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: 14705
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 (1-675) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
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.
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.
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.
thought you said it wasn't going to trial. ;)
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.
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.
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) (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Christine, You made me giggle.. thanks. :)
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.
Liar.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.)
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?
I have been asked hundreds of questions by you people, so I missed yours... big deal. You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
I think this thread might rival 'homosexuality is sin' thread. michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
Uh.... Good for you? Not sure what you were going for there... but if you enjoy your girlfriend and find her attractive, then good on ya!
Lucky....
Suppose a patient has a face covered in blood at the scene like our suspect, Michelle does. Would not the paramedic have to clean off the blood to assess whether or not the injuries sustained were life threatening? She can't just say "I refuse treatment" until such time as they KNOW her injuries are not life-threatening, correct? Just a point of clarification for Starwind, because the paramedics did clean off her face before she went to the hospital. A paramedic is under no obligation to even touch a violent patient who refuses treatment and who may injure the EMT. If necessary, a trained medical person can assess a patient's physical condition from across a room using a five-level triage acuity scale that is very accurate. Observing factors such as skin color, breathing patterns, and bleeding patterns of spurting vs flowing all tell them what they need to know about the laceration itself. It would be obvious to a trained EMT if the injury required immediate intervention or could wait until the patient was restrained. I'm sure you know that head injuries tend to bleed profusely because the blood vessels are so close to the surface... Therefore, the volume of blood is not the criteria used to measure an injury's severity. However, BECAUSE the person could have a concussion or another brain injury that was not immediately visible from a distance or able to establish without direct contact with the victim, that would force them to transport the person to the nearest emergency room to rule out head trauma before going to a police station. USUALLY the police officer would then simply take the person into protective custody rather than arresting them because the latter action would force the police dept to be responsible for the bill, something his superior would censure him for. If the patient was violent to everyone who approached, I can't imagine why the paramedic cleaned her face off IF she refused treatment UNLESS she refused treatment only after they looked at it and told her it wasn't life threatening... Now consider this, any normal American girl would be CONCERNED about scarring and disfigurement from a facial laceration if she was thinking straight. Sooooooooooooo, based ONLY ON THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST FEW POSTS, I'm guessing that this gal was not just mildly tipsy but, in fact, quite drunk or high and that it's very probable that her reportedly belligerent behavior was the direct (or indirect) cause of her injuries... My view is not carved in stone because it's obvious that I only "know" that which has been presented here and leave open the probability of other factors altering it later. 600+ OPINIONS and the unsubstantiated claims of witnesses only serve to obfuscate the issue with too much CRAP to wade through to glean the few additional facts presented... soooo, like I said earlier... My opinion is only worth as much as the information provided allows it to be... and I don't care enough to wade through the rest Produce an unedited video that SHOWS what happened and then all bets are off... I trust that none exists and that's why the arguing here? Or is this an uncurrent black/white argument rather than what it is presented as on the surface? It seems to be an argument that goes deeper than this episode warrants.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Be serious. No one but me knew you had written me, so it would be considered facts not in evidence. You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way, and now it is considered "facts not in evidence". Okay, whatever. Let's throw that one out then, lol. My statement was addressing the people on the thread. YOU had not commented on the thread, and thus my statement is factual and accurate. That is not true. I did comment. Let's try this again in chronological order. Post #255 Post #433 Even after pointing this flaw out, you continue to believe that your statement is factual and accurate.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious yes I know.
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth. It is my opinion that disguising opinions as facts is one of your bigger problems on this thread.
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious saigiah, The paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs and she was sent to the hospital to get stitches. Starwind is saying that this could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene. He seems to feel that if the police say that she refused treatment at the scene that it means that she was sent to the hospital without being assessed in any way. There would be no REASON to send her to the hospital if the blood on her face was not hers. People get other people's blood on them all the time when they fight, even though they themselves are not bleeding. SO, in order for it to be determined that she had to go to the hospital for STITCHES, she must have been treated in some fashion at the scene. Star is a bit of a literalist and a lot of a moron.
I was under no obligation to get your permission before posting that email. As for your post #255, I did not see it, and I apologize for saying that No One had given me the benefit of the doubt when you did. My bad. I have been barraged with hundreds of questions and accusations, so using a universal qualifier was perhaps not the most prudent choice. I will ammend it to read "at the time, only one person appears to have given me the benefit of the doubt." Duly noted.
you are an expert witness on the subject of morons. it is manifestly obvious that you know practically everything about being a moron.
I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid. I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific.
Red, Well, I went to all the meetings, passed the final, and I got this handy lapel pin, so.. thanks for noticing!
Liar. Show where I said the paramedics could not or did not clean off her face. I asked about protocols and what the paramedics actually did, where was Metzinger when they did it, and what you saw and where were you standing and how far away, etc, etc, etc - again, fact-finding. I stated she had the right to refuse treatment, which right the police accepted.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
(while I am hopeful that this clears it up for you, I somehow do not believe you will be able to grasp this simple concept.) EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street... well, not unless they enjoy getting sued. It would be rather unusal for ANY PATIENT to get stitches "on the scene" except in a Rambo movie... ???
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
I was not privey to the conversation that occured, but the paramedics did indeed clean her up before they sent her to the hospital. Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
Liar.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I stated conditions by which, if met, he would be considered paranoid. Mark, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and a conditional statement. I was not disguising anything, I was being quite careful and very specific. I concede your point. I too should have used your conditional qualifiers in my response. That was not fair of me. I was dwelling on the "truly" choice of wording. Considered paranoid: An opinion that one is paranoid. (Considered: careful thought, "considered opinion") When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious Fair enough. Absolute qualifiers When prosperity comes, do not use all of it. - Confucious (Starwind)Au Contraire! She has the right to refuse. If she was drunk her refusal may not have been "informed". The police already acknowleged her right to refuse treatment. If it was also informed, she is liable for any consequences of her refusal. -Your statement speaks directly to your belief that she was not treated at the scene in any fashion because the police report states that the refused treatment and was taken to a hospital. This means that you allege that she was not treated by the paramedics in any way, as your myopic interpretation of the police report does not allow for any form of medical treatment. (Richard)They had to determine the extent of her injuries, which entails some cleaning of the area. (Starwind)Your medical opinion or have you some fact you witnessed? ---This was something I witnessed. (Richard)She refused to be treated for the stitches at the scene. Fine. (Starwind)So apparently say the police and hospital reports. This is an example of where your eyewitness testimony adds nothing to the record ------My telling you that they did in fact give her basic first aid at the scene DOES add something to the record. You are simply not bright enough to grasp that. I suppose you are now going to hide behind the fact that you did not state the specific phrases "the paramedics did clean off her face" nor "the paramedics did not clean off her face." However, that inference can be clearly drawn from the statements that you made. You feel that if the police said she refused treatment that she was not treated in any way. (Starwind) #649 "the evidence to date is that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officers' knee." This I just included for fun because it is proof that you do not know what you are talking about and that you are making things up as you go along. There is NO evidence to date that she was bloodied with her face on the pavement under the officer’s knee.
LOL Mark... nice! :)
The paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs and she was sent to the hospital to get stitches. Starwind is saying that this could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene. He seems to feel that if the police say that she refused treatment at the scene that it means that she was sent to the hospital without being assessed in any way. There would be no REASON to send her to the hospital if the blood on her face was not hers. People get other people's blood on them all the time when they fight, even though they themselves are not bleeding. SO, in order for it to be determined that she had to go to the hospital for STITCHES, she must have been treated in some fashion at the scene. Star is a bit of a literalist and a lot of a moron. I think it's fair to suggest that Star didn't realize that a patient can be ASSESSED without their consent as I described earlier (5 level triage acuity scale which can be done from a distance if necessary to separate a level 1 or 2 (immediate intervention required)from a 4 or 5 (optional medical intervention ie: not life threatening) so OBVIOUSLY he was asserting that she did not have an DIRECT triage assessment such as checking pulse, blood pressure, etc... and no bandaging of her wounds at the scene. It's safe to say that this part of the dispute is a matter of knowing what definition one uses for "assessment". Clearly the two of you are not on the same wavelength therefore neither was technically wrong in your assertions. Legally, refusing treatment at the scene would imply that she stated that she did not want ANY treatment whatsoever or that she did not want paramedics to treat her on the scene, preferring to seek treatment on her own. Given her probable state of intoxication and the fact that she had obvious facial injuries (increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit) the officer exercised his right to transport her to a medical facility against her stated wishes BECAUSE it was clear that she was not of sound mind to make that decision in the first place. Also, EMT's are not licensed to administer the drugs necessary to calm an irrational patient so it would be counterproductive to attempt to force medical care on a resistant patient. Certainly the ED called in crisis counselors to assess her mental condition as well. This kind of case is carefully documented because it usually winds up in court. For the record, my assertion that her probable intoxification contributed directly or indirectly to her injuries DOES NOT IMPLY that I believe she is wholly responsible for them nor does it imply that I believe her claim that the officer brutalized her. In all likelihood, she has no recollection. Several scenarios COULD be true. Scenario 1= she's drunk and resists arrest. She hits/kicks/bites the officer trying to get away. He is forceful and rough in handcuffing her because he has to be due to her attacking him. She winds up falling to the ground because she's fighting and her rollerskates cause her to lose her balance. Scenario 2= she's drunk and resists arrest. She's so clumsy that she falls to the ground when handcuffed and skins up her face because her hands are cuffed and she's unable to break her fall. Scenario 3= She's drunk and pisses off the officer. He's rough with her and slams her to the ground for kneeing him in the groin... or just because he can. Which one is most likely? IMHO, 1 or 2... Police officers seldom beat on prisoners with tons of witnesses watching particularly after the Rodney King episode... Star is a literalist because it SEEMS as if your testimony changes and therefore literalism is warranted to clear up the facts...?? As for calling Star a moron... I see ZERO evidence to support that contention. What evidence I see to support things you've been labelled, I'll resist commenting on... Fair enough?
