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: 14944
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 (1-649) not displayed.
.
.
.
#650. To: Richard (#644)
And we are still waiting on your eyewitness proof of where I asserted a viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
Star, I already answered this question. It was in the street where the incident occured. You really do not pay attention very well.
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).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
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)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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? "
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.
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Star, is Richard still standing? If this were a prize fight, it would have been a TKO after 5 rounds. Well done.
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 ....
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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?
And what, pray tell, is my viewpoint with which Siagiah has disagreed?
#651. To: Richard (#408)
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"?
#652. To: Starwind (#649)
"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)
#654. To: Richard (#648)
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.
#655. To: Starwind (#650)
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)
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
#657. To: Richard (#655)
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.
#658. To: Starwind (#654)
"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)
#660. To: Richard (#655)
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.
#661. To: Starwind (#660)
#662. To: Richard, Siagiah (#659)
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.
#663. To: Starwind, Neil McIver (#662)
 | 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?
.
.
.
Comments (690 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest