Grand Jury Refuses To Indict Cops Who Killed Man With Down Syndrome Who Wouldn?t Leave Movie
 

http://alternativemediasyndicate.com.../12/saylor.jpg

Grand Jury Refuses To Indict Cops Who Killed Man With Down Syndrome Who Wouldn?t Leave Movie

A grand just just announced on Friday that they will not indict a Maryland police officer who killed an unarmed man who had Down Syndrome.

?They felt no further investigation was necessary,? Frederick County State?s Attorney J. Charles Smith, said about the death of Robert Ethan Saylor, 26.

Smith explained at a news conference just outside of the county courthouse, that ?no crime had been committed.?

As with all grand juries, the proceedings were held in secrecy. Three deputies involved in the death were Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris.

Saylor?s parents said they were ?extremely disappointed and saddened and concerned.?

?This is a really hard day for them,? their attorney Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum said.

?They?re going to have to digest this unsettling news and determine their next step.?

The killing happened when cops arrived to force Saylor to leave a movie theater after he wanted to see ?Zero Dark Thirty? a second time.

Police justified their killing by explaining that Saylor verbally and physically resisted their attempts to remove him from the theater.

Because of his large size, the officers say they had to use three sets of handcuffs on him and placed him on his stomach for ?one to two minutes?. When he showed signs of distress, officers said they administered CPR and other First Aid. But back in February, the Chief Medical Examiner?s Office in Baltimore said that Saylor?s death was a homicide resulting from asphyxia.

Just as in the case of Eric Garner, the police have said that being obese ?contributed? to Saylor?s death, making him ?more susceptible to breathing problems.?

They also added that having Down Syndrome made him more susceptible to death, but they did not explain how. Once again, police and prosecutors have proven that when there is no weapon, they will grasp at any explanation to explain why it is the victim?s fault that they died from police brutality.

Here's where a bunch of dicks come in and say he shouldn't have resisted, because resisting arrest means death.

When did this happen?? jan 12 2013 ?
Smith stressed that the grand jury had acted in an investigative function, meaning it did not rely solely on the investigative file from the sheriff's office. The panel heard from all 17 eyewitnesses, including the 18-year-old caretaker, and the three deputies, he said.

Fucking assholes deserve to be fired and then some, they knew he was mentally disabled, they should have just let him be and called his parents to come down to the movie theater.

I hope the parents sue the cops in civil court and take them for every cent they have.

:Oh crap

How many arrests have you seen? in certain neighborhoods, they all scream shit at the officer. The person being arrested is jerking around and crying wolf.

I don't know the case here but a certain amount of arrests are going to end in death. Just the way it is with a stressful combative situation.

This is a "funny" guy:))

Who ARE these people on the SECRET "Grand Jury's" that do this?

It's bad enough that cops kill people and never go to trial. But then we have secret Grand Jury's deciding this and the public (you know, the people who PAY for all of this) are never even shown the evidence that brought about these decisions.

We have a justice system. The police should have to go through it just like citizens do.

And these Grand Jury's need to have everything released to the public once they have finished their task.
Oversight is definitely needed by the media and the public on this.

Secrecy is not something that should be happening in a supposed free country like the United States.

All it's leading to is more mistrust of authority. There is no reason in hell that the entire process of the Grand Jury (including all the evidence) shouldn't be shown to ALL of us after they have finished their deliberation.

If they are doing an honest job each time...then we will all see HOW and WHY they came to their conclusions.

All of this "behind closed doors" and "secrecy" reminds me of all the "evil" stuff we were told about the Soviet Union when I was a kid. :(

Just seems weird that I've thrown 1000 retards out of a bar and none of them died.

Yep, I bounced at a strip club in early 1990's in between gigs.
Never even had to hit anybody.

There is a way to approach people (even big drunk mean ones) and get them out of the club without anyone getting hurt.

Some cops know how to do that too. But most just come up on a situation with an aggressive attitude because they already know that they can get away with beating you down and even killing you.

Haha I loled

Hang the bastards - An entire paragraph of text is enough to convince me...

Billy Bob - Go and get my best lynching rope.....

Yeah, you can approach most people and they will leave without a scuffle;
but I bounced a bar full of marines and sailors just back from Iraq.

:1orglaugh

There were some serious throw downs but nobody died and I don't remember anyone going unconscious or breaking a bone either.

I lost a few dread locks though.

:1orglaugh

yeah a bunch of retards :2 cents::2 cents:

@DBS.US:
I don't even consider it to be a racial thing.

I think it's something more to do with the expanded powers cops have been given added to all the expanded duties (more laws) that they are having to enforce all the time.

I just don't see any reason for the Grand Jury's findings to be "secret".
I'm not asking to know the identity of the people on the grand jury. I'm not asking to televise them live on t.v. during their deliberations.

But I think that once they have reached their decision...all the transcripts of the proceeding and all of the evidence they used to come to their conclusions should be made public.

Seems like the govt. looks to be "Secret" about everything...even when no secrecy is needed.

I dated a girl who's brother was a bouncer and he killed someone.

And there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people arrested every year in this country that are never hurt and are just fine.

The difference is if a drunk guy in a bar starts shit and the bouncer throws them out and they suffer a heart attack in the parking lot it doesn't go viral and end up on every Facebook feed on the planet.

If a cop arrests someone, they have a heart attack and die it does.

I'm not absolving the police in this case by any means. I'm just saying a bouncer at a local bar is not held to the same scrutiny as a cop.

that is half of 'murica !!!!

For a grand jury to recommend charges/trial there has to be proof of INTENT to harm. "Intent to harm" is much different that poor judgement in the drama of the moment, bad training, poor policy, someones a dumb-ass, or shit just going wrong.

:2 cents:

Civil trials are a different matter.

.

That's because the bouncer would go to jail over it.
He would have his day in court and be found innocent or guilty.
And the bouncer isn't on the public payroll to PROTECT people.

The cops never seem to even go to court over it. :(
And they are not supposed to be killing people. They are supposed to be a deterrent to people getting killed.

That's why it goes viral.

So do you think that is what would happen if you or I or any citizen walked up to another person and told them what to do and when the person didn't obey...they ended up dead?

Oh..."it's the cop's job"?

Okay, same scenario: Guy with Down's Syndrome refuses to leave the movie theater. I am the owner. Only I don't call the cops. I decide to handle it myself. I get into a struggle with the Down's Syndrome guy and I kill him by "accident".

Do you think that I will get a Grand Jury and they will decide I don't need to go to trial?

HELL NO.

And it would have been "my job" I was doing in my own business. So how come when I do "my job" I end up on trial for murder. But the cops SEEM to be above the law?

That's the question.

And the easiest and correct thing to do in a "free" country is to immediately release the entire transcripts of all the evidence and testimony that was used in the Grand Jury after they have reached their decision.

All of this "Secret" stuff is what is causing people to not trust the entire system. (and rightfully so)

I don't want to argue the point, I don't know anything about the case. My comment was just about the grand jury, and the grand jury's only job is to look at all evidence and advise if it should go to the District Attorney for further action.

However the District Attorney is the one presenting the case with whatever "tilt" he choses to the grand jury. Which BTW is made up of the same pool of people that provide trial jurors. Everyday citizens.


.

Why the heck don't they release the information such as evidence, testimony, etc. to the public AFTER the Grand Jury has made their determination?

Number one...it SHOULD be public. We the people pay for it. It's ostensibly being done in the name of "the people".
So why then are "the people" being told we can't see it?

And number two...sure does seem like it would stop a lot of the reasons for all the violence that comes after these kinds of controversial decisions (that is unless it turns out that the Grand Jury really IS tilted)

What point would getting the information after the fact serve? I can't think of anything.

the citizens will seek their own justice! the streetz already do it :2 cents: the problen is they are killing normal people in the cross fire

The biggest reason is confidentiality of witnesses that sometimes only tell the truth if they know there will be no retaliation, the below explains it pretty well.

"The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 identified several reasons for maintaining such secrecy. First, without the assurance of confidentiality, many prospective witnesses would hesitate to come forward willingly, knowing that the people against whom they testify would find out about it; second, those who did come forward would be less likely to testify “fully and frankly” because they would be vulnerable to retribution and inducements; third, people about to be indicted might flee, or try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment; and finally, it protects those who are accused, but not indicted, from public scorn."

.

I guess my point was that there are likely cases where a bouncer has physically removed people from a bar and/or gotten into an altercation with them and that person ends up dying. That bouncer may or may not end up getting charged and going to court, but it isn't reasonable for someone to just say, "I've thrown 1000 retards out of a bar and none of them died" and present it as a fact that if they would have handled this situation the person would have lived.

It makes it sound like the cops decided they were going to kill the retarded kid because he was out of control and I highly doubt that is the reality.

I think the common sense thing would be to not reveal anyone's identity.

I'm saying why not transcripts of the evidence? The testimony (without revealing the identity of the person)?

What is the purpose of keeping it "secret"?

I don't think that anything should be kept secret by the govt. from the people.
I know that there are arguments for "national defense" (just in case we get invaded for the first time since the War of 1812 lol)...but why aren't we allowed to see and thus UNDERSTAND how all these cops keep getting off completely free and not even going to trial?

Sad story, but what are police supposed to do when someone refuses to be arrested? They didn't shoot him or knock him on the head or even use non lethal devices. What is left besides a physical takedown?

