Advertise here: Contact FM.


Gross Misconduct
June 21, 2007 10:51 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Man fired for saving life. Follow-up here.
posted by Snyder (410 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I do feel for him---this kind of thing is why I'm self-employed now.
posted by metasonix at 10:56 AM on June 21, 2007


he didn't need the gun to save the woman's life and that's not why they fired him
posted by pyramid termite at 10:59 AM on June 21, 2007 [5 favorites]


Yeah, p t, he should've just run toward the sound of a gunshot unarmed. That would've been smarter.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:01 AM on June 21, 2007 [11 favorites]


Not in my backyard! No wait, go ahead.
posted by phaedon at 11:01 AM on June 21, 2007


It's gun-control gone crazy! It’s perfectly reasonable that he’d carry a gun when helping a woman who’d been shot in a domestic brawl! …hang on a second, what was that last part?
posted by Artw at 11:03 AM on June 21, 2007


Seems fine to me. The outrage is predictable, but misplaced.
posted by OmieWise at 11:05 AM on June 21, 2007


Was he on the clock? "Dozing in his apartment" doesn't indicate so - and that makes it his home, not his workplace, and not subject to workplace policies. Or am I totally misunderstanding?
posted by goo at 11:08 AM on June 21, 2007


Here is part of the company's response:

"In a signed statement by Mr. Bruley that we have released, he states he heard what sounded like a domestic dispute at midnight and then two hours later at 2:00 a.m. he grabbed his shotgun and went to the scene. When he left his apartment armed, he had no indication a gun was in play at the scene. He did not follow procedures and contact 911 at any time that night. We do not condone residents or associates jeopardizing their safety or the safety of others by intervening in police matters. Our policy does not permit weapons of any kind at the workplace for the safety of all."
posted by Outlawyr at 11:09 AM on June 21, 2007


Seems fine to me. The outrage is predictable, but misplaced.

Any and all outrage not directed to the Bush administration is indeed misplaced. However, a guy getting fired for acting as a good Samaritan? I don't see any reason why that shouldn't piss us off.
posted by Epenthesis at 11:10 AM on June 21, 2007


Outlawyr: Can you cite that somewhere? The story states that he heard a gunshot, grabbed his rifle, and went to the scene.
posted by triolus at 11:11 AM on June 21, 2007


Just because he was trying to help, and did help, doesn't mean he made all the right choices.
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


mister termite, as a self-employed gun owner, i'm willing to sacrifice your life to an unknown gunman in the adjacent apartment on the altar of gun control, but not my own, and what i do in that situation isn't your decision to make.
posted by bruce at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2007


He wasn't fired for saving the woman's life. He was fired for having a gun at his work. Nice editorializing, there.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:13 AM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


On a related note; this just goes to show that you should never help anyone and never be nice. It always backfires.
posted by triolus at 11:13 AM on June 21, 2007


He wasn't fired for saving the woman's life. He was fired for having a gun at his work. Nice editorializing, there.

Semantics.
posted by Snyder at 11:16 AM on June 21, 2007


I wish I knew more about the scene. Bloodied leg?
posted by voltairemodern at 11:16 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


He wasn't fired for saving the woman's life. He was fired for having a gun at his work. Nice editorializing, there.

He wasn't on the clock, he was fired for having a gun at his home. Nice editorializing, there.
posted by TungstenChef at 11:18 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


fandango_matt: He wasn't fired for saving the woman's life. He was fired for having a gun at his work. Nice editorializing, there.


No, he was fired for having a gun IN HIS OWN APARTMENT and using it to protect someone else. "Leaving it to the police" is horseshit... where I live, it would take the police at least 30 minutes to get to my house.

An employer can not strip you of your rights.
posted by triolus at 11:19 AM on June 21, 2007 [4 favorites]


He was fired for having a gun at his work.

Getting fired should be the least of his worries. Bringing a firearm into the workplace is a very serious deal.

It's not clear if he carried a weapon while on call prior to this incident, and if I worked around someone who decides to arm himself before coming to the job — for whatever reason — I'd be very concerned for my safety and the safety of my coworkers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:20 AM on June 21, 2007


No, according to the story:

"...his employers, the same people who own the Arlington complex where Bruley lives, reacted differently. They fired him.

Bruley, a leasing agent at the Oaks at Mill Creek, said he lost his job after being told that brandishing the weapon was a workplace violation, as was failing to notify supervisors after the incident occurred. He'd worked at the Monument Road complex since December and for the owner, Village Green Cos., since 2005."


Since he worked at the complex, that makes it his workplace.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:22 AM on June 21, 2007


Bringing a firearm into the workplace is a very serious deal.

Are you even reading? He had it in his home and responded to what was clearly distress in the wee hours of the morning in an apartment in the same building that he lives in. He did not bring a gun to work.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2007


Getting fired should be the least of his worries. Bringing a firearm into the workplace is a very serious deal.

It's not clear if he carried a weapon while on call prior to this incident, and if I worked around someone who decides to arm himself before coming to the job — for whatever reason — I'd be very concerned for my safety and the safety of my coworkers.


He lived at his job. He kept the shotgun in his apartment. He was a leasing agent, so he was not on-call, or working 24/7. If he was packing all day in his office, or bringing his gun to the Bippy-Mart, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
posted by Snyder at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


An employer can not strip you of your rights.

You mean along the lines of, say, drug testing?

Employers can do whatever they want, doubly so if they think that you don't have the financial means to engage in lengthy - and expensive - legal battles.
posted by dbiedny at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


The only thing stupider than zero tolerance policies are the pinheads that uncritically enforce them. ("I have no choice. The rules plainly say......")
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2007 [4 favorites]


It's not a handgun, it's a rifle, and apparently his home is located at his place of employment -- an apartment complex. So they fired him not so much because he "brought a gun to work" as the fact that he has a hunting rifle at all.
posted by cotterpin at 11:24 AM on June 21, 2007


Since he worked at the complex, that makes it his workplace.

So if you work as a building supintendant, you lose your ability to own a firearm? Bullshit.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:24 AM on June 21, 2007


He should have brought his gun to the meeting where they fired him, it might have ended differently.
posted by jonson at 11:26 AM on June 21, 2007 [7 favorites]


An employer can not strip you of your rights.

he can strip you of your job, however

it's obvious that his apartment was at the complex his employer owned, therefore he was carrying a gun on his employer's property

mister termite, as a self-employed gun owner, i'm willing to sacrifice your life to an unknown gunman in the adjacent apartment on the altar of gun control

bzzzzt - it's not a gun control issue, it's a private property issue ... an employer says he does not want employees having guns on the property, an employee violates it

So if you work as a building supintendant, you lose your ability to own a firearm? Bullshit.

if it's a condition of your employment that you don't have one on the property, yes

you are free to work for someone else
posted by pyramid termite at 11:27 AM on June 21, 2007 [6 favorites]


The complex where I live forbids its residents -- all its residents -- to have guns on the premises. The legality of this is fuzzy to me...on the one hand, you're within your constitutional rights to own a firearm, but on the other, waiving this right is written into the lease. In any event, if this guy signed a similar lease, he (as well as his neighbors!) violated it. And if those were the rules, and if everyone in the building had followed them, there would have been no incident to respond to in the first place. Just sayin'.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on June 21, 2007


>>Just because he was trying to help, and did help, doesn't mean he made all the right choices.

Hindsight from a comfy chair, in front of a computer, with plenty of time to consider the matter being 20/20 and all.
posted by SaintCynr at 11:28 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Aren't Constitutional rights statutory, in that you can't agree to be deprived of them?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:28 AM on June 21, 2007


a: The article does not say he heard a gunshot. It says he heard a scream.

b: His home was his workplace -- he worked for the apartment complex on site.
posted by The World Famous at 11:28 AM on June 21, 2007


Semantics.

It really isn't. I'm as pro-gun as they come, but they did not fire him for saving the womans life.

Now if they do in fact have policies which restrict him from having a firearm in the workplace, and he willingly continued to be employed by them, then this termination is justified.

I don't think it's appropriate, and I don't think what he did was wrong, and in the same circumstances, I like to think that I would have done the exact same thing.

But, that doesn't necessarily make the company that fired him wrong.
posted by quin at 11:29 AM on June 21, 2007


posted by Pope Guilty So if you work as a building supintendant[sic], you lose your ability to own a firearm? Bullshit.

That probably depends on the conditions of your employment with the owners of the building of which you are the superintendent.

If I was a building owner, I wouldn't want my super running around with a shotgun, either. I'd want him to call the cops and the ambulance and administer first aid. Building supers are not cops, and I don't want them pretending they are.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:29 AM on June 21, 2007


If I was a building owner, I wouldn't want my super running around with a shotgun, either. I'd want him to call the cops and the ambulance and administer first aid. Building supers are not cops, and I don't want them pretending they are.

So which private citizens are allowed to own guns?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:30 AM on June 21, 2007


you are free to work for someone else

Oh, so the people who don't like smoke can do the same right? And the smoking bans can go away? < /derail>

This is not a property rights issue. It's a civil rights issue. People in America have the right to own a gun. Period. The apartment complex can't stop their residents form having one, let alone an employee. You do not become a vassal to your landlord when you sign a lease (though they make you feel like one).
posted by triolus at 11:31 AM on June 21, 2007 [3 favorites]


you are free to work for someone else

Libertarianism only works if you want to pack heat.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:31 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, p t, he should've just run toward the sound of a gunshot unarmed. That would've been smarter.

i once worked at a gas station job where i was told there had been someone shot outside on the sidewalk

i went outside, unarmed, to check it out while my partner called the police

there had been two shot, one fairly seriously ... i flagged down the police car

i'm sorry that you don't feel that was an intelligent thing for me to do

i wonder if it's a matter of intelligence or courage
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


posted by Pope Guilty So which private citizens are allowed to own guns?

Only straw men who live on slippery slopes.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:33 AM on June 21, 2007 [10 favorites]


On preview:
And if those were the rules, and if everyone in the building had followed them, there would have been no incident to respond to in the first place. Just sayin'.

Right. There would no violence without guns. He couldn't _possibly_ have beaten, stabbed, or raped her. That couldn't happen without a gun.
posted by triolus at 11:33 AM on June 21, 2007


posted by triolus The apartment complex can't stop their residents form[sic] having one, let alone an employee.

Wrong.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2007


He was fired for having a gun at his work.

He was fired for a having a gun in his home.

His home also happens to be his place of work. And it seemed like he was in his "off hours" at the time, but as anyone who has every worked for the housing they live in know, the division between "off time" and "on time" can be fuzzy at best.

I don't own a gun, I don't like guns, but then again I'm a hardcore art wuss. But if someone hears a gunshot and cries for help, god bless them if they get it into their head to grab a gun and run to the scene to help, because I'll be the dude cowering in the safety of my living room or running in the other direction.

As I said I don't care for guns because I believe the bad clearly outweighs the good, but I can at least recognize that in some situations they provide a good. In this case it would have been great if neither the shooter or the Samaritan had a gun, but once the "bad guy" is armed it's good for "good guys" to feel they can defend themselves, if it means they will be more inclined to take action and help.

Of course soooo many MeFites are that brand of hard-lefties that I as a moderate-lefty tend to be embarrassed to be lumped together with at times like these. So I was expecting nothing less then a shitload of people happy to see a man fired for owning a gun in his home and using it to try and protect his fellow human beings. You never let me down MeFi!
posted by Jezztek at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2007 [8 favorites]


The articles are pretty unclear as to the situation. From what I understand, the guy was at work, heard a gunshot and a scream, grabbed his shotgun, and went to help the woman, who was bleeding heavily from the leg, and had collapsed. He rendered aid, and was later fired for having a gun on company property, failing to notify his supervisor of the incident, and failing to call 911.

Please correct my understanding of the scenario if it in incorrect.

Now, as to what happened, I think he did the right thing. I can't say that I entirely fault the employer for firing him, but given the particular circumstance, it seems like disciplinary action (for having the gun on company property, and for failing to follow protocol post-event) would be more appropriate.
posted by !Jim at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2007


This is not a property rights issue. It's a civil rights issue. People in America have the right to own a gun. Period. The apartment complex can't stop their residents form having one, let alone an employee. You do not become a vassal to your landlord when you sign a lease (though they make you feel like one).

On the other hand -- and call this semantics if you will, 'cause it may be -- they're not curtailing your right to own a gun; they're curtailing your right to bring a gun to their property. How all this works in terms of landlord/tenant law, I have no idea (i.e., how legal this actually is, I have no idea), but there is a distinction.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:36 AM on June 21, 2007



i'm sorry that you don't feel that was an intelligent thing for me to do

i wonder if it's a matter of intelligence or courage


If you had ready access to a weapon, and were trained in it's use, then yes, it would have been stupid, not courageous if you chose not to bring it.
posted by Jezztek at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2007


fandango_matt: He wasn't fired for saving the woman's life. He was fired for having a gun at his work. Nice editorializing, there.
But wasn't he a resident employee, akin to on-site apartment managers (who are usually residents given a moderate rent discount in return for being the on-site manager). It's not like he came from off-site with a gun, from what I'm gathering he woke up from his own apartment, where he legally had a gun (surely they can't forbid him from having a gun in his own home) and took it with him.


Larger question: what's with the lack of common sense in these situations? I.e., why is it so hard for so many people who are these paper pushing management types to just breathe in, relax, and put it all in perspective? Just take the simple "Technically you did something wrong- so if some emergency happens again, please make sure you tell us as soon as possible we we're not in the dark. Good work, but watch for that in the future, but in this case it turned out well." Problem solved- you don't wade into these PR nightmares where you just end up on the defensive.

It still never ceases to shock me that there are people so stupid as to think a by-the-book process-following idiocy will end up turning out well. Are they psychopaths or something, completely unable to foresee or understand how other people will react to their behavior?
posted by hincandenza at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2007 [10 favorites]


Right. There would no violence without guns. He couldn't _possibly_ have beaten, stabbed, or raped her. That couldn't happen without a gun.

Would have been tough to shoot her, I'd argue.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


i wonder if it's a matter of intelligence or courage

There's a difference between courage and foolhardiness.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2007


There's a difference between courage and foolhardiness.

there's a difference between experience and internet wanking
posted by pyramid termite at 11:40 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


"On a related note; this just goes to show that you should never help anyone and never be nice. It always backfires."
Unlesss......you are a character on the Seinfeld. finale.

Good Samaritan Law (wiki)
posted by HyperBlue at 11:41 AM on June 21, 2007


He had it in his home and responded to what was clearly distress in the wee hours of the morning in an apartment in the same building that he lives in. He did not bring a gun to work.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to carry a weapon into the workplace.

For those who bothered to read the article, he was not fired for owning and storing a firearm in his home.

Once he left his home, he "brandished" the weapon: entering the workplace armed. This is the basis for his termination.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:41 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


there's a difference between experience and internet wanking

Wow, you must be the only person to ever render aid to a gunshot victim. You're my new hero.
posted by Snyder at 11:41 AM on June 21, 2007


So which private citizens are allowed to own guns?

Ownership =/= running around the workplace brandishing a weapon.

This is not a property rights issue.

Sure it is. The owner of the property gets to tell the non-owners not to have guns on the property. The renters can still own guns, but they can't keep them on someone else's property w/o permission.

It's a civil rights issue. People in America have the right to own a gun. Period.

The right to own a gun is in no way implicated in this situation. You may be confusing the right to own a gun with what you think is the right to carry a gun anywhere you want and keep it anywhere you want, which is not a right.

The apartment complex can't stop their residents form having one, let alone an employee.

They can certainly prohibit the residents from brining firearms onto the property. They can most definitely prohibit their employees from brandishing firearms in the workplace. Try waving a loaded gun around your office sometime and see if you don't get fired.

You do not become a vassal to your landlord when you sign a lease (though they make you feel like one).

What does that have to do with anything?
posted by The World Famous at 11:42 AM on June 21, 2007 [6 favorites]


This is not a property rights issue. It's a civil rights issue.

what about an employer's civil right not to have firearms on their property?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:43 AM on June 21, 2007


It still never ceases to shock me that there are people so stupid as to think a by-the-book process-following idiocy will end up turning out well. Are they psychopaths or something, completely unable to foresee or understand how other people will react to their behavior?

As I tried to point out earlier, this guy is a victim of the zero-tolerance mentality that pervades everything nowadays. Organizations try to codify every fucking thing they can think of so, if anything unusual happens, no actual thinking has to take place.

It's only gonna get worse, because schoolchildren learn early on that by-the-book is the way situations are to be handled. It's why you see a story seemingly every month that a student gets sent home for possessing aspirin or mints that look like pills, etc.

Brains -use 'em or lose 'em.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:43 AM on June 21, 2007 [3 favorites]


Wow, wtf is up with all the "He brought a gun to work, so of course he should be fired."

He was at home, kids. Learn to read.

But his employers, the same people who own the Arlington complex where Bruley lives, reacted differently. They fired him.


Bruley said he was too shaken to call his supervisor immediately after the incident, which occurred just before 2 a.m., but planned to eventually do so.


It wasn't like he was working at a bank and kept an uzi in his desk. He was at home. It was the middle of the night. He heard gunshots.

Most of the people saying he deserved to be fired would probably stay in their apartments like cowards.

My favorite quote from this whole story:
When he left his apartment armed, he had no indication a gun was in play at the scene.


You know, aside from the SOUND OF GUNSHOTS.

Meanwhile...
Bruley said he found the woman bleeding heavily. He handed the shotgun to a neighbor, tied a tourniquet around her right leg and waited for police and rescue to arrive.

He wasn't waving a gun around, and apparently somehow emergency services were summoned.

After emergency officials took Lee to the hospital, Bruley returned to his apartment and tried to settle down, eventually falling asleep. He said he could have called his supervisor but didn't think she could do anything at the time. He said he was called into the office about 9:30 a.m., gave his account and then left. He said he was called back that afternoon and told he was fired.


So police and paramedics show up. They take her to the hospital. That's sorta like what happens when you call 911, isn't it? Remind me, what was it that he was fired for? Why should he think he needed to call 911 when the police and paramedics are already there? He gets home, says "Whoa, that was messed up!" and goes to sleep. It was probably 3 or 4 in the morning. He woke up and explained the event to his employers at 9:30 the next morning. Apparently he was supposed to know to wake up his bosses, who could do absolutely nothing about it, in the middle of the night.

The people who fired him are huge fucking douchebags, and I hope he gets lawyered up and cleans out their bank accounts.
posted by mullingitover at 11:44 AM on June 21, 2007 [13 favorites]


Metafilter: Nice editorializing, there.
posted by psmealey at 11:45 AM on June 21, 2007 [5 favorites]


Yeah Benny, my 5 year old was sent home from school for using his thumb and forefinger to emulate a gun. WTF.
posted by HyperBlue at 11:45 AM on June 21, 2007


Aren't Constitutional rights statutory, in that you can't agree to be deprived of them?

That is not the case. You can agree in a contract to not exercise a civil right. Happens all the time. For instance, a lot of contracts contain mandatory arbitration clauses, in which the signatories sign away their right to file civil lawsuits.

A lot of employment contracts for professionals contain secrecy clauses (where the employee explicitly signs away part of their right of free speech) and non-compete clauses (where the employee signs away part of their right to work for anyone who will offer them a job).
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:45 AM on June 21, 2007


Clickwrap, employwrap, where does it end? I still can't figure out the EULA on this can of pepsi.
posted by zerolives at 11:47 AM on June 21, 2007


Well, if you're feeling like formally expressing your feelings on the topic, here' where you should go. Please do not harass The Kinks.
posted by nanojath at 11:48 AM on June 21, 2007


An employer can not strip you of your rights.

pyramid termite: he can strip you of your job, however
So, if we have a 1st amendment right to religion, my employer can't prevent me from exercising my religious freedom in my personal life- but he can strip me of my job for holding religious beliefs? Wait- no, that doesn't sound right. That sounds illegal, actually... so why would the 2nd amendment be similarly curtailed? In this case, he owned a gun, in his home. Can they any more strip that right than they could have a "No Christians" rental policy on their apartment units?

The only fuzzy loophole here is when he was an "employee at the workplace" where they might be allowed to have a no-gun policy, and when he was a "private citizen" in his own home. Well, he can't be an employee 24/7 or they owe him a shit load of back overtime pay; so he must be "on-call" at best during the night time, and in that case was he "on-duty" when he responded? I think the argument can be readily made he was not, and that he was responding not to a formal "fix my leaky plumbing" request from a tenant, but as a private citizen.

So they can't realistically have fired him for *owning* or brandishing a gun, but they can fire him at-will- and doing so makes them look like utter fucktards.


Benny Andajetz: The only thing stupider than zero tolerance policies are the pinheads that uncritically enforce them. ("I have no choice. The rules plainly say......")
Right, that's exactly what puzzles me. Who are these people, and are they as emotionally broken as it seems? I can't imagine being so unimaginative that I wouldn't even think to simply ignore the rules when it was for the best.
posted by hincandenza at 11:48 AM on June 21, 2007


It might be useful here to explain that his being fired is not stepping on his Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment is related to what the government can and can't do, not private companies.

Much like it's not a violation of my First Amendment rights if I post confidential information about the company I work for, and they fire me. I have the right to speak, but they have a right to terminate me for violating their rules.

Now, it might be worth discussing if it is right that we allow companies to have policies that supersede those granted to us by the Constitution, but with the reality of the way thing work in the United States today, companies can most certainly dictate polices like this to their employees.
posted by quin at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Once again for the slow: He was not fired for owning a gun in his home, he was fired for brandishing the gun in the workplace.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:51 AM on June 21, 2007


He did not hear gunshots.
posted by The World Famous at 11:51 AM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Once again for the slow: He was not fired for owning a gun in his home, he was fired for brandishing the gun in the workplace.

Does that make it right?
posted by Snyder at 11:53 AM on June 21, 2007


Yes.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:54 AM on June 21, 2007


It's irrelevant he used the gun in a legal manner while rendering first aid to someone?
posted by Snyder at 11:56 AM on June 21, 2007


It's irrelevant he used the gun in a legal manner while rendering first aid to someone?

As it turns out, yes. Is it outrageous? Absolutely. Is it legal? Apparently.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2007


It's irrelevant he used the gun in a legal manner while rendering first aid to someone?

Yes.
posted by The World Famous at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2007


Does that make it right?

As a safety issue, I don't want my employees bringing weapons into where I work. Period. I don't care how well-intentioned they may seem after the fact. It's not even relevant.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2007


And since Blazecock Pileon is apparently a bit slow as well, he wasn't at the workplace, he was at his home. I mean, I telecommute every now and then- does that mean my apartment is now the workplace too, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Can I be fired for what I do in the privacy of my own home, even if legal, simply because my employer doesn't approve and the workplace now apparently extends to "all points in the space/time continuum"?

Unless.. well, this is where the "feudal cocksuckers/willing vassal" term is bandied about, because if you steadfastly refuse to see a distinction between the workplace and your private and life home... you're kind of a tool.

quin: Much like it's not a violation of my First Amendment rights if I post confidential information about the company I work for, and they fire me. I have the right to speak, but they have a right to terminate me for violating their rules.
Along with what ScdB said, isn't the clear distinction here that your employment included the contractual obligation to not reveal information pertaining to your work? I mean, they couldn't make you sign a document saying you wouldn't participate in the gay pride parade when it was a personal, private, non-work matter that had no bearing on your work? Clearly, there's a difference between "commercial speech that may be bound by a contract with civil repurcussions such as lawsuits or termination of employment/contract" and "the company gets to regulate EVERYTHING you ever say or do!"

Nice try, Mussolini.
posted by hincandenza at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2007


triolus writes "This is not a property rights issue. It's a civil rights issue. People in America have the right to own a gun. Period. The apartment complex can't stop their residents form having one, let alone an employee. You do not become a vassal to your landlord when you sign a lease (though they make you feel like one)."

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but he has not been evicted. He has been fired, but he's still living at the complex.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2007


he was fired for brandishing the gun in the workplace

He did not hear gunshots

So what? He did a good thing. He didn't use the gun. He didn't intend to use the gun in any kind of offensive ( as opposed to defensive) way.

Was what he did smart? Maybe, maybe not. He lived and worked there, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether a gun was reasonable or not. Are his actions worthy of inspection and discussion? Certainly. Was it wrong to summarily fire him because a rule was broken? Almost certainly.

What would everyone's reaction be if he went unarmed, didn't assist the victim, and got himself killed?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2007


What would everyone's reaction be if he went unarmed, didn't assist the victim, and got himself killed?

Do you even have to ask?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2007


As a safety issue, I don't want my employees bringing weapons into where I work. Period. I don't care how well-intentioned they may seem after the fact. It's not even relevant.

He was also a tenant, a private citizen on his own time in his residence, helping out another tenant.
posted by Snyder at 12:01 PM on June 21, 2007


And since Blazecock Pileon is apparently a bit slow as well, he wasn't at the workplace, he was at his home.

You don't do your opinion any favors by mischaracterizing the factual reason for his being fired.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 PM on June 21, 2007


posted by hincandenza And since Blazecock Pileon is apparently a bit slow as well, he wasn't at the workplace, he was at his home.

And since you're a bit slow, he wasn't in his apartment, he was at the scene of the shooting, which was on the property of his employers.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:02 PM on June 21, 2007


hincandenza writes "The only fuzzy loophole here is when he was an 'employee at the workplace' where they might be allowed to have a no-gun policy, and when he was a 'private citizen' in his own home. Well, he can't be an employee 24/7 or they owe him a shit load of back overtime pay; so he must be 'on-call' at best during the night time, and in that case was he 'on-duty' when he responded? I think the argument can be readily made he was not, and that he was responding not to a formal 'fix my leaky plumbing' request from a tenant, but as a private citizen."

He was responding to an emergency, and there is a clear policy for such, which he violated. I think I would have done the same thing, though I don't own a gun, so I can't fault the guy. But his employer is sticking to their policy.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:02 PM on June 21, 2007


He didn't intend to use the gun in any kind of offensive ( as opposed to defensive) way.

Defensively using a gun? What, shooting the other bullets out of the sky? Blocking bullets with the gun?
posted by The World Famous at 12:05 PM on June 21, 2007 [4 favorites]


I dunno, I think "outrageous" is a bit strong. Mind you, my feelings on gun ownership are far from cut-and-dried...the notion of a society where functional adults without criminal histories can't own guns -- where only agents of the state are allowed to own guns -- makes me nervous, frankly. And I think it's great that this guy rushed to this woman's defense. On the other hand, had I been a resident of the complex...walking back to my place late, let's say, or taking out the trash in the dead of night...and all of a sudden this silly fucker who thinks he's Bruce Willis is all hopped up on adrenalin and pointing a gun in my general direction? Frankly, that makes me pretty damn nervous as well. Were I a resident of that complex, I don't think I'd be outraged to learn that he had been let go.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:06 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


You don't do your opinion any favors by mischaracterizing the factual bullshit reason for his being fired.

Fixed that for you.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:09 PM on June 21, 2007


Hmm... given the current information, I'm leaning towards "it's within the company's rights to fire this guy and give themselves a bunch of bad publicity."

Defensively using a gun? What, shooting the other bullets out of the sky? Blocking bullets with the gun?

So you don't think it's possible to use a gun defensively? You'd have to rule out a ton of cases of "self-defense" where people physically fought back (not simply deflected an attack) in order to ward off or stop an attacker. Simply brandishing an gun can be defensive in itself.
posted by the other side at 12:12 PM on June 21, 2007


Hey I agree with the gun-nuts on this one. What happened to common sense? I mean, hey, maybe it's technically against regulations, but he saved this lady from a terrible fate, no? This guy was fired for using his own judgment, and for placing a higher premium on achieving a good outcome than he placed on following every ridiculous regulation to the letter.
posted by Mister_A at 12:14 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Defensively using a gun? What, shooting the other bullets out of the sky? Blocking bullets with the gun?

The "brains- use 'em or lose 'em" defense rests, your honor.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:14 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fixed that for you.

Well, at least if folks aren't repeatedly lying about him being fired for having a weapon in his home, that's progress, I guess.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:16 PM on June 21, 2007


And if those were the rules, and if everyone in the building had followed them, there would have been no incident to respond to in the first place.

Unless a visitor is on property with a concealed firearm. I bet ya' 'dollars-to-dougnuts' they don't have a security screening with metal detectors at the apartment complex.
posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on June 21, 2007


all the people on this thread who support the firing have a special obligation. if you're ever shot by someone, don't just yell "help, i've been shot, save me." you must yell "help, i've been shot, i'm a liberal, save me." that way, knowing in advance your scorn at my bringing a gun along to protect us while i try to save you, i have the option to respectfully and regretfully decline.
posted by bruce at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2007 [4 favorites]


Once again for the slow: He was not fired for owning a gun in his home, he was fired for brandishing the gun in the workplace.

And since you're a bit slow, he wasn't in his apartment, he was at the scene of the shooting, which was on the property of his employers.


That doesn't make it his workplace. He's a leasing agent. Does he do that in his apartment? In his neighbor's apartment? No. It does it at an office. An office that he was called into in the morning, as stated in the article. Could the office be in the same complex? Maybe. That still doesn't make his apartment his workplace.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


hincandenza : Along with what ScdB said, isn't the clear distinction here that your employment included the contractual obligation to not reveal information pertaining to your work?