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Siagiah, Thanks for that informative and well thought out response! Much appreciated. :)
This is your own continued projection of your deceptions on to me, that I must belive what would be convenient for you to argue - a strawman. That is not what I believe. Well that is the lie that you want to perpetrate now isn't it. I said she had a right to refuse treatment. I did not say what the paramedics did or did not do. I in fact asked you, didn't I. And you've made up my answer for me, a belief you impute to me, haven't you. My issue with all this, my actual belief, is that the paramedics may well have wiped off her face and asked if she wanted treatment (like a neck brace maybe), possibly for neck or other injuries that she may have sustained in the scuffle, which treatment (of whatever, for whatever reasons) she declined, rightfully as the police acknowledged. Time will tell what her injuries actually were. But I do not believe that you witnessed it, or if you did I do not believe you will be honest or objective about it. I believe you're making it up as the questions come to you, from what you've read in news reports. My questions were designed to find out how truthful you have been, what you actually know, and to get your "eyewitness" information on the record for later comparison. The issue for me was never what the paramedics did or did not do. The issue for me is what did you actually witness. This thread has become about your credibility (or lack thereof). And observing your poor witness of the questions and answers on this thread, which are readily verifiable, I'm convinced at this point that you merely lie and distort to serve your own agenda.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Thanks for that informative and well thought out response! Much appreciated. :) No problem... BTW, I've SEEN 6 year olds attack adults, causing serious injuries to the adult and occasionally significant injury to the child if the adult is either not trained in proper restraining methods or is caught off guard, unable to subdue the child safely. When any person attacks another person the attacker is the provokee and NOT the victim until and unless the initial victim restrains the attacker and then CONTINUES to manhandle the attacker. Certainly, reasonable people don't pound them into the pavement once restrained but simply use whatever means are NECESSARY to keep them restrained even if that causes injury to the attacker. Whose fault is it that someone presumably CHOOSES to drink too much, take mind altering drugs, or to attack someone else? It's difficult to know what really happened without being a professional investigator or catching it on film.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
You say she refused treatment, I said that they cleaned her face and sent her to the hospital. You reiterated that that the police report stated she refused treatment… what did you mean by that after I had told you that the paramedics had looked at her? What value would it be to restate your point other than to attempt to impugn mine? She was belligerent as hell when they were looking at her. While the paramedics were working with her she was constantly twisting her head and swearing at them telling them to leave her the fuck alone. They did not check her for neck injuries from what I saw, but they probably figured that if this bitch could swing her head so well, she did not have a neck injury, and they did examine her face quietly and professionally while she swore at them. Officer Gordon was also examined, but surprisingly did not act so violently towards the paramedics. He could have been severely injured when Michelle was kicking at him with her roller skates after he initially took her to the ground, but fortunately, the reports say he only suffered bruises. You don’t have to believe I witnessed the event if you do not wish to. That does not change the fact that I did witness the event. It is a FACT because I did witness the event, yours is only a BELIEF. My FACT trumps your BELIEF. See, people “BELIEVE” in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and God… but those are not FACTS, they are just BELIEFS. Your questions were designed (and poorly designed at that)as a failed attempt to try to discredit me from the start, which is difficult for you to do being as how you only have sketchy third-hand knowledge of what went on that evening, while I was less than 25 feet from the event as it occured. Your approach to this matter has been offensive and confrontational, and you are surprised that you are getting attitude from me about it? You were not there and yet you try to tell me what did or did not happen, and now say that you don’t think I was there based upon what has been said here. Again, you were not there and know less than has been inaccurately reported in the press about what happened that night. Well, the police sure say I was there for a FACT because they took my statement, so once again, your BELIEF is yours to keep, and won’t come into play over the course of the investigation into this matter. Hopefully now that you have established your belief, incorrect though it is, you will let this matter go. I doubt it, but it is my hope.
