POV, the gal is ANYTHING but submissive. She is COMBATIVE. Submissive people cower, pull into fetal positions, and look scared. She looks anything but. I appreciate that you've had bad experiences that are coloring your views here but try to put them aside, pretend the officer is not a police officer but is a regular person on the street. Does the gal look like she's meek and afraid? or does her demeanor and the photos support the officer's story?
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#735. To: Merlin (#730)
Thanks Merlin. I assume you are the same Merlin from CPD board?
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#736. To: siagiah (#734)
I understand what you are trying to say. My problem is that am also human, and my experiences have made me incapable of being objective when it comes to police and authority figures. I'm one who will always assume they are in the wrong whenever a question arises. Considering the legions of bootlicking power worshippers who will always side with the cops no matter what, society needs people like me to provide just the tiniest amout of push back.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#737. To: Elliott Jackalope (#736)
Okay, fair enough... Just understand that there will also be those of us here who want to be as objective as possible and who allow for BOTH possibilities. I do NOT dismiss her claims outright because pictures CAN and DO lie, especially when given only a small selection to view, BUT the evidence presented comes from someone who is trying to show that she was BEATEN. Presumably, they'd choose the most likely to convince pictures from the group. If these are their most convincing pictures of someone being beaten into submission, I'd like to see what they didn't choose. These photos do NOT support the idea of her being beaten or scared... I am quite familiar with that type of situation from working in the psychiatric/emergency room field. I've NEVER seen anyone who fits the profile they are selling look like she does... This is the reason that I lean more heavily towards the officer's story rather than the girls. I could be wrong, that possibility certainly exists, but I strongly doubt it.
To: siagiah I understand what you are trying to say. My problem is that am also human, and my experiences have made me incapable of being objective when it comes to police and authority figures. I'm one who will always assume they are in the wrong whenever a question arises. Considering the legions of bootlicking power worshippers who will always side with the cops no matter what, society needs people like me to provide just the tiniest amout of push back.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#738. To: Jethro Tull, Merlin, siagiah (#731)
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.
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.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#739. To: Elliott Jackalope (#732)
So, trying to steal my thunder, huh? We need more rope!
I hope I live long enough to see the power elites given the French Revolution treatment. I will personally volunteer for executionor duty when that day comes. Heck, I'll do it for free.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#740. To: BTP Holdings (#738)
You've added nothing to the story other than personal reference UNRELATED to this incident. It's all good and all that you "know" cops but you don't know THIS COP or THIS GAL and the truth isn't based on anecdotes unrelated to the situation being judged... otherwise, HI BTP... nice to "see" ya...
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#741. To: Elliott Jackalope (#732)
Great post. Death to the elites! Where do I sign up for executioner duties? Mark
...Fuck the cops, and fuck this corporatist empire. I hope I live long enough to see the power elites given the French Revolution treatment. I will personally volunteer for executionor duty when that day comes. Heck, I'll do it for free.....
#742. To: BTP Holdings (#739)
We need more rope! Ah luvs it when u talk dirty... ROFLMAO...
So, trying to steal my thunder, huh?
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#743. To: BTP Holdings, all (#738)
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.
#744. To: Jethro Tull (#743)
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.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#745. To: siagiah (#740)
Be that as it may, there is another thing here which takes this a step further, and that is best described by the word experience. By this we take the truth to a higher plane. It is impossible to relate this by mere words alone. Trust me on this. I know what I'm talking about. ;0)
You've added nothing to the story other than personal reference UNRELATED to this incident. It's all good and all that you "know" cops but you don't know THIS COP or THIS GAL and the truth isn't based on anecdotes unrelated to the situation being judged...
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#746. To: siagiah, Jethro Tull (#744)
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. That is a very high number of complaints, whether or not they were unfounded is irrelevant. I can tell you that I have had literally hundreds of incidents during the 11 years I did my thing. And during that time I had maybe 2 complaints that I had to deal with, one of which I had to go to court on. All of my immediate supervisors said the same thing, that I was one of their best guys. JT, how many incidents did you have in your work record in that jungle we call NYC? I'll bet it wasn't as many as this guy in Dallas has had in a similar period of time.
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.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#747. To: BTP Holdings (#745)
By this we take the truth to a higher plane. It is impossible to relate this by mere words alone. Trust me on this. I know what I'm talking about. ;0) Yes, and I related MY EXPERIENCE to y'all. I work in an emergency room and in the psychiatric field. I see this stuff all the time. I live in the boonies NOW but I lived & worked in an inner city for 15 years. I'm not naive in any sense of the word. I am aware of what happens when ANYONE tries to handcuff or subdue a person unwilling to submit. There is NO WAY to accomplish it without a fight. That means that the officer gets kicked, bitten, spat on, hair pulled, scratched, elbowed, WHATEVER... and it follows that the person being handcuffed gets banged up as well. Whose fault is that? Well gee, it depends on who decided to resist arrest? Should the officer just let her go because she resists????? HOWEVER, if the person was NOT resisting, THEN we blame the officer. How do we decide the truth then? Witnesses. Photographs. Statements of those involved. The witnesses all corroborate the fact that the girl WAS resisting arrest. One can safely assume that she struggled and might have fallen. She was drunk, that is NOT a question. She was wearing roller skates WITH WHEELS. That is not a question. Her injuries are minor. The photos imply she was defiant. That SUPPORTS his view.
Be that as it may, there is another thing here which takes this a step further, and that is best described by the word experience.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#748. To: siagiah (#744)
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.
Which PROVES what?
#749. To: Jethro Tull (#748)
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?
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#750. To: BTP Holdings (#746)
Far fewer than that, and I was in stationed in all the dumps NYC has to offer. And another thing. For every formal complaint lodged, countless go unreported. The public isn't dopey - they know the investigation of a cop is a routine whitewash. That said, multiply his 27? complaints by 5 and you'll be closer to the actual number.
JT, how many incidents did you have in your work record in that jungle we call NYC?
#751. To: Jethro Tull (#750)
I hear that. I know it's right what you're saying. And for all the cops back in the "old neighborhood" they were as tough as they were fair-minded most of the time. And when we ran across one with a bad attitude he either had a case of "small man syndrome" of was under orders of some sort. And if it happened to be something else, a word to the right cop you knew got back to the jerk in question and things chilled out. If it didn't we could count on the good guys to make things right. I was lucky I knew alot of the good guys. ;0)
Far fewer than that, and I was in stationed in all the dumps NYC has to offer. And another thing. For every formal complaint lodged, countless go unreported. The public isn't dopey - they know the investigation of a cop is a routine whitewash. That said, multiply his 27? complaints by 5 and you'll be closer to the actual number.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#752. To: siagiah (#749)
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.
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...
#753. To: siagiah, Jethro Tull (#747)
I don't doubt your personal experience with the aftermath of these sort of incidents. I've also known another woman who worked in ER in Cook County Hospital (Chicago). You can't get much more "inner city" than that. So I've heard this all before and I do not doubt anything you say in this regard. (HA! She used to mess with the darkies when they would mess with her. She would withhold meds from the junkies and the junkies would start screaming, "Doc, she's stealing my dope." She would say, "Don't listen to him, Doc, he's just trying to get more." ROTFLMAO!) It does not always turn out like this, not by a long shot. Like JT says, been there, seen it (and done it), and it does indeed blow. Handcuffing someone was only a measure of last resort to protect all parties involved, them and us. In short, there's been times when all that was necessary was to just put them down and that was only on rare occasion at that. Sometimes there had to be a thumping dished out but that wasn't common at all. One time (Lollapalooza in Des Moines) when I had a kid just haul off and start swinging at me it was really easy to subdue him and put him down and cuff him. So I don't believe one minute that what I see in those pics was necessary or reasonable. I could relate dozens more incidents where there was never any blood drawn or for that matter anyone sent to jail. It's all a matter of perspective and rarely was there ever any hard feelings at a later date if you happened to encounter someone you had a previous altercation with. Matter of fact, I bumped into a guy at an after show party and he reminded me that I threw him out of one venue a couple years before. He bought me a drink and we shook hands. He admitted he was being a jerk at the time. I can tell you what happened when I had to thump a one time acquaintance of mine when he got out of line. Sure, I put some lumps on his head. I did not have to kick his ass. It was very simple, really, all I did was sit on him. What can I say, he made a huge tactical error. And this was only after I did the proper thing and tried to retreat to defuse the situation. ;0) Excuse me, but one of the first news reports I saw with interviews of witnesses said nothing of the sort, unlike a certain BOZO who has been dismissed from this forum. The vast majority of witnesses say it was excessive force. But then, you can line up twenty people and have them witness a pre-arranged incident and you will get 20 different descriptions of what they have seen. So, whom do you believe? I believe what my gut instinct tells me based on my own experience in the trenches. I've lived it and survived and seen others bad hurt. I know when I see a situtation that stinks and this one sure as hell does. They would not want me on the jury for this even if I had no knowledge of the incident since I have a very strict interpretation of what it takes to cross that thin blue line. I've been on both sides of it and walking that line is one of the most hair raising things anyone can choose to do. I've always lived on the edge and I haven't changed a whit. Just ask some bureauRATS about me some time. I guarantee I leave an impression on them even though they just meet my mighty pen. ;0)
Yes, and I related MY EXPERIENCE to y'all. I work in an emergency room and in the psychiatric field. I see this stuff all the time. I live in the boonies NOW but I lived & worked in an inner city for 15 years. I'm not naive in any sense of the word.
I am aware of what happens when ANYONE tries to handcuff or subdue a person unwilling to submit. There is NO WAY to accomplish it without a fight. That means that the officer gets kicked, bitten, spat on, hair pulled, scratched, elbowed, WHATEVER... and it follows that the person being handcuffed gets banged up as well. Whose fault is that?
The witnesses all corroborate the fact that the girl WAS resisting arrest.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#754. To: Jethro Tull (#752)
Some of the biggest laughs I've had was when some drunken clown would square off and think he was going to give me a pasting. I would just let him commit and reach out and grab his wrist and it was all over faster than you could say "Cuff 'em and stuff 'em." ;0)
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).
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#755. To: BTP Holdings (#754)
Yep. The stewballs who wanted to fight made me feel like Muhammad Ali in his prime. Step to the right, and Ole! (g).
#756. To: Jethro Tull, siagiah (#752)
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.
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#757. To: Jethro Tull, BTP Holdings (#755)
Okay guys... We'll have to agree to disagree... Let the jury sort it out.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
#758. To: siagiah (#757)
Happy Valentine's Day. :D
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#759. To: Starwind (#756)
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
#760. To: ruthie (#759)
Welcome to 4 ruthie.. glad you joined us
#761. To: ruthie (#759)
Now this interesting from one of the links: "Michelle was on rollerskates and was out weighed by the officer by approximately 150 pounds. Was such force necessary? Officer Gordon has numerous complaints and internal affairs reports against him for using excessive force (see the Recent News articles)."
#762. To: ruthie (#759)
welcome to 4, ruthie. do you know if Michelle (nice pic of her, btw) is pursuing action against Ceaphus?
Michelle Metzinger was wrongly arrested on the night of Friday, January 13th. The arresting officer, Ceaphus Gordon, claimed she was intoxicated; however, Michelle was with numerous friends who swear that she was not intoxicated. Officer Gordon then used excessive force to arrest Michelle as is portrayed in the pictures below. He found it necessary to cut off Michelle's circulation by putting his knee on her throat (see bottom picture). Michelle was on rollerskates and was out weighed by the officer by approximately 150 pounds. Was such force necessary? Officer Gordon has numerous complaints and internal affairs reports against him for using excessive force (see the Recent News articles).