Ok, and I believe the company in question here is saying that they had a contractual obligation with their employees to not have firearms in the workplace. (And before we have another go-around on this, when the gun was in his apartment, it was fine, the moment he took it into a common area it became 'having a gun in the workplace.')

I think they are making a mistake by firing a guy who did something heroic, but that is their choice. Just as it was his choice to work for them in the first place.

Nice try, Mussolini.

Awesome!
posted by quin at 12:20 PM on June 21, 2007


He did not hear gunshots.

From the first article: "When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg."
posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on June 21, 2007


Well, at least if folks aren't repeatedly lying about him being fired for having a weapon in his home, that's progress, I guess.

Good thing no one said that. Yes, he did take it out of the apartment, but, we wasn't just wandering around work brandishing it, either, as you imply.
posted by Snyder at 12:22 PM on June 21, 2007


There is one, and only one, lesson to be learned from this: Unless one is self-employed, it is unwise to live and work in the same place.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:23 PM on June 21, 2007 [3 favorites]


posted by Mister_A What happened to common sense?

When will we stop asking rhetorical questions?

posted by Mister_A I mean, hey, maybe it's technically against regulations, but he saved this lady from a terrible fate, no?

If by "terrible fate" you mean "bleeding to death/losing a leg," then let's be clear: he didn't use the shotgun to administer first aid.

posted by Mister_A This guy was fired for using his own judgment, and for placing a higher premium on achieving a good outcome than he placed on following every ridiculous regulation to the letter.

No, he was fired for bringing a gun to his workplace.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:25 PM on June 21, 2007


Here is the link to the employer's version of what happened:
http://www.jacksonville.com/images/062107/statement.pdf

If in fact Bruley signed a statement that says, "When he left his apartment armed, he had no indication a gun was in play at the scene" then that is pretty significant. It was 2 hours after the domestic dispute. The article says "When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg."

It was a scream he heard, not a gunshot. He heard someone scream she had been shot, but the dispute was 2 hours ago, and he signed a statement saying he had no indication a gun was in play when he grabbed his own gun and went running up there. It would be nice if the employer had just said, hey, no big deal. But they didn't. They fired him. Is that nice? No. Is it legal? Yes. Is it a good business decision? Maybe.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:26 PM on June 21, 2007


The "brains- use 'em or lose 'em" defense rests, your honor.

Then give me an example of defensive gun use.

Pretend for a moment that you're an employment lawyer asked by the employer to render advice:

Employee brandished gun in the workplace. Employer has unambiguous policy about it.

What do you advise them?

Consider future liability issues if he's not fired.

Odds of future liability of some kind related to not firing him? Non-zero.

Odds of liability for firing an employee who violated an unambiguous and lawful policy? Zero.

Do you advise your client to take the action with a non-zero chance of future liability, or the action with a zero chance of liability?

Do you want to know who the heartless people are who make these bright line rule decisions are? They're lawyers.

ericb: He did not hear gunshots.

From the first article: "When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg."


I assume you posted that to confirm that he did not hear gunshots.
posted by The World Famous at 12:26 PM on June 21, 2007


Simply brandishing an gun can be defensive in itself.

Or simply get you shot. Brandishing a gun, in and of itself, can also be viewed as a criminal act; an offensive act, as it were.

Read the article, sided with the company. Not sure what he planned on doing, really, as he neither confronted anyone with a firearm, nor could he use a shotgun as a makeshift tourniquet.

What would everyone's reaction be if he went unarmed, didn't assist the victim, and got himself killed?

Let's bat this strawman around, shall we? If he went unarmed, he'd have been, well, almost everyone else. If he didn't assist the victim, he'd have been heartless. If he had gotten himself killed, he'd have been dead.

None of those instances happened - he went armed, he assisted the victim, but, see, the third opposite never occurred. He didn't engage in a shootout to save her life, he never fired the gun, he, in fact, wasn't even supposed to have it on the premises.

Let's try a more interesting strawman. Replace every single instance of "shotgun" with "kilo of coke," and tell me then what you think? Same principle - it's something he wasn't supposed to have there, period. Doesn't matter if he saved her life while carrying around a kilo of coke, does it? He would've still been arrested for the coke. He still would've lost his job for possessing drugs in the workplace. However, I doubt folks would've been up in arms (excuse the pun) over it, because, well, we all know drugs are bad, right?

What clouds this issue is that there was a firearm involved. He wasn't supposed to have it, he was caught with it, case closed. The fact that, while being in possession of it, he also saved someone's life, is a separate issue. The firearm apparently had no role in saving her life, so I fail to see why it's a point of discussion.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:28 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Washington Post:
"The story begins at approximately 2 a.m. on June 12, when Bruley awoke to screams in his apartment complex near Jacksonville. The 24-year-old, who worked and lives in the complex, was on medical leave at the time and recuperating in his apartment. When he heard a female voice shout, ‘I've been shot,’ he grabbed his shotgun and rushed to the scene in only his boxer shorts.

His neighbor, Tonnetta Lee, had been shot in the leg in a third-floor ‘breezeway.’ A former hospital attendant and nursing school student, Bruley began administering first aid. He located the exit wound at the back of her right leg and surmised (accurately, as it turns out) that the bullet had struck an artery. He then removed Lee's belt and used it as a tourniquet, applied pressure to the wound and kept her calm until an ambulance arrived some 15 minutes later. His actions, according to the victim's family, ‘saved her life, or at least her leg.’

Covered in blood and still shaking from the incident, Bruley stumbled back to his apartment and attempted to relax. ‘It felt like I was coming down after drinking seven shots of coffee,’ he told me. He showered, called an old friend in Detroit and tried to fall back asleep. He did not, however, immediately call his supervisor about the incident.

The next morning, at about 10:30, he was called into the leasing office and asked to file an incident report. The victim's sister, Erica Jenkins, was also there, and she thanked Bruley.

When he was called back to the office that afternoon, he said, he thought that his employer intended to give him a commendation. Instead, another manager, on the phone from Cincinnati, said she was ‘very disappointed’ in the way Bruley handled the situation. Bruley was then fired for ‘gross misconduct,’ he says.

According to a complaint he says his supervisor gave him, Bruley violated The Village Green Company's rules by failing to notify his supervisor immediately and by brandishing a weapon in the workplace.

…Yes, Bruley may have deviated from protocol -- but he did so in an emergency situation. He put the life of his neighbor -- who was also his client -- ahead of his own safety. Which raises the question: Isn't this the kind of person any company would want as an employee?"

posted by ericb at 12:29 PM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


posted by oneirodynia That doesn't make it his workplace. He's a leasing agent. Does he do that in his apartment? In his neighbor's apartment? No. It does it at an office. An office that he was called into in the morning, as stated in the article. Could the office be in the same complex? Maybe. That still doesn't make his apartment his workplace.

Once he left his apartment, he was at his workplace and on his employers' property.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:29 PM on June 21, 2007


I mean, they couldn't make you sign a document saying you wouldn't participate in the gay pride parade when it was a personal, private, non-work matter that had no bearing on your work? Clearly, there's a difference between "commercial speech that may be bound by a contract with civil repurcussions such as lawsuits or termination of employment/contract" and "the company gets to regulate EVERYTHING you ever say or do!"

IANAL. My understanding is that there is no constitutional issue involved here. The reason that things like employment contracts are not permitted to contain clauses like "We may fire you if you become Muslim" is because Congress has acted to prevent such things from appearing in employment contracts. Such a contract clause could be challenged on that basis.

But it cannot be challenged on First Amendment grounds, because the First Amendment doesn't apply. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall not..." but doesn't say anything about what private citizens do to each other.

Based on what I've read, the issues are these:

1. Apparently the guy was fired for carrying a shotgun in response to an emergency situation.
2. The guy was on his own time.
3. He was in his home when he heard an altercation and grabbed the shotgun he legally owned, and carried it to the scene of the altercation, where it turned out he didn't need it, and ultimately didn't point it at anyone.
4. His "home" was an apartment provided to him by his employer, the complex.

So if this ends up in court, there would be lots and lots of fun legal issues.

1. Does his employment contract actually contain any clause pertaining to firearms, and exactly what does it say?
2. Does his employment contract actually apply to periods when he's off duty, even if he is living in company-provided residence?
3. Is the clause in question genuinely work-related? Could it be considered invalid according to statute?

I don't think anyone participating in this discussion knows enough about his contract, or the specific applicable law, to actually answer any of these questions.

I will say this: irrespective of the legal situation, this was a profoundly stupid act by the employer. It's a major public relations gaffe.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


Can't you get fired for attempting to stop a robbery if you work at some convenience stores or banks? The companies don't want the liability or potential increase in conflict the a "John McClain" can impose on coworkers, customers, police, and passersby.
posted by Debaser626 at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2007


"Right. There would no violence without guns. He couldn't _possibly_ have beaten, stabbed, or raped her. That couldn't happen without a gun.

Would have been tough to shoot her, I'd argue."

He could have shot her up with a crossbow.

Just saying.

----------

I have no idea of the legalities here and the description is a bit confused. But what I'm interested in is that some people almost seem critical of him getting involved, that he should leave it to the experts. Don't we want people to extend themselves? I admit that holding a gun when you're scared and not trained to military/LEO standards does bring some danger to others but this is a pretty extreme situation. Even if they are nervous or don't have the best idea of what to do I'm grateful some people are willing to respond just as ordinary citizens. Tragedies will happen as a result but I would rather they come that way than the disconnection present when Kitty Genovese was murdered. I think that by sticking to their zero tolerance policy here the landlords are removing a little bit of the inclination one has to respond to someone else's distress beyond making a phone call. For litigation reasons that might be all they want but I'm glad some would do a little more.
posted by BigSky at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2007


I can't believe the number of people so totally missing the point here. Really, it's shocking.

1. He is a leasing agent, not a "super". That means he has a cubicle in the central office that he performs his job in between regular business hours. He is not an employee of the apartments and on call 24/7. He's an office worker. He shuffles papers and shows people the pool and work out room.

2. He had a gun in his private domicile, which happens to be at the same complex he works.

3. The entire apartment complex is not "his workplace". His workplace is his cubicle at the central office.

4. I assume they have policies against having sex on the job as well. Does that mean he can't have sex in his own apartment at 2am?

Seriously, I can't imagine how some of you are arriving at your conclusions.

Absurd.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:33 PM on June 21, 2007 [5 favorites]


Oops... damn Post button...

I mean, if this guy had burst into her apartment, and the b/f was still there, and they had gotten into a shootout, perhaps sending bullets and buckshot through the walls, you don't think every one of those tenants involved (or potentially injured/killed) wouldn't sue the crap out of the property mgmt. company? It just makes sense. If you leave it to the police, the only entity liable is the state. I do agree it's bad PR, but like mentioned above, the publics' reaction is misplaced.
posted by Debaser626 at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2007


"Three months earlier Bruley received a commendation from the company for diffusing a fight on the property and treating the wounds of a man hit in the head with a baseball bat. 'I was told I handled that situation excellent,' Bruley said.

It seems the one thing Bruley did different this time was carry self-protection – which happened to be a gun. A touchy subject in some circles. But after listening to Bruley tell me about going deer and duck hunting while growing up in Michigan, I had no doubt he knew how to safely handle a gun.

Amazingly, the shotgun Bruley took with him had only one shell in it, and it was bird shot at that. If you know anything about bird shot, it’s the same thing Dick Cheney was using when he shot his friend in the face a few years back. It would have been enough to annoy somebody, but certainly not enough to bring someone down.

Given the fact that Bruley had only one shot, and that he did not know where the shooter was nor how many weapons or rounds he had, going out to find this shooting victim was a pretty gusty thing to do.

But know that he didn’t do this alone in Rambo-style. One of Bruley’s neighbors served 21 years in the US Navy, and it was the two of them together that went into the dark, calling out to the woman, 'Where are you?'

Bruley said 'I can see them terminating me if I was firing off rounds or if I had shot someone. But I didn’t do that. I saved a woman’s life.'

And that he did. He was the right person in the right place at the right time.

Here's why:

At age 18 Bruley took life support/first responder training, took nursing classes at college, and worked at a hospital—with a lot of experience transferring patients from the Life Flight helicopter to the emergency room.

'I had a lot of OJT dealing with emergency trauma situations,' Bruley said.

And that training paid off. They did not know where the woman was. He called out questions to assess the situation:
Where are you?
Where are you shot?
Where is the shooter?
Upon reaching the woman and examining the wound, he noticed an extraordinarily large amount of blood between the door of her apartment and where she was. He told his neighbor 'it looks like a femoral artery wound.' He handed his gun to the retired Navy man and applied a tourniquet, which he tended until the police arrived.

Bruley said that by the time the police arrived ten minutes later, he was pretty much covered with blood.

...in the ten minutes it took for the police to get there, she probably would have bled to death. The doctors told her the tourniquet had definitely saved her leg, and probably her life."*
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


"This is not a property rights issue. It's a civil rights issue. People in America have the right to own a gun. Period. The apartment complex can't stop their residents form having one, let alone an employee. You do not become a vassal to your landlord when you sign a lease (though they make you feel like one).”

My lease says I can’t have a fishtank, waterbed, or a dog. I can own one, just like this guy can own a gun, I just can’t take it on the property that is owned by my landlord.

I think this company is trying to send a message to any other employees. You’re not cops, you’re not supermen. If something like this happens, call the cops. Follow company policy.

What if two people responded with guns? One of them might have shot the other.

Yes, this guy might have saved this woman’s life. That’s good. He got fired as a result. That sucks. But he didn’t get fired for saving her life, he got fired because he violated company policy. Things very well could have turned out another way, leaving this guy or someone else dead. I don’t think his employer would want that hanging over their heads.

Also, a good Samaritan law holds people to different levels of protection, depending on their level of training. A doctor who gives a tracheotomy to a choking victim at the mall and screws up is not going to be protected just because he was trying to do a good thing. I don’t know if that would matter in this situation, but its possibly a factor.

All that said, I think this guy did The Right Thing. I hope I would do the same, regardless of the outcome.
posted by bondcliff at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2007


4. I assume they have policies against having sex on the job as well. Does that mean he can't have sex in his own apartment at 2am?

No, it means he can't have sex in a public area of his workplace.
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2007


Or simply get you shot. Brandishing a gun, in and of itself, can also be viewed as a criminal act; an offensive act, as it were.

Of course it can be (and is often) an offensive/criminal act. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
posted by the other side at 12:39 PM on June 21, 2007


ericb: He did not hear gunshots.

From the first article: "When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg."

I assume you posted that to confirm that he did not hear gunshots.


Yes, but more importantly he knew that someone had been shot ("I've been shot.") -- and it is reasonable for him to take a gun with him, sinse he suspected (as he has stated) that a gunman might still have been on property at the time he went to assist his wounded neighbor. With his previous emergency response training he appears to have followed protocol for such (i.e. shouting out "Where are you? Where are you shot? Where is the shooter?" and progressing to her assistance with another neighbor.)
posted by ericb at 12:40 PM on June 21, 2007


[...] which was on the property of his employers [...]

Employee brandished gun in the workplace.

Once he left his apartment, he was at his workplace and on his employers' property.

Sounds like spurious reasoning to me. If I have a job at a convenience store that has a dress code, do they get to fire me if I decided to buy a coke there one day and don't actually meet the dress code? Seriously? Employers get to dictate their employees' behaviour even when not on the clock?

I understand employment at will. I also understand that "he was brandishing a gun at his workplace" is a bs argument because the employee was not on the clock and was at his place of residence. That he might have worked in the same building is completely irrelevant if he's not on the clock. I also very much doubt the employer would be remotely liable for any illegal activity by an employee who is off the clock and at his residence.

I imagine legally the company had every right to fire him for any reason they felt like. It's just that the reasons given are complete bullshit.

On Preview: what Ynoxas said.
posted by splice at 12:40 PM on June 21, 2007


Also, I meant to add that if he were somehow illegally possessing the firearm in public, the police would have taken care of that detail.

In the absence of an "illegal possession of a firearm in public" charge by the police, then I think the apartment complex erred badly.

The complex was counting on this being a non-story. It became a huge story. They will suffer because of this.

Chances you take.

This guy needs to get back into medicine.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:40 PM on June 21, 2007


on reading ericb's comments, I was almost swayed, but I still must side (partly) with the company. Just because this fellow was calm and qualified to medically assist, doesn't mean that every employee will react in the same fashion. Still, if he had a decent job record, it shoulda been a write up at most. Additionally, they should be slapped with a hypocrisy charge for commending him in the earlier incidents.
posted by Debaser626 at 12:42 PM on June 21, 2007


posted by oneirodynia That doesn't make it his workplace. He's a leasing agent. Does he do that in his apartment? In his neighbor's apartment? No. It does it at an office. An office that he was called into in the morning, as stated in the article. Could the office be in the same complex? Maybe. That still doesn't make his apartment his workplace.

Once he left his apartment, he was at his workplace and on his employers' property.


No leasing agent I know works in the hallway, either.

The owner of the landscaping company I worked for also owned a cafe, on the same property, actually. If I stopped by the cafe and hung out for two hours on the weekend, can the owner fire me for taking an unauthorized lunch? I'm not on the clock. I'm not at my workplace. But you're arguing that because the people I work for own the piece of property, I could be fired for violating the terms of my employment. That makes no sense.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:42 PM on June 21, 2007


3. The entire apartment complex is not "his workplace". His workplace is his cubicle at the central office.

Is that your legal opinion, based on the legal definition of "workplace" in that jurisdiction?

4. I assume they have policies against having sex on the job as well. Does that mean he can't have sex in his own apartment at 2am?


If he was fired for having sex outside in the middle of the apartment complex where he works, nobody, including you, would be saying the termination was wrong.

ericb: If you know anything about bird shot, it’s the same thing Dick Cheney was using when he shot his friend in the face a few years back. It would have been enough to annoy somebody, but certainly not enough to bring someone down.

If you know anything about Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face, you'll know that his friend was most definitely "brought down."

But that's not relevant. I think this guy did the right thing, and I think it's unfortunate that he got fired. But I can see why it happened, and why an employer would make that decision. If he has a valid legal claim against them for it, I'd like to know what it is.
posted by The World Famous at 12:43 PM on June 21, 2007


What clouds this issue is that there was a firearm involved. He wasn't supposed to have it, he was caught with it, case closed. The fact that, while being in possession of it, he also saved someone's life, is a separate issue. The firearm apparently had no role in saving her life, so I fail to see why it's a point of discussion.

Well, the gun got him fired, so it's an important point of discussion.

I haven't argued about any legalities here, and I don't know whether the firing was reasonable or not. I am simply that, IMO, the population is more and more under the foot of martinets unable to comprehend the concept of extenuating circumstances.

I'll say it one last time - he did a good thing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2007


Does that mean he can't have sex in his own apartment at 2am?

No, but he probably shouldn't have sex in the 3rd-floor breezeway.
posted by NationalKato at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2007


that way, knowing in advance your scorn at my bringing a gun along to protect us while i try to save you, i have the option to respectfully and regretfully decline.

I am a reluctant supporter of (licensed, trained) gun ownership, and I will say that you are doing gun ownership rights a major disservice by casting his firing as some kind of violation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. Gun ownership right supporters have a hard enough time preserving their rights as it is: don't make it harder by lying about why this guy lost his job.

Good thing no one said that.

Actually, it was said repeatedly that this gentleman was fired for having a firearm in his home (example). This is an utter falsehood. He was terminated from his position, in the words of his former employer, for "brandishing" a firearm in the place of employment. This is not being publicly contested by him, or by his legal representation.

You may choose to reinvent this statement on his behalf however you please, but I suggest that it doesn't benefit your argument any.

Further, once you finally read the article and comprehend why he was fired, I suggest to you that any benefit from his having carried a weapon to the scene is post hoc rationalization.

The outcome could have gone any number of (bad) ways — such as a potential assailant taking his gun from him and harming others — which is one reason among many why employers have this policy in the first place.

The ends do not justify the means, and the Bill of Rights doesn't have a damned thing to do with why he was fired.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


It is not legally cut-and-dried that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms. I personally believe it does, but Supreme Court rulings go both ways on this.
posted by erikharmon at 12:45 PM on June 21, 2007


So, crappy things happen to good people.

This company may have discarded him, but if MeFi serves as any sort of cross-section of the community, there are plenty of people out there who support his actions. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders, all things considered. I'd wager most people would stand there dumbfounded letting the woman bleed, afraid to touch her until the cops rolled in. From this incident, he may very well end up in a much better position elsewhere with people who appreciate him.

Roll the bones. (/geddylee)
posted by aftermarketradio at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2007


>>The outcome could have gone any number of (bad) ways — such as a potential assailant taking his gun from him and harming others — which is one reason among many why employers have this policy in the first place.

To protect themselves from liability. Not to protect anyone else, not to save a life, not to have compassion, but to protect themselves from liability.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


and what i do in that situation isn't your decision to make.

Whether or not you keep the job you were given isn't your decision to make, either.

The guy should have immediately called 911 when he heard the gunshot. He chose instead to grab his gun and investigate himself. Whether he had a gun or not should be irrelevant to the opinion that he should lose his job.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2007


If he was fired for having sex outside in the middle of the apartment complex where he works, nobody, including you, would be saying the termination was wrong.

Not me, I encourage outdoor sex. If everyone was doing it, they'd be more relaxed and wouldn't be trying to fire people for stupid reasons.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ynoxas : 3. The entire apartment complex is not "his workplace". His workplace is his cubicle at the central office.

I think this would be pretty tough to defend; I have a cubical in my office building, but I'd be willing to bet that if I stood on any property that my company owns with a visible shotgun, and my boss found out about it, I'd get fired.
posted by quin at 12:51 PM on June 21, 2007


The guy should have immediately called 911 when he heard the gunshot.

He did not hear a gunshot.
posted by The World Famous at 12:51 PM on June 21, 2007


Yeah oneirodynia, that makes no sense at all. But you could probably get fired if you take a gun into the cafe.
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:52 PM on June 21, 2007


This is exactly why Batman doesn't carry a gun.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:52 PM on June 21, 2007 [5 favorites]


So if you work as a building supintendant, you lose your ability to own a firearm? Bullshit.

Sort of. You implicitly waive the right to own a firearm, which is not bullshit. You have all sorts of rights which you may have to choose to waive to take on some jobs.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:53 PM on June 21, 2007


He was terminated from his position, in the words of his former employer, for "brandishing" a firearm in the place of employment. This is not being publicly contested by him, or by his legal representation.

He doesn't have "legal representation" at this time. He is considering it:
"Bruley said he is considering contacting a lawyer about his dismissal, but will first look for another job and possibly another home. He promises he won't shy away from aiding others in need."*

posted by ericb at 12:56 PM on June 21, 2007


In any event, I'd bet this guy has had several decent job offers by now. Not to mention marriage proposals. He'll do ok in the end.
posted by bondcliff at 12:57 PM on June 21, 2007


So if he had a gun in his apartment, and then tried to carry that gun out to his car to drive off to do some duck hunting, then he should be fired for "brandishing a weapon at his workplace" because the area from his front door to his car is considered "the workplace"?

Absurd. Amazingly absurd.

You could come up with ridiculous things like that all day with very little effort.

The fact of the matter is that he was a private citizen acting on his own time.

Period.

If they consider him to be working 24/7 then I would file a gigantic back-pay lawsuit.

Again, think about police officers, or perhaps better, a mayor or city councilman, or utility worker. The entire city is their "workplace". That doesn't mean their behavior is governed anywhere in the city 24 hours per day.

Use a little common sense people.

If he was fired for having sex outside in the middle of the apartment complex where he works, nobody, including you, would be saying the termination was wrong.

Well, in most places, having sex in public would run afoul of indecency laws. So it would be illegal. What he did in this situation is not illegal, or at least wasn't in the eyes of the police that showed up.

What I'm saying is that if the entire complex is considered "his workplace" then if there is a rule about not having sex "in the workplace" then he could not have sex in his apartment, nor the apartment of any resident.

quin: an apartment complex is fundamentally different from any other business enterprise since private residents live there.

The common areas of apartment complexes are, for all intents and purposes, "public".

He carried a shotgun into public to assist another citizen.

If that is illegal, then the cops should have hauled him off.

But saying he was "at the workplace" when he was not in his workplace and not during business hours, it's just a hell of a stretch in my mind.

A hell of a stretch that I wouldn't have been willing to make for a shitstorm of negative PR.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:57 PM on June 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


posted by solid-one-love You implicitly waive the right to own a firearm, which is not bullshit. You have all sorts of rights which you may have to choose to waive to take on some jobs.

You don't waive the right to own a firearm. You agree not to bring firearms onto your employer's property.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:58 PM on June 21, 2007


posted by Ynoxas The common areas of apartment complexes are, for all intents and purposes, "public". He carried a shotgun into public to assist another citizen.

No, they aren't public. They're the employer's property.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2007


Actually, it was said repeatedly that this gentleman was fired for having a firearm in his home (example). This is an utter falsehood. He was terminated from his position, in the words of his former employer, for "brandishing" a firearm in the place of employment.

Since it could be argued that his home and his place of employment are, in fact, the same place -- and certainly that a cursory reading of the article in question could create confusion in the reader for this reason -- I really think you should take a deep breath, take it down a notch, and dwell for a moment in the very real possibility that no one here is attempting to reframe this scenario into a "lie" better suited to his/her agenda. Seriously, I'm imagining you bleeding out one eye here, and it's just not worth it, man.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:02 PM on June 21, 2007


In any event, I'd bet this guy has had several decent job offers by now.

"Bruley said people have offered to send him money, which he says he's refused, and at least two people have contacted him about a job."*
posted by ericb at 1:02 PM on June 21, 2007


MetaFilter = Moot court
posted by Cranberry at 1:03 PM on June 21, 2007


Actually, it was said repeatedly that this gentleman was fired for having a firearm in his home

That he had the firearm at home, and that he does not enter the workplace simply by leaving his apartment.

Further, once you finally read the article and comprehend why he was fired, I suggest to you that any benefit from his having carried a weapon to the scene is post hoc rationalization.

Dude, I fucking posted the articles. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them, so stop arguing in bad faith.

The outcome could have gone any number of (bad) ways — such as a potential assailant taking his gun from him and harming others — which is one reason among many why employers have this policy in the first place.

That's why you should never do anything more proactive then hiding and using the phone, ever. Because people trying to protect themselves while rendering aid could lead to an unfortunate outcome, we should just outlaw that in general. I generally think people should render aid that they are able, and should be able to protect themselves as well, but I'm a freedom over safety kind of guy. Does the company have the right to fire him? Probably, but it makes them small-minded and unnecessarily rules-beholden, especially when there were a number of other options they had.
posted by Snyder at 1:04 PM on June 21, 2007


If that is illegal, then the cops should have hauled him off.

It's not about illegality, it is about an employee's behavior on private property.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:04 PM on June 21, 2007


So if he had a gun in his apartment, and then tried to carry that gun out to his car to drive off to do some duck hunting, then he should be fired for "brandishing a weapon at his workplace" because the area from his front door to his car is considered "the workplace"?

Absurd. Amazingly absurd.


Would be, if your strawman had any weight. All sorts of ways to transport a gun from a house to a vehicle without carrying it, loaded, in the open air.

If they consider him to be working 24/7 then I would file a gigantic back-pay lawsuit.

They don't have to consider him 24/7. He's working in an at-will state, so they can give any kind of reason they like (or none at all) to fire him. He has no recourse.

The common areas of apartment complexes are, for all intents and purposes, "public".

False.

Use a little common sense, Ynoxas.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:06 PM on June 21, 2007


So if he had a gun in his apartment, and then tried to carry that gun out to his car to drive off to do some duck hunting, then he should be fired for "brandishing a weapon at his workplace" because the area from his front door to his car is considered "the workplace"?

One would assume that any attempt to transport a firearm to a hunting area would involve the gun being in a case (for legal transport in a car), I would argue that this would preclude it being 'brandished'.

If that is illegal, then the cops should have hauled him off.

No one is saying that it's illegal. Just that it violated terms of his employment.
posted by quin at 1:07 PM on June 21, 2007


It's not about illegality, it is about an employee's behavior on private property.

Then it's a good thing he got fired, 'cause we don't want to encourage bad behavior like lending aid to people in distress.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:08 PM on June 21, 2007



Then it's a good thing he got fired, 'cause we don't want to encourage bad behavior like lending aid to people in distress.

Fortunately for all us good-natured people that wasn't what he was fired for.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:12 PM on June 21, 2007


Then it's a good thing he got fired, 'cause we don't want to encourage bad behavior like lending aid to people in distress.

While brandishing a gun.
posted by The World Famous at 1:13 PM on June 21, 2007


Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them

Are you sure you read the article? Because this mischaracterization:

Man fired for saving life.

in no way agrees with the content of the article.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:14 PM on June 21, 2007


Seems fine to me. It's probably not the best PR move, but I there isn't any legal problem with it.
posted by dios at 1:16 PM on June 21, 2007


Colin Bruley did a good thing in saving Tonnetta Lee's leg a