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: 14871
Comments: 855
POSTED: 5:16 pm CST January 16, 2006
DALLAS -- E-mails and pictures circulating the Internet tell the tale of a Dallas woman's bloody run-in with police after a roller-skating outing escalated into an arrest with excessive force, but officers and some witnesses Monday told a different story.
The incident happened early Saturday morning in Deep Ellum after police attempted to speak with Michelle Metzinger, 25, who, according to a police report, was intoxicated and weaving through traffic on roller skates.
Images: The Arrest & Other Slideshows
The pictures that stemmed from the events that followed are dramatic. They show an officer arresting Metzinger. Her face is covered in blood and there is a puddle of blood on the sidewalk.
"Very excessive. Uncalled for, you know. We're talking about a 250-pound guy and a 100-pound girl. It was just over the top," witness "D.C." said. "All I saw were her feet in the air and disappearing behind a cop car."
However, Dallas police and other witnesses tell a totally different story.
They said Metzinger was drunk and that she not only ignored officers who asked her to stop skating in the street, but also shouted profanities.
According to reports, an officer then tried to arrest Metzinger for public intoxication.
She resisted and attacked the officer, Lt. Rick Watson said.
"The officer attempted to turn her around, at which time the suspect then reached up and grabbed the officer's -- right part of his face -- trying to gouge the officer's eye," Watson said.
Despite the interest that the story has generated online and in the media, Metzinger said she would not comment on the incident until she had consulted with a lawyer.
Metzinger also had not filed a complaint report, so Dallas police were not conducting an internal investigation.
When I worked concert security and someone got bloodied, it was always proper for us to "get our stories straight." Or, as Eddie Murphy said in that movie, "You were lying your asses off." That LT is a lying piece of shit and so is the black cop who LIED in his report.
I'll tell you one thing for certain, this bastard needs to be caught and given a damn hard ball-batting. And then a WHITE magic marker taken to his forehead and the words BAD COP inscribed thereon. What was done was brutal, inexcusable and unjustified.
Police Deny Excessive Force In Bloody Arrest
Dramatic Pictures, Rumors Circulate Online
UPDATED: 6:11 pm CST January 16, 2006
Poster Comment:
Pictures taken by a witness clearly show the cops are LIARS!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-179) not displayed.
.
.
.
#180. To: tom007 (#174)
Tom, I was simply informing you that your opinion of my credibility did not matter. Have a lovely day.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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...
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.
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...
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.
"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
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.
"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?????
"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
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.
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
I doubt that.
It isn't normal for a man to bring up having sex with his daughter as an example. You have a rather disturbed mind.
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.
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.
"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
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.
Most people wouldn't associate the act of a man screwing his daughter with the notion of a "victimless crime".
BTW, did/does your mom "mess around" with you Richard? These things are inter- generational from what I've read.
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.
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.
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.
You might find me amusing, but I find you disturbing, as well as disturbed.
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.
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?
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...
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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?
You're the one that suggested having sex with his daughter as an example of a "victimless crime", not I.
Oops, meant right knee, not right knew...
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.
Time to archive this thread to send to the defense and and flush this Richard turd, or whoever it is.
“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
Hmmmmm, You weren't there and I was, yet you are so quick to side with the woman who attacked the police. Curious... The defense wont have any trouble tracking me down, I gave my statements to the police and they have my contact information. They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
You really don't get it. You have given contradictory information on this thread and shown predjudice against Michelle.
“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
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.
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!
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
Comments (220 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#181. To: tom007 (#179)
#182. To: Richard (#177)
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)
you would be first in line asking for the cops who DIDN'T stop her to be fired.
#184. To: FormerLurker (#182)
#185. To: tom007 (#183)
#186. To: Richard (#178)
#187. To: Richard (#181)
Nothing there indicates that her injuries were caused by another person.
#188. To: FormerLurker (#186)
#189. To: Richard (#185)
And don't bother telling me you don't care.
#190. To: tom007 (#187)
#191. To: tom007 (#189)
#192. To: Richard (#188)
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)
Nor was I fantasizing about anything with my point to Elliot.
#194. To: FormerLurker (#193)
#195. To: Richard (#190)
There is nothing in those photos to suggest that the police caused her injuries.
#196. To: Richard (#188)
#197. To: Richard (#194)
It is not normal for Elliot to assert that if you have no tangible victim, then no crime has happened.
#198. To: Richard (#194)
#199. To: tom007 (#195)
#200. To: FormerLurker (#197)
#201. To: All (#199)
#202. To: Richard (#200)
Oh, please do keep it up, you are amusing.
#203. To: Jethro Tull (#196)
#204. To: Richard, tom007 (#199)
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)
#206. To: Richard (#199)
ust because she is standing by the police car does not prove anything. There is nothing in the photos that would show that the actions of the police caused her facial injuries.
#207. To: FormerLurker (#204)
#208. To: tom007 (#206)
#209. To: Richard (#207)
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.
#210. To: Richard (#207)
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)
#212. To: Richard (#205)
You need psychiatric help...
#213. To: All (#210)
as here his right knew is on her back
#214. To: FormerLurker (#210)
#215. To: Richard, ALL (#208)
I gave my statement and my information to the officers at the scene, and they seemed to believe I was there, and I DO care about that.
#216. To: Hmmmmm (#215)
#217. To: Richard (#216)
They won't want to use me, however, because I saw their client willfully break the law.
#218. To: Hmmmmm (#217)
#219. To: Richard (#165)
And if our nation was run solely under Common Law that would mean something.
.
.
.