#763. To: ruthie (#759)
Thanks for the update on Michelle, ruthie. From everything I've seen and read it appears the police overreacted. I'm glad Michelle has legal help and is carefully planning her strategy. I'll be following her case with great interest. Good luck to all!
#764. To: christine (#762)
WOW, this is a longass thread... Christine, I live in Dallas, and I have not heard any more news on this event since it happened. So far as I know, and I just watched our local news, the officer was never removed from his duties in any way and the woman arrested has not filed any sort of complaint yet. As of now it is a non-story around these parts. There were two shootings in Deep Ellum over the weekend, not officer involved, and the suspects were detained without incident. I'll letcha know if I hear anything else.
welcome to 4, ruthie. do you know if Michelle (nice pic of her, btw) is pursuing action against Ceaphus?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
#765. To: christine, BTP Holdings, ruthie (#762)
You think you could edit BTP's original post and add these links (as img's - so they show) to the photo's at the end of the poster comments? That way these new photo's will appear for anyone reviewing this thread. You might also include a link to ruthie's post with a note for anyone who wishes to help out Michelle? http://www.helpmichelle. org/images/Bloody.jpg
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#766. To: Starwind (#756)
Damn Starwind, I just came across this post of yours. I really need to start checking my pings. Great research. Take a look at ruthie’s post. Michelle appears to be preparing to take this to the wall - just as we thought. It's a slam dunk.
#767. To: Richard, Jethro Tull, Siagiah (#709)
This I just included for fun because it is proof that you do not know what you are talking about and that you are making things up as you go along. There is NO evidence to date that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officer57;s knee. Here is a new photo of Michelle with Officer Ceaphus's blood dripping from his bruises on to her face. (Starwind) #649 "the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee."
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#768. To: ruthie, Jethro Tull (#759)
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)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#769. To: BTP Holdings (#768)
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
#770. To: ruthie (#769)
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)
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..."
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#771. To: BTP Holdings (#770)
(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/)
Kisses back atcha. ;0)
#772. To: ruthie (#771)
(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)
Kisses back atcha. ;0)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#773. To: BTP Holdings (#772)
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... 
i just LOVE those ears LOL! :) ruthie XXXXXX
#774. To: ruthie (#773)
LOL That's a great pic. Gotta love the skull and crossbones. The ears are fun also. They should give the cops a Jolly Roger to fly over the cop shop since all they are interested in is working their game of legal plunder against the very people who have given them their powers in the first place. I can tell you how it's fixed and it will get your blood boiling, guaranteed. People have no idea, really, what is going on and most are too busy trying to make ends meet to bother with it. They just pay and keep going. It's like the boys in the back room used to say, "They've got a swell racket." Trouble is many of the cops have no idea they are out of line. They've been brain washed, and as it says in the Bible, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). So that brings us back to those higher up the chain of command who are taking orders from above, and those creeps are the politicians (most of them are lawyers) and other lawyers working for the government. I have no doubt that many of the middle upper level supervisors in the PD are complicit and know what they are doing. They've sold us out for their daily bread; the politicians likewise. Now government employs more people, directly, and indirectly because of various vendor contracts, than are in private industry. It's big business with a capital 'B' and together with their private industry allies they've got us all in a jam. It's what is more commonly known as fascism. They've reversed it to where we, the people, are now serving them when it should be as originally intended, that government serve the interests of the people. After all, we created the government for our benefit, not theirs. It is a privelege to work in that capacity. It is they, our public officials who are bound to obey ALL of the stautes since it is the public domain and the law was written for them, not private citizens. That is just the simple parts of how our public servants have usurped their power and authority. Later I can tell you how the game of legal plunder operates. It's not a pretty picture at all. When folks wise up and start to raise some hell, things will begin to change. It's like a friend of mine from Holland says, "The tide always turns." I hope this isn't too much for you at one time. But if we do not do anything it is going to get worse. Drop back any time and say hello. ;0)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#775. To: ruthie (#773)
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?
#776. To: christine (#775)
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.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#777. To: Feynman Lives! (#776)
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.
#778. To: Jethro Tull (#777)
Jethro Tull, What the hell are you talking about?
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.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#779. To: Feynman Lives! (#776)
i want to know where the laceration occurred though. it's likely that both sides would be closed-mouthed while investigation and preparation for a possible trial is in progress.
#780. To: Jethro Tull (#777)
love ruthie XXXXXX well well - "Richard" is at it again - take a look at http://jombe.com/blog/2006/01/18/state-propaganda-1-fact-checkers-0/
#781. To: christine (#779)
Christine, I don't know for sure, but looking at the photo, I would guess that it was somewhere on the left side of her chin, which would make sense if her face was pressed into the pavement. Hard to say for sure, cuz even the smallest facial cuts bleed something awful.
want to know where the laceration occurred though.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#782. To: ALL, ruthie (#780)
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
from ruthie's link and thanks for the link, ruthie!
#783. To: christine (#782)
Gee Richard DOES seem to get around doesnt he?
#784. To: christine (#782)
hi5, christine ;) love ruthie XXXXXX
#785. To: christine (#782)
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 sexist to the point of mysogeny
#786. To: ruthie (#785)
here's an extract from http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1064892&blogID=77774019 by Camille (who took the original photographs at the start of this thread), dated 15 February 2006. She says... "...She was getting a ticket, which she thought was "bullshit" but she did not yell at the cop. It was when she was given the ticket that he got forceful. I was walking by the car and across the street at this point, and it's unclear if it's because she took the ticket and started to walk off, and he pulled her back, or if it was because someone yelled at her and she took her hands off of the car, that he pulled her back and threw her against the car. The point was he was overly forceful, and apparently this isn't the first time he's done it. But she wasn't drunk, she wasn't trying to push him around. The part that the cop says that I don't understand, is he says she tried to claw his eyes out, but I'm saying "Wait.... he said he was going to give her a ticket, though she didn't agree, she said fine. But suddenly when she's given the ticket she decided she was going to fight him?" So, if you've heard that part, it doesn't make any sense, because at no point was she forceful with him until after he was forceful with her, and she was trying to get away..." love ruthie XXXXXX
#787. To: ruthie (#786)
That flat rink roller derby is preety tame stuff compared to the banked rinks I watched when I was a kid. I'll be they have a blast doing that gig. You can see the crowd is sitting real close to the edge so you know it's not real rough. That is a very stupid assertion for anyone to make that Michelle is a fighter because of the roller derby thing. As far as cops giving tickets, I've come to see them now as pirates. And in that capacity they deserve just the same punishment we would give to pirates of old, make them walk the plank. I was complaining of that once on the CB radio when I was on the road driving the truck and someone came back and said, "Aye, matey, feed 'em to the sharks." Gordon may wish that would happen to him once Michelle's lawyer is finished raking him over the coals. ;0)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#788. To: ruthie, Jethro Tull, BTP Holdings, Elliott Jackalope, tom007, markm0722 (#785)
I'm beginning to grasp the popularity of this sport.
more pics of those ears
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#789. To: All (#788)
Nope. This definitely is not your father's roller derby.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#790. To: Starwind (#789)
Michelle wouldn't stand a chance paired up against Joanie. The Bay Bombers, I do believe I remember watching them on the tube when I was a kid. ;0)
Nope. This definitely is not your father's roller derby.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#791. To: BTP Holdings (#790)
Agreed, but then neither would Officer Gordon.
Michelle wouldn't stand a chance paired up against Joanie.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#792. To: Starwind (#791)
LOL!!! what a picture that conjures! maybe they could do a charity match between ACD and the Police with "Richard" as the referee of course? ;) ruthie XXXXXX
Agreed, but then neither would Officer Gordon
#793. To: ruthie (#792)
Hi ruthie. About Richard. He now
posts here as Feynman Lives!. Altho he denies he's Richard, his style is
unmistakable. He's a liar, having been exposed twisting this Deep Ellum story,
and others, in countless different directions. His contention that Michelle
will plead guilty and drop this matter is absurd. We told him that from the
get go, yet his ego won't allow him to step back and take a reflective moment.
The one thing Richard might have right is that this case won't see one day in
court. I'm guessing The Dallas PD will be settle this one out of court,
leaving Michelle with a hefty nest egg, while once again covering the ass of a
brutal cop.
Richard
#794. To: Jethro Tull, ruthie (#793)
Much to the real Feynman's embarresment.
He now posts here as Feynman Lives!
#795. To: tom007, Dick (#794)
Dick soils the name of Feynman.
Much to the real Feynman's embarresment.
#796. To: All (#788)
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#797. To: Starwind (#788)
laughing...
I'm beginning to grasp the popularity of this sport.
#798. To: Starwind, BTP Holdings, ruthie, Jethro Tull (#789)
heck with the ears, you gotta love the garters and stockings. :P
#799. To: christine (#798)
Oh "ears"! Golly. And here I thought ruthie mistyped "more pics of rears"
heck with the ears, you gotta love the garters and stockings. :P
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#800. To: Starwind (#791)
There was a move we used to stop someone who tried to run past you, it's called a clothes line. Works like a charm. ;0)
Agreed, but then neither would Officer Gordon.
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#801. To: ruthie (#792)
That'd be a lark. I'll volunteer to be the strait man on the security gig. I know exactly what to do, since it's the latent showman in me. And the end result will get the ref in a set of bracelets. I didn't work the concerts all those years for nothing. ROTFLOL!
LOL!!! what a picture that conjures! maybe they could do a charity match between ACD and the Police with "Richard" as the referee of course? ;)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#802. To: All (#796)
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?
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).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#803. To: christine (#798)
Most definitely, with the Jolly Roger on them. ;0)
heck with the ears, you gotta love the garters and stockings. :P
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#804. To: Starwind (#799)
quick witted! :P
Golly. And here I thought ruthie mistyped "more pics of rears"
#805. To: Starwind (#802)
hmmmmm...
I wondered who this 'seemingly sanctioned' person was. Maybe he is "club" security?
#806. To: Starwind (#802)
Good follow ups. I can tell you without a doubt, that our authority ended at the property line of the buiding in which we were working. We could do what ever we needed to "police" the line as patrons were waiting to enter the venue for the show. And the cops encouraged us to do so because it kept them out of the picture; rightly so since the line and the people was our responsibility and we could bar anyone for drinking in public in the line and confiscate their booze or beer which we did regularly. A few times smart guys tried to hide a 12 pack in the trash can right alongside the line just down the street. They would freak when I walked over there and opened the bag on the top and picked it up. A few would protest out loud. My response was, "You think you're the first to try that dumb shit?" However, after the line was gone, our authority generally ended at the threshhold of the front door, though we had the authority to tell people to move away from the property if they had been ejected or were loitering around the building, especially near the fire exits. It was a favorite ploy to pop those doors so one or more could slip into the venue. I've nailed a couple of them and come close several times. In one instance I was standing near one of those doors when I heard the distinctive sound of the door being popped open by hitting the bar across it to open the latch. I turned just in time to lurch at a guy coming in from outside. He spotted me just when I was moving to nail him and turned and ran back out. I chased him out the door and stopped ten feet from the door. I shouted after him to keep going and don't come back and noticed a group of several hanging around nearby. I summarily ordered them to leave the area and they did. We had authority over that public way near the premises for just this reason, to keep away potential sneak-ins. At another venue (which was on a 2nd floor) I caught three guys trying to scale the fire escape and sneak in. I made one of them walk the plank so to speak on the fire escape. You know, it's the kind that drops down when you walk out on it and then pops back up after you step off. It was big enough to accomodate two abreast walking down it to escape the building. He kept looking back at me every time he took a few steps toward the wild blue younder and I told him, "Keep going." It was funny as shit, and a couple of guys on the crew who were outside for a smoke break caught the whole show. ;0)
I wondered who this 'seemingly sanctioned' person was. Maybe he is "club" security?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#807. To: All (#802)
And here is one last snipet that sums up my own questions (see posts by "koed"): http://cyberina.livejournal.com/518280.html?thread=1612168#t1612168 [...snip...] Yes, but the cop has training in restraining violent suspects, and how to do so without turning them into a bloody mess in the process. They also have training in how to approach and talk to people to keep a situation from escalating to violence. She was co-operating at first. People do not go from co-operative to violently confrontational without a trigger. Why did it become violent? Was he inappropriate during the pat-down? What did the cop do, or fail to do, that caused a simple ticket for a misdemeoner offense (skating on the sidewalk) become an incident? No police department wants the kond of press that comes from an incident like this. As for plausablity, he is still using a non-sanctioned restraining hold with the knee to the neck (considered by most PDs as too likely to cause permenant neck injury and potentially block the airway. Thus getting said PD sued). What else did he do wrong? Look again at the first photo. She is co-operating and just waiting. She has a toe-down to stabilize herself. A normal pat-down at this point wouldn't put an experienced skater on the concrete, or even on the hood of the car. So what did happen. Did she attack the cop? Why? She seems resigned to her ticket in photo #1. What would prompt her to escalate to assaulting an officer?
