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: 15040
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 (1-273) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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.
"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
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.
BTW: I have a better name for the software .... Microsoft Internet Exploder. 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.
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)
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
Do Not Feed The Troll.
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.
#275. To: Richard (#252)
Neil, stating that I am sick of drunks on the street does not discredit my testimony at all.
In which case, you would be disqualified because you are prejudiced.
-- George Bonser
#276. To: Neil McIver (#271)
Neil,
#277. To: Richard, Neil McIver (#268)
Your pseudo-professional opinion does not matter here.
#278. To: BTP Holdings, Neil McIver (#277)
 | 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
.
.
.
Comments (314 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest