I think people are confusing his good deed of coming to the rescue of a neighbour and his "poor judgement" about brandishing a firearm. From the article it does not state or even suggest that the employer was firing him for his good deed but rather for the way he did it.

One might suggest that running out with a firearm was the only smart thing to do - going into a rescue situation where a shot had already been fired, take along some protection. But hey, isn't that part of the duty of the cops when they come to the aide?

Although it didn't mention it - the absolute first thing the guy should have done once he heard the gunfire and scream was to report the incident, call 911, even before investigating further.

Look at it from the cop's point of view - they arrive to a scene where they've been told that there was violence and gunfire and there behold is a guy with a shotgun. The cops would be on him in an instant, bagged and tagged and handcuffed the "good deeder" if he was lucky; shot dead in a mistaken identity if he was unlucky. Think again, did he really display good judgement?

Now from the employer's POV, they specifically had a rule regarding brandishing weapons and they were ticked that he didn't inform them properly in due course of the incident. Both legit reasons for canning the guy. Yes, from their POV, he did exercise poor judgement and in their opinion they felt justified in firing him.

My opinion is not necessarily the above. Selflessly going to help someone else in society should not be looked down upon, the intentions were great, the fulfillment of the actions were questionable.