I am not implying anything - I thought I said what I meant pretty clearly. But since there seems to be some confusion here, allow me to clarify.
No facts to form an opinion? You clearly already have one... facts be damned.
Your post #2 above is an outright lie, implying that no grand jury indictment must mean that there is nothing to the case. As me and other pointed out, the grand jury usually gives the DA what the DA wants, and the grand jury outcome is an indication of what the DA wants, not of the actual facts of the case.
Plus, you state that there is no way of knowing what happened, right? But...
Now you KNOW this was not a case of over aggressive police... even though you did not have enough facts earlier.
Zero evidenve of stomping or choke holds? I'd say that a crushed larynx is evidence of severe violence applied to a guy who merely refused to leave his seat in a theater before this situation escalated out of control.
The quote you provide
simply does not appear in the link below. Plus, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was edited out of the article after you quoted it, it sounds like it is a statement from the DA's office that you try to present as a proven fact.
From the article above:
“The witness statements make clear that Mr. Saylor’s aide asked both the theater employee and at least one of the sheriff’s deputies to give her enough time to resolve the problem on her own or with Mr. Saylor’s mother, who was only a few minutes away. Instead of allowing that to happen, they pressed on,” he said."
There was no need to escalate - what was the urgency in a guy not leaving a chair that required IMMEDIATE violence?
"The report includes a description of the incident completed by Rochford, but a portion in which supervisors review the actions and determine whether the use of force was reasonable is left blank."
Self-explaining.
"In the written statements and follow-up interviews, witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the confrontation. When asked, some of the witnesses said they believed the deputies acted professionally; others said they thought the force was excessive."
Whoops - proof of excessive force... even if it's only SOME witnesses. Please note that nobody is saying how many witnesses were on each side.
" Follow-up interviews with witnesses to ask whether they saw the officers grab Saylor in the neck area were conducted Jan. 28.
The three witnesses said they did not see the deputies’ hands or arms in the neck or shoulder area."
Three witnesses? There were double digit witnesses... but only three were interviewed on this matter. Kind of suggests how many witnesses thought the deputies acted professionally... 3 out of 18?
So when facts do not support your opinion, it is unreasonable to form an opinion without complete information, but you have a clear opinion without complete facts
And you deny that violence occured, but suggest that violence was justified since the guy had aggressive outbursts in the past
To summarize, you sound like a lawyer or a PR person paid to defend a certain position: you use information selected with a clear bias, misrepresent quotes from the DA as facts, and threw in some outright lies to try to defend your position. Not saying you are a paid liar - just pointing out that your posts are indistinguishable from the posts a paid liar would make.
Hope that what I'm saying is clear enough this time, cause I don't know how to make it clearer.