We can call it Malthus’ Group Overreaction Postulate.
You should have held out for 2 free tickets.
It could very well have been the tenth time,
I like this attitude! 
Wow, it’s just so interesting to me the two sides on this. Call the cops vs do what I did. Like I said, I totally see the ‘call the cops’ side and I’m beginning to think maybe I should have done a bit more than I did, even if it not to that extent. Honestly, as someone else mentioned, I just wanted to get away from the situation. I didn’t even talk to her at all. My dad did all the talking and I just avoided looking at them. I’m very non-confrontational and that on top of me being shook up and my mom shaking and crying made me just want to get away. But given all the feedback I’ve gotten here, perhaps if it ever happens again (hopefully not), I might act differently.
As for damages, my glasses are pieces of shit anyway. I have no vision coverage and no money to get new ones. So it was no surprise the lens popped out. Went right back in without a problem. Shirt’s repairable so, I’m not worried about that. Like I said, I walked away basically unharmed except for a bruise on my arm that I didn’t notice till yesterday. And dammit! I’d been waiting to see that movie for over a month! I just wanted to sit down, eat my snuck in candy and see Gwyneth Paltrow sans a shirt!
We actually got four! On top of the fact that we had used free passes to get into the movie in the first place, I think it was a pretty good compensation for something the theater wasn’t even responsible for.
Four each or 1 per. Because I’ve gotten that from having the sound be a little off in the movie.
Four total. There were three of us so one each plus an extra. I’m gonna let my dad have it since I don’t like going to the movies alone. He wants to see Fast & Furious 6 and no one else does lol.
Reading through this thread there appear to actually be 3 contingents. The did what you did people, the call the cops side, and the (thank goodness much smaller) you should of been armed and pumped the retard full of lead contingent.
But I think you ignoring them is probably a good decision. Which makes this good decision number 2. I’m with you on the Cops being unnecessary in your circumstance.
If I was the caretaker of an easily upset guy, I wouldn’t have taken him to anything more exciting then the Care Bears Movie,
Let alone the explosionfest/epilepsy-inducing visual speed of Iron Man 3.
Once the attack was over, did the kid use his cellphone in the theater to talk or text? If not, live and let live.
Haven’t parsed every post thoroughly, but my impression is that the only folk to call the mentally/emotionally challenged attacker “a retard/retarded” are those who purport sympathy for him and his, or criticism for those who would involve legal authorities. I find that curious.
Personally, I’m not overly concerned with the specific nature of the individual’s mental/emotional impairment. That I may wish to go about my business in public without being physically attacked says extremely little about my views regarding differently abled folk and those related to them.
Sorry, but I haven’t seen anyone posting in that thread who falls in the third contingent. I did see one or two people noting that IF the mentally handicapped guy had attacked someone who was carrying concealed he could have been shot, which is true and is yet another reason why he needs to be prevented from attacking people. No one was claiming that outcome was desirable, only that it was possible.
My normal reaction would be to do what OP did, but because I’ve worked some in that field and know how a lot of the caretaking is managed for these people I’d insist on the authorities being involved. Not for my sake at all, but mostly for the sake of the guy. We can’t really know what his problem is–if he can’t speak that shows either intellectual impairment or communications problems. That’s typical of someone with a traditional MR diagnosis or someone who has a DD diagnosis (Autism spectrum disorders as an example.) It’s possible to have both an MR/DD diagnosis and a diagnosable mental illness (so you can be diagnosed as having Bi-Polar Disorder or Schizophrenia and also diagnosed as MR or DD–sadly some people get all of life’s “joys.”)
But anyway, yeah typically these people depending on functioning level either live in a group home or they live in an apartment or house with significant caretaker support. I would assume this guy probably lives in a group home–very rarely you might have someone like this whose family has gone way above and beyond and has kept him at home, but that is very, very rare. It is extremely, extremely hard to care for a profoundly mentally disabled person at home.
But it may have been his sister or family that had him out, but either way the reason I’d have reported it is whoever had him out needs to be held account for what they were doing. If they’re a part-time caretaker (that’s typically the case because they are usually caretakers and students or something combined) then most likely whoever runs the group home has a set of approved things you can do with each person who lives there. If it turns out his caretakers were doing something they were not supposed to, the only way the group home admin will know is if a report is filed–and they need to know for his safety. If they were doing something they were allowed to do, then chances are they probably reported the incident so that the higher ups could reevaluate him, but there is a chance they might not for fear of getting in trouble at work (again, why I would report–I want the admin of the group home to know about it for this guy’s well being.)
If it’s family, then most likely they have had problems with him in society before and are under some form of supervision in terms of their control of him, and if the family is doing things with him against the advice of professionals then the family’s control of him needs to be evaluated–which again, only happens with a report being filed.
And I’m not Monday morning quarterbacking; like I said my base inclination would have been the same as the OPs. It’s unlikely he’ll ever face this again, but I think it’s good general knowledge for everyone to have that basically the people who take people with mental disabilities out in public are usually operating with minimal supervision and the only way anyone ever knows what is going on with them is if some third party reports something. That applies if you see a caretaker doing something to the patient you think is abusive or wrong, or if you see them letting their charge do unsafe things or etc. It could be the caretaker is doing a poor job, or it could be the company the caretaker works for has tasked their employees poorly (assigned small females to handle large males who are sometimes violent, for example.)
I don’t. It seems to me there are two contingents posting here. Contingent #1 emphasizes the fact that the fellow has some (undefined) mental disability which renders him not completely responsible for his actions. This contingent suspects that involving the police might result in more harm than help, as the police are by and large accustomed to dealing with willful lawbreakers (and the attack was over long before they would arrive).
Contingent #2 is focusing on the reality that such an attack, whether carried out by a sane person or a mentally disabled/incompetent one, is legally an assault, and assault is a serious offense. This contingent thinks the police should be involved to ensure at a minimum that there’s a legal record somewhere of the disabled fellow’s behavior in case more severe restrictions (such as commitment to a secure facility) might be warranted in the future.
Both contingents are making some good points, and it’s not clear to me which approach is the best in this case. Mercifully, there doesn’t seem to be a side mocking the mentally impaired or arguing that all such people should be locked away, or claiming that shooting this fellow would have been a wonderful thing (as Kinthalis has claimed). Everyone posting on this thread has been decidedly civil, and has taken the topic seriously.
I think AngelSoft handled this very well, with a lot of grace and compassion, or in other words the opposite of what most people would have handled it.
So call the cops when the attacker is a thug. Don’t call the cops when the attacker is a thug but nuts.
In elementary school, there was a down syndrome boy who had a violent streak. He routinely attacked kids at recess. One day while sitting with friends trying to decide who was going to be who when we played Ninja Turtles, he ran up and jumped on my back and started slamming my head into the dirt. The school’s solution… give me detention because assuredly I had provoked him.
The point of having the special needs kids out with us at recess was to integrate them in with the other kids. This event had the opposite effect since now no one wanted anything to do with him…which made him more agitated and prone to kicking (kid loved to kick at people) and throwing things.
Great user name/topic combo.
Sorry I did not explain/provide context.
I recently participated in a GD re: the reclassification of mental retardation in the DSM. It is probably still on page 1.
In this thread, the two people I noted using the word “retard” pejoratively were espousing views essentially sympathetic with the mentally/emotionally challenged. I found it curious that they would readily use the word “retard/retarded”, when there was zero indication that the attacker in this case was, in fact, retarded.
You mean other than this line? "Girl has her arm around the guy (who clearly looked mentally disabled), "