If it's plausable for the cop to go apeshit on her for no reason, is it not also plausable for the situation to be reversed? Just hypothetically.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#808. To: Starwind (#807)
The knee on the neck is what really ticked me off and shows that this cop is a brute. That is completely unacceptable.
non-sanctioned restraining hold with the knee to the neck
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#809. To: BTP Holdings, Jethro Tull (#806)
If the red-jacketed guy is club security, any idea what that stick is he's holding? It looks more like the handle of a small flag of some sort, like for waving at a parade. It seems too thin to make for an effective baton (albeit homemade), and too thin and too long to be the business end of a homemade nunchaku (albeit illegal). I dunno.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#810. To: Starwind (#809)
I'd say it looks like the skinny end of a cue stick. They get broken all the time in the bars that have pool tables. I've seen where club security takes them and makes batons out of them. A short skinny stick like that is very effective to disable anyone who approaches with intent to do you harm, if you know how to use it. My mini-MagLight was used to poke and prod (one jab in the solar plexus made them hit the ground quick as it was painful to say the least) on occasion and it had a lanyard so you could never lose it. That also made it a deadly weapon, so anyone who would protest about the big C or D cell flashlights was just making noise to hear themselves talk. I carried my D cell light for many years at the concerts and it was a very effective tool for crowd control.
any idea what that stick is he's holding?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#811. To: ruthie (#792)
Ooooh! Steel Cage Celebrity Death Match - No Way Out Smack Down - Revenge! a charity match between ACD and the Police
I'm there!
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#812. To: Jethro Tull (#793)
Jethro is still spreading his lies and conspiracy theories, I see... Sorry, Jethro, but I have am not the "richard" who posted on this thread that you seem to despise so much. I have only posted as Feynman Lives! on this site, and did not know about this place when your little zealot was posting. More to the point, I don't give a damn about this case, nor do I know much about it outside of what the media said about it originally; so... I know it is hard for you to accept, but you got the wrong guy. Of course, this wont stop you from continuing your unfounded attacks on me, but I thought it would help the others to know the truth. It is ironic that this thread is about what you call a brutal cop clearly using excessive force inappropriately, and here you are doing essentially the same thing, except you aren't a cop. Most curious...
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#813. To: Feynman Lives!, Jethro Tull (#812)
No where near as ironic as your protestations that you don't give a damn about this case, and here you are caring about essentially the same cop, except you aren't Richard. Most curious...
It is ironic that this thread is about what you call a brutal cop clearly using excessive force inappropriately, and here you are doing essentially the same thing, except you aren't a cop. Most curious...
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#814. To: Starwind (#813)
Starwind, Wow, you really don't get it. I am NOT hear caring about the cop or the chick in this case. I don't know if the cop was good or bad or if the chick was sober or violent. I have NO idea what really went down there, but it is amusing as hell to watch you all try. I am certian that whatever the outcome, the paper will make a big deal of it. The reason I posted was to let Jethro know that his assertion was incorrect.
No where near as ironic as your protestations that you don't give a damn about this case, and here you are caring about essentially the same cop, except you aren't Richard. Most curious...
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#815. To: Feynman Lives! (#814)
No, you really don't get it. If you'd been honest in your other postings you might be believable, but all you've done (demonstrably) is insult and lie. If it looks like a "Richard", lies like a "Richard", insults like a "Richard" - voila' it's a "Richard" There is no reason to believe anything you claim.
The reason I posted was to let Jethro know that his assertion was incorrect.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#816. To: Starwind (#815)
You are free to believe what you will, Starwind, it is clear from your other postings that you are not one to be swayed by facts. I was simply letting Jethro know that he was incorrect in his presumtion.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#817. To: Feynman Lives! (#816)
LOL - those facts convicted you of lying here and here You have no credibility. You're in no position to correct anyone.
You are free to believe what you will, Starwind, it is clear from your other postings that you are not one to be swayed by facts.
I was simply letting Jethro know that he was incorrect in his presumtion.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#818. To: Starwind (#817)
Convicted me of lying? WOW you have a very unique definition of lying. You "convicted" me of absolutely nothing on either of those threads. Also, being as how this thread is about an incident in Dallas, and not about your twisted obsessions, this will be my last post on this tread regarding your delusions about me. I made my comment in an effort to inform Jethro he was mistaken and you have very rudely tried to derail this thread. I apologize to the people who are following this tread, I apologize for the rude actions of Jethro and Starwind, as well as for myself, for enaging with them and trying to correct their errors here. This should have been handled in Email, not on this thread. While they may continue to be rude and keep posting about their misguided witchhunt here, I shall not. If I comment on this thread again, it will be to comment on the TOPIC of the thread. Again, I apologize for the disruption that these irresponsible men have caused, and for my participation in trying to correct it.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ----Richard Feynman
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." ----1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams
#819. To: Feynman Lives! (#812)
BS, you lying sack of shit. Isn’t it curious that anyone who knew Richard, and now you, agrees with me? Keep spewing. Michelle couldn’t have a better “eye witness” than you.