Comments (716 - 855) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#677. To: Starwind (#665)
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)
#679. To: markm0722 (#668)
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)
If you came here expecting anyone to believe 100% of what you say, you are going to be sadly disappointed.
#681. To: Richard (#675)
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)
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)
#684. To: Richard (#677)
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
#685. To: christine (#681)
#686. To: Starwind (#684)
1) Where was Ms. Metzinger positioned when paramedics wiped her face
#687. To: Richard (#686)
Asked and answered multiple times, you simply do not pay attention.
#688. To: Starwind (#684)
The police said she had refused treatment. The police. Think that thru.
#689. To: Starwind (#687)
#690. To: Starwind (#684)
Why should I post them a fourth time? You didn't see fit to answer them the prior three times
#691. To: christine (#681)
#692. To: Red Jones (#691)
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend. only my girlfriend is 10 years older than michelle.
#693. To: Red Jones (#691)
michelle metzinger looks just like my girlfriend
#694. To: Richard, all (#641)
Saigiah,
#695. To: Richard (#679)
I offered benefit of the doubt publicly by posting on this thread for all to see.
Not one person here gave me the benefit of the doubt and wanted to listen to my story, instead I have been called everything from a flat out liar to a paid shill for the federal government sent here to "spin" the story.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#696. To: Jethro Tull (#693)
#697. To: Richard, Starwind (#690)
You truly are paranoid if you think I was avoiding questions that I have already answered, just because YOU asked them.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#698. To: siagiah (#694)
#699. To: markm0722 (#695)
"You posted my entire private email publicly, without even asking me first by the way"
#700. To: Richard (#698)
a lot of a moron.
#701. To: markm0722 (#697)
It is your opinion that Starwind is paranoid. It may or may not be the truth.
#702. To: Red Jones (#700)
#703. To: Richard (#698)
Starwind is saying that this [paramedics cleaned off her face while she was in handcuffs] could NOT have happened because the police state that she refused treatment at the scene.
#704. To: Richard (#688)
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.
#705. To: siagiah (#704)
EMT's don't do stitches and medics don't do them in the street...
#706. To: Richard (#705)
Starwind asserted that because the police say she refused treatment that she was not cleaned up at the scene.
#707. To: Richard (#701)
I did not state there that Starwind was indeed paranoid.
Truly paranoid: The fact that one is paranoid. (Truly: truthfully, accurately)
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#708. To: Richard (#699)
As for your post #255, I did not see it, and I apologize for saying that No One had given me the benefit of the doubt when you did. My bad. I have been barraged with hundreds of questions and accusations, so using a universal qualifier was perhaps not the most prudent choice. I will ammend it to read "at the time, only one person appears to have given me the benefit of the doubt." Duly noted.
always often get people in trouble.
The nation is prosperous on the whole, but how much prosperity is there in a hole? - Will Rogers
There are 9,000 hedge funds out there. There aren't that many smart people in the world. - Michael Driscoll, a trader at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York
Some days you just want to pull out the Bonehead Stick and beat people senseless. - mirage
#709. To: Starwind (#703)
#658 (Richard)She was drunk and under arrest, so she did not have the right to refuse the initial assessment of her condition.
#710. To: markm0722 (#708)
#711. To: Richard (#698)
To: siagiah saigiah,
#712. To: siagiah (#711)
#713. To: Richard (#709)
Your statement speaks directly to your belief that she was not treated at the scene in any fashion because the police report states that the refused treatment and was taken to a hospital.
I suppose you are now going to hide behind the fact that you did not state the specific phrases "the paramedics did clean off her face" nor "the paramedics did not clean off her face."
#714. To: Richard, all (#712)
Siagiah,
#715. To: Starwind (#713)
.
.
.