What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used co

What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used company policies that are only necessary in the USA to stop him returning in case he returned to do harm. It's not theatre but it sure sounds theatrical, when they could have apologised, given him some time to regroup his emotions and then left it at that. When I was much younger I had a nervous breakdown at work during a period of extreme personal stress -- I really absolutely and totally lost the plot. Quite probably upset a lot of people, many of whom did not see me the same afterwards. Though more fallout for me personally; it was difficult to be there and my reaction undermined me. I was treated with enormous -- and I must say on reflection completely unearned -- respect and at no point did the company feel they had to do this. Because I'm not in the USA. It's worth considering that many places in the USA seem to think the problem in their culture with violent crime is not guns but the fact that mentally ill people can get guns and weaponry of all sorts. What follows from that is company policy that seriously upset people must necessarily be treated as a threat. And this sort of "bar him from the building because he panicked" outcome is the logical conclusion of this attitude.