Sorry, Jethro, but I have am not the "richard"
#820. To: Feynman Lives! (#818)
LOL! Didn't you call me Hitler, you weasel mother fucker? I'd love to see you do that to my face.
I apologize for the rude actions of Jethro and Starwind
#821. To: ALL (#820)
umm, Gentlemen, please! there are ladies present :) (great posts btw - specially the insults lol) please remember to distribute those pictures of Michelle and Officer Gordon where possible on the Net, and if you can help as a witness or want to contribute to her legal costs, please visit http://www.helpmichelle.org/ thanks :) ruthie XXXXXX (who would love to be a lady if somebody would teach her how!)
#822. To: ruthie (#821)
That would be an unexpected pleasure. Seeing as we are likey 400+ miles apart, I suppose the first place to start would be HERE. I found out unexpectedly that I possessed some of these qualities years ago when I was dating a woman and we were having a home cooked meal. I set the table the way I've always done under circumstances beyond casual. She piped right in that I knew how to make the place settings with silverware and all. Guess some of this stuff comes naturally to some of us, but the big problem is I haven't got to express that side of me in many years. I love opening the door and pulling out the chair and all sorts of those things. I can even control my language and temper as the situation demands. But then I'm sure you have an idea that a lady can be very much a lady in public, but a tiger of a woman behind closed doors. ;0)
(who would love to be a lady if somebody would teach her how!)
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
#823. To: ruthie (#771)
Oh boy! A fund raiser. Now there's a surpise. LOL Richard W.
Michelle is very grateful for the kind words of encouragement and any practical help would be appreciated :)
#824. To: Arete (#823)
"Richard"? is that really you, dear? how lovely - i was beginning to miss you :) i'm flattered to be called a fundraiser and i hope you'll contribute to see Michelle defend herself. after all, that way you might have the chance to present your unbiased, impartial and irrefutably accurate evidence to the benefit of justice (err did i get that right? i'm using an old dictionary!) huggggggggggggggggs your fan ruthie XXXXXX
Richard W.
#825. To: ruthie, Arete (#824)
No, ruthie. "Arete" is not the poster "Richard" earlier in this thread. Arete merely signs his posts 'Richard W.'. That has been his signature for the many years I've known Arete on several forums. Arete holds his opinions legitimately and honestly, unlike "Richard" or "Feynman Lives!".
"Richard"? is that really you, dear? how lovely - i was beginning to miss you :)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#826. To: Starwind (#825)
what a shame - i was getting quite excited there! oh well, thank you for telling me, Starwind, and deep apologies to you, Arete :) please forgive me for mixing you up with the other "Richard" love ruthie XXXXXX
#827. To: ruthie (#824)
Contribute to derby girl's defense? I think I'll pass on that one. Richard W.
i hope you'll contribute to see Michelle defend herself.
#828. To: Arete (#827)
(blushes) umm, that was an attempt by me to be sarcastic towards the other "Richard" and was not intended for you - please accept my apologies :( ruthie XXXXXX
#829. To: ruthie (#828)
Hey ruthie.. seems Richard/Feynman Lives! has been outted as a goofball from Free Republic.. a total disruptor.
#830. To: All (#829)
i've been studying the photographs of the incident, specially wondering if there are any others around? what interests me VERY much is the leaflets for Assassination City Derby that ended up on the ground covered with blood... ...where were they when Michelle was standing with her hands on the police car? they weren't on the ground - was she holding them? if she was, which hand? and if she WAS holding them, was she STILL holding them when she was on the ground? i'm interested because one of the allegations against her seems to be that she attacked Officer Gordon with her hand possibly scratching or clawing at his eye or soemthing, and i'm very curious to know which side of his face this was supposed to have been. i think Michelle is right-handed but i don't know. i suspect she was holding the leaflets throughout the incident until Officer Gordon forced both her arms behind her back to handcuff her. it looks like the leaflets were under her face when he pressed his knee across her neck and forced her right cheek to the ground. they had to be very close to her to be so covered with blood. what puzzles me, is how a girl on roller skates being manhandled by a person from behind or possible to her right manages to keep hold of the leaflets so only has one hand free to attack him AND try to maintain her balance? any ideas?
