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: 14733
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 (1-203) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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?
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
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.
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
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I 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.
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
I don't see how my line of work enters into this discussion.
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)
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
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.
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
Richard posted on 2006-01-19 21:55:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Thought you, Richard were there. Pathetic. Silly man.
"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
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?
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. 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?
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. He sure is making lots of friends here, isn't he?
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.
#220. To: BTP Holdings (#219)
#221. To: Richard, Hmmmmm (#218)
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.
#222. To: BTP Holdings (#221)
#223. To: Richard (#220)
#224. To: BTP Holdings (#223)
#225. To: Richard (#222)
not prejudiced?
#226. To: Richard (#224)
I don't see how my line of work enters into this discussion.
#227. To: Richard (#214)
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.
#228. To: Richard (#141)
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?
-- George Bonser
#229. To: Neil McIver (#228)
Maybe. Then again, it makes no difference what my background is. It remains true that it's lawful to resist an unlawful arrest.
#230. To: Richard (#146)
You are going off of photographs that tell you NOTHING.
-- George Bonser
#231. To: Neil McIver (#230)
 | 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.
.
.
.
Comments (244 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest