I think the better question is what moron wouldnt know?In the normal course of events it is wrong to kill someone who thinks he can watch a movie twice.I have finally read the article-----there is insufficient evidence about the autopsy and about the events to draw any conclusion at all based on the information in that article.
There is virtually NOTHING THERE. I have attended autopsies and conferences on autopsy findings----there was
almost NOTHING in the article -------the first evaluator
found a fractured larynx and decided to call it "homicide"--
that's about it -----the witnesses for the prosecution were all HIRED GUNS -----the defense information was not presented I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. There is
no information as to why the cops thought they should cuff
the man-----or why anyone claimed that they should not have
done so ------nothing. The note written by the paramedic would have been nice ------what did they do? I do not even know why anyone called paramedics
I guess we could use a little common sense. Would it have hurt the cops and the theater to let the man watch the movie again, or at least until they could contact the mother? No, of course not. We know why he died. He died because the cops were incompetent.
Yes----it would have been better. It is not entirely clear to me that the cops were "incompetent"
It is a great tragedy that it happened that way. I do not believe that the security guards had a POLICY of killing people who thought it a good idea to see the movie twice. I do believe that
the attempt to remove that person ESCALATED into a physical fight------and the guards----being average guys----did not know that a strong ---muscle bound--healthy but odd looking person had serious physical vulnerabilities-----would YOU KNOW?.
lots of people do not easily recognize the facial manifestations of down's syndrome as easily as do you. I would estimate----MOST PEOPLE