#831. To: All (#830)
here's what i came up with... the main group of photos still have the Exif data which shows a Canon Powershot SD400 was used. the date/timestamps are in sequence from 2006:01:14 00:30:59 onwards. i've enhanced the images as best as i can. i don't know if the other 2 pictures (on helpmichelle) are from the same camera - i think not because the resolutions don't match. i've added notes to the enhanced pics... http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9205/kbvk9fnotes3uk.jpg http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6682/partnerincarnotes6hm.jpg http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8982/kbvklunotes0xq.jpg http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9629/kbvkpinotes4fq.jpg http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/6295/kbvl1hnotes4lo.jpg http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/7049/bloodynotes2zg.jpg http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4195/kbvmzbnotes0xc.jpg ...i think what might have happened is that Officer Gordon used his weight to pin her to the ground, first on her head and neck with his knee, then he pushed her face down to force her cuffed right wrist behind her back and used his knee on the small of her back and his left hand on the back of her neck to keep her pressed against the surface. there are no signs of blood or injury in any of the photos until she is cuffed and pulled to sit upright. most of the blood has pooled on the ground probably where her chin was pressed/scraped while she was face down. the blood smears are from her chin area up her face, indicating her face was rubbed against the ground as he pulled her upright. the other drops are where she was sitting while Officer Gordon pressed down on her shoulders to stop her getting up. i'd really REALLY love to see what evidence of assault Officer Gordon can supply. the pictures we've seen don't show any injury to his face (but there might still be, of course) and he does not appear to have any corroboration from his colleague who sat in the car using the radio. interestingly, the police car's passenger door was open at first but is then closed, preventing the second officer from getting a view of the incident - how unfortunate! there's no trace of blood on the police car either, suggesting she was injured on the ground as he rolled her over and pressed her against the surface. Michelle did not lose her grip on the leaflets with her left hand until she was forced face down. assuming she is supposed to have assaulted him, it would surely be with her free right arm? in the space between the first pic at 00:30:59 and the second pic at 00:32:23 (1 minute and 24 seconds), she has gone from standing immediately next to the police car with both hands on the vehicle and her body stationery to being on her right side 5 feet away from the car being pinned by Officer Gordon. he appears to have tackled her from her right side and spun her around to get her into this position. whatever provocation he claims to have had, Officer Gordon clearly caused the injury to her face. he used unsafe, excessive force to subdue a girl who supposedly assaulted him while keeping hold of her leaflets. he could have caused her major, potentially life-threatening injury by pressing down on her neck with most of his weight on his knee and again with his left hand. he appears to have lost self-control and has attempted to justify himself by claiming Michelle attacked him! what do people think? is this reasonable? i wish we had more pics and the Exif data from them to make a timeline... love ruthie XXXXXX
#832. To: ruthie, Richard, Jethro Tull, BTP Holdings, Elliott Jackalope, tom007, Dakmar, christine, zipporah (#831)
Check out ruthie's annotated photos. http: //img155.imageshack.us/img155/6682/partnerincarnotes6hm.jpg http:// img155.imageshack.us/img155/8982/kbvklunotes0xq.jpg Great points ruthie! Indeed, the photos would indicate Michelle was gripping the leaflets with one hand (consistently her right hand) until cuffed. Seems unlikely she'd be attacking/clawing/gouging with only one hand. It also suggests Michelle's state of mind, whether conscious or automatic, she seemed to care more about not loosing the leaflets she was circulating rather than attacking or defending. Officer Gordon's face isn't really visible, so its hard to see what injuries he sustained, if any, but it doesn't seem likely.
i suspect she was holding the leaflets throughout the incident until Officer Gordon forced both her arms behind her back to handcuff her.
it looks like the leaflets were under her face when he pressed his knee across her neck and forced her right cheek to the ground. they had to be very close to her to be so covered with blood.
Michelle did not lose her grip on the leaflets with her left hand until she was forced face down.
what puzzles me, is how a girl on roller skates being manhandled by a person from behind or possible to her right manages to keep hold of the leaflets so only has one hand free to attack him AND try to maintain her balance?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#833. To: All (#832)
Hmmmm, I believe I was mistaken. Not consistenly in her right hand. They seem to be in her right hand when she was standing: http://img99. imageshack.us/img99/9205/kbvk9fnotes3uk.jpg but in her left hand when Officer Gordon was cuffing her right hand: http: //img155.imageshack.us/img155/6682/partnerincarnotes6hm.jpg (consistently her right hand)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#834. To: ruthie (#831)
Indeed, reasonable and likely!
whatever provocation he claims to have had, Officer Gordon clearly caused the injury to her face. he used unsafe, excessive force to subdue a girl who supposedly assaulted him while keeping hold of her leaflets. he could have caused her major, potentially life-threatening injury by pressing down on her neck with most of his weight on his knee and again with his left hand. he appears to have lost self-control and has attempted to justify himself by claiming Michelle attacked him!
#835. To: Starwind (#833)
i was unsure about this at first but i think she always held the leaflets in her left hand. the thing on the front of the police car seems to be some kind of document holder (is that what the police use to write out reports?). if you look really closely at the pictures, she only lost the bundle of leaflets when Officer Gordon had turned her face down. some of the leaflets must have been under her chin when she was injured as they are not spotted with blood but soaked into a small pool of blood, consistent with her position when the wound occurred [i'm getting help with the words here, a legal friend is contributing to this :)] the witnesses during the "missing" one and a half minutes between her standing against the car and ending up with Officer Gordon kneeling on her neck are very important - i wish we had more pictures! love ruthie XXXXXX
#836. To: All (#802)
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
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
#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.
#838. To: Jethro Tull (#837)
hihi Jethro you may be right but Michelle is the one who has been charged and i've not found any references on the net to Officer Gordon being suspended or placed on other duties. i don't really follow the US system but i read this goes to a thing called "Grand Jury" to decide if there's a case to answer? is this a formality or does it make a difference? love ruthie XXXXXX
#839. To: ruthie, all (#838)
This thread is no longer appearing in Google or All the Web searches. See my post at Wither Google/AlltheWeb hits on F4um Metzinger thread??? for details.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#840. To: All (#0)
crawler bait
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#841. To: All (#840)
(Latest from http://www.helpmichelle.org)
"Sunday, March 12th Protest 3:00pm - Exposition and Canton Dallas,
Texas In an effort to build community awareness about police brutality and
help Michelle continue to fight we have planned a protest. We will meet at
3:00 pm on Sunday, March 12th at the corner of Exposition and Canton near the
monument. We will then walk to the Darkside Lounge at 2810 Elm street. The
Darkside Lounge is going to have live music, BBQ, and an open bar. Bring
signs and a loud voice." love ruthie
XXXXXX
#842. To: All (#841)
for info... http://www.texasgigs.com/news/2006/feb/22/assassination-city-derby-crow-records-presents/?print
#843. To: All (#842)
from Michelle's friends... "There will be a peaceful protest against excessive force next Sunday. Here are the details: Sunday, March 12th 3:00 pm Meet @ the monument @ Canton & Exposition(near Doublewide) We will March(with a police escort) to Deep Ellum and end @ Darkside Lounge on Elm Street Darkside will have live music, barbecue, and drink specials This protest is a result of the incident with Michelle Metzinger on January 13, 2006. However, we will be protesting excessive force and communicating to the community that we will not tolerate this behavior. Please come protest and show your support whether you know Michelle or not. Remember, this could and will continue to happen to all kinds of people until we stand up and say "NO". Also, keep in mind that this is a peaceful protest and all efforts, signs, and language should be in good taste. Our objective is to get the community to listen, not turn them away. People of all ages are encouraged to attend the protest. In honor of Michelle, we will be skating if possible so bring your skates(if you have them) in case this works out! Please tell as many people as possible and coordinate bringing everyone you can. The media will be covering this event and we want to show law enforcement and our community that we are serious about holding them accountable for their behavior. Bring signs and show up. This will be so much fun!!"