There in is he the problem they face. This situation was a no win kind of deal. The guy was clearly agitated and wasn't going to leave. If they could have figured out who his parent or guardian was and contacted them then they would have to wait for the next showing until that person got there and hopefully calmed him down. So there is a decent chance, depending on ticket sales that the theater own would be pissed at them.

If they taze him there would be people up in arms about them tazing a mentally challenge guy. He was clearly a big dude if they had to string together three sets of cuffs to handcuff him so he clearly wasn't in the best health.

if anything, this case and others like the one in New York should teach cops that they shouldn't handcuff fat guys then lay them face down on the ground it makes it hard for them to breathe and it could cause them serious issues.

Amen Brother. Also a police officer should be held to a higher standard not a lower. Like the cops had to chase him so then its gives them license to beat the shit out of a guy.
Or the new trend of killing pets and saying they felt threatened. a dog is shot by a cop every 98 minutes in this country.
Why are police shooting so many family dogs?

Its like how does the postman or ups make it thru the day without killing any dogs.

I just would never even bother calling the cops for a retarded dude who wanted to see a movie twice.
Why can't people be human and give the guy a break.

Nobody's at the theater anyway since the file locker is booming.

If a retarded guy who has no mental capacity to even form malice intent, much less be a physical threat, can't get a break in life then WHO CAN?

Exactly.

Whatever happened to common sense and handling a situation in a way that will bring about a good outcome?

They could have been more understanding. Left the guy alone. People would have come into the theater and watched the movie and they would have made money.

Instead they opted to be assholes, call the cops, get a guy killed...and have the theater shut down for the day as well as now have a reputation as the place that a guy got killed at.

Seems to me that if they had went with the "more understanding" option it not only would have saved a life...but would have been better for business as well.

Sad commentary that in today's society, calling the cops actually can create a life threatening situation. :(

Whether I would or not would depend mostly on the manager/owner of the theater. If it were a situation where letting him watch the movie again would get me fired, I'm not going to lose my job over it and I would have to ask him to leave or call someone. If it didn't matter, I probably would have just let him see it again and hoped that they would leave after that showing.

The police really need to be trained properly on how to properly interact with mentally ill persons that they come in contact with. They are given a complete license to assess, evaluate, and take action on any given scenario, without having the proper training. I know, we never had any extensive training on how to deal with mentally ill people.

At the very least they should have stepped back, let the guy watch 10-15 minutes of the movie, and figure out a better approach to someone with clear mental incapacities.

Mental health is not understood well by police at all. This is where the compassion needs to rise to the top and enforcing the law becomes secondary, depending on the crime being committed, or danger that they're presenting to themselves or others. Clearly nothing was at stake here. A 20 dollar movie ticket to watch a rerun of the movie. Not really something that couldn't have been sorted another way.

Every case is different, but I can tell you that when you deal with people with mental conditions, they're unpredictable, especially when provoked. They did not handle this well at all.

There were so many options, but the letter of the law won out and they treated him with direct compliance to the law instead of having compassion that he isn't the same kind of people that we are. Very sad news here.

We're headed for police reform in the USA.

.

No, when you have someone with disabilities, that all goes out the window. They don't process things the way normal people without mental incapacities do. They can't evaluate things and they certainly don't understand consequences. You can't hold them to any reason or logic. They might as well be different species, because they just don't process the world like we do. Cops blew it here.

:2 cents:

well said seeric :thumbsup

One of my best friends is a cop in the town I live in. This town also has an assisted living center that caters to people with mental handicaps. They have everything from people who have had severe brain injuries who are fully disabled to people with problems they have had since birth. Sometimes they have problems with their residents getting angry, going into a rage and attacking people. Like you said, they can be unpredictable. So the police department here goes through a training every year on how to deal with those types of situations and about 1-2 times per year they get called there and have to deal with a raging patient.

Other cops find out that they get any kind of special training for things like this and they are floored. One county office even said the whole of the training they would get for something like is to be told to just taze them or pepper spray them.

In a perfect world out police departments would all be funded to a point where they could all have annual training to help officers deal with situations like this (or with situations where someone is overweight or potentially of poor health). Sadly, many of them get through the academy and their initial probation period and they are left on their own to figure it out as they go.

Has there ever been a case where cops shoot some boy on his way to library or science museum? Every time I read stories posted by GFY black panthers club (this kid is an exception) its always about some outstanding citizen with 30 priors, driver of stolen car, drug dealer or rapper killing his wife. Oh wait, they haven't posted the rapper killing his wife story yet.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

OK, I would just get fired; but you would have a dead body on the floor.

Trust me, many movie ushers have sacrificed their lucrative careers for the sake of others.

:1orglaugh