#844. To: Starwind, Jethro Tull, BTP Holdings (#843)
flag to Ruthie's post
#845. To: ruthie, christine (#843)
Just say NO to neo-Nazi police state facilitators.
Remember, this could and will continue to happen to all kinds of people until we stand up and say "NO".
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. Harry S. Truman
#846. To: All (#845)
for interest...
http://www.dallascityhall.com/dallas/eng/pdf/mcc/DeepEllumTaskForce.pdf
ruthie
XXXXXX
#847. To: All (#846)
Umm...just wondering if anyone heard any more about Michelle's case? love ruthie XXXXXX
#848. To: ruthie (#847)
I check periodically for court filings and to date there has been nothing, at least nothing the public can access, which either means the case is sealed so far perhaps due to the police excessive force investigation, or nothing. But I would expect to at least see an arrest and charge entry, but not even that, so I'm not sure what's up.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#849. To: Starwind (#848)
thank you for checking :) love ruthie
XXXXXX
#850. To: Starwind (#848)
But I would expect to at least see an arrest and charge entry, but not even that, so I'm not sure what's up. hihi Starwind i asked my legal friend and he said that although the system is entirely different to Scotland he expected the case might be 'under review' in some way. He pointed out if the incident wasn't witnessed by another officer or recorded on video so it becomes one officer's word against the arrested person with the only relief (his word not mine!) being the evidence of witnesses who are reliable and impartial. He also said the pictures are significant but not conclusive because the images ofthe events between her standing with her hands on the car and being under him on the ground are not available (i'm typing this from memory lol). what he did say was she might still have grounds to sue the officer for assaulting her even if she is convicted. if it can be shown that he disregarded police training and rules by his use of force on her neck and back, he has no defense against the pictures regardless of if she was drunk, etc. does this make any sense? my friend also said in Scotland there would be a lot of negotiation between defense lawyers and the Procurator Fiscal (you don't have this system in the US) and the criminal case would probably not reach a court. His only other comment was that the police are increasinly having to record incidents and arrests not to get evidence but to protect themselves against accusations, bacause so many people have cameras and video in their mobile phones! love ruthie XXXXXX
I check periodically for court filings and to date there has been nothing, at least nothing the public can access, which either means the case is sealed so far perhaps due to the police excessive force investigation, or nothing.
#851. To: All (#850)
...then THIS shows up! http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/031706dnmetskater.304e63a6.html "Skater charged with assault on officer Witnesses denied she was aggressor; internal investigation continuing 09:38 PM CST on Thursday, March 16, 2006 By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News A Dallas Roller Derby skater was indicted Thursday on a felony charge of assaulting a Dallas police officer stemming from a January incident in which she and several witnesses say the officer was the aggressor and used excessive force. Reports related to the indictment charge that Michelle Metzinger, 25, was belligerent and fought with Officer Ceaphus Gordon after the officer asked to see her identification because, he said, she had been roller skating recklessly through traffic on Elm Street in Deep Ellum. Michelle Metzinger Michelle Metzinger According to Officer Gordon's report, Ms. Metzinger tried to gouge his eye with her fingers when he tried to handcuff and arrest her on a charge of public intoxication. The officer then tried to force Ms. Metzinger to the sidewalk using a "straight arm bar take down," but instead, she "rolled from the police car to the ground," his report says. Ms. Metzinger continued scratching and kicking the officer on the ground, the report says. Officer Gordon described his injuries as three 1/8th-inch scratches near his right eye and scratches and bruises on his chin. He described Ms. Metzinger's injury as a "small laceration that required a stitch," although his report indicates that she spent five hours at Parkland Memorial Hospital before she was taken to jail. Kevin Clancy, Ms. Metzinger's attorney, said he was disappointed that he was not allowed to present evidence to the grand jury that would have offered a different account of what happened. Eight witnesses to the arrest have filed affidavits saying that Ms. Metzinger was not intoxicated and that she did not resist the officer. The witnesses state that after Ms. Metzinger was forced to the ground, Officer Gordon put his knee on her back or neck while he was handcuffing her, which is not described in the officer's reports. "I think it's a travesty that this poor girl was charged with this," Mr. Clancy said. "I really do think that the grand jury did not look at the evidence." A separate investigation into the incident by Dallas police internal affairs is ongoing. Mr. Clancy said Dallas police have so far not interviewed any of the witnesses. Officer Gordon has had 27 complaints filed against him in his 14-year career, most of which were ruled "unfounded" or "inconclusive." Of those inconclusive complaints, at least two involved allegations of excessive force. E-mail rtharp@dallasnews.com" ruthie :( XXXXXX
#852. To: All (#851)
another forum for info... http://www.txrd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=288&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 ruthie
XXXXXX
#853. To: ruthie (#852)
hey ruthie: go here for our discussion of the newest material :
#854. To: ruthie (#852)
Lonestar Rollergirls, I love it! I need to take this Brian Wilson Smile CD off the current playlist, brb
Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
#855. To: Dakmar (#854)
Wow!! 800 + replies on this one.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest