Man gets fired for doing good deed

Just ran across this news article about a man who was fired from his job at an apartment complex after grabbing his gun and running to help an injured neighbor. The complex where he lives is owned by his employers, for whom he leases property for from another location. The reason they give for his dismissal was that he "demonstrated extremely poor judgment in responding to this situation" & his "failure to immediately report the incident could have serious ramifications to the property, its associates and residents." I was wondering, how many of you guys would've done the same thing? I know I would've...

the guy did the good thing and get's fired for it...unbelievable!

To bad that his employers weren't the ones that got shot, then they wouldn't ***** about it if he would have helped them...



There's a smart man.

Five will get you ten the "failure to report incident to supervisor" issue is just a smokescreen. The employers are obviously of the opinion that gun owner = dangerous nut case. It's a common prejudice, and like most prejudices, based on ignorance and/or misinformation. Had he NOT armed himself before investigating, and just rendered the emergency aid, the employers very likely would have commended him.

Frank2135

It's always possible that they wanted to get rid of him anyway, and this incident provided the pretext.

I hope he wins his lawsuit. He'd have a good chance if I were on the jury.

IMO, he did the right thing. He heard screaming and gunshots and ran towards it. Thats what I call bravery. Think about it, those gunshots coulda been from anything. He didn't know if it was some nut like in the VT shootings or if it was some sorta terrorist attack. By grabbing his firearm, he prepared himself for whatever danger he or anyone else in the area was in. If this guy or someone like him was @ the VT shootings, I feel that it wouldn't of gone so far...I also hope that he wins his lawsuit.

One really good reason to not live in a building your employer owns; you are always at work and perhaps under your employers stupid policies in your own home.
I wonder how this hashes out legal wise? Did he forfeit his personal rights because he lived in his employer's building?
What about basic rights in your own place of resisdence rergardless of who owns the property?

He definitely did the right thing. You don't run towards gunfire unless you have a gun; even then maybe run the other way. He was a hero.

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.

Echo that. All of it, right down not agreeing with the logic path used in his dismissal.

If I was him, I might seek damages on the grounds of loss of livelihood (and possibly shelter) and cross my fingers.

This supposes that they are nearby and not 5+ minutes away working a traffic stop or wreck and that's if its inside the city limits. It gets even worse if its one of the places in the county with city limits on three sides and the county line is the fourth.



Showing up what sounds like more than a couple minutes after the shooting where people are obviously rendering aid to the victim would seem to require a bit more investigation.



Yes in the work place. Unless the guy was working the hootowl shift, he has a good case for arguing that he was not at work since he also lives there and it was 2am.



Like they were going to accomplish what at 2am? I'll agree that he should have notified them when they first got in the next morning & they shouldn't have had to call him to the office.

Not really. Merriam Websters online defines "brandish" as:

1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

I don't see where he "brandished" anything. Admittedly, a shotgun is not the most inconspicuous weapon around. I guess he should have hidden it under a long black trenchcoat.

Seriously, from the article it appears that he could have been fired for carrying any weapon--including the knife he presumably used to cut the tournequet. IMO his boss is a bit of a jackass.

Perhaps he should have called 911 first, but I am by no means sure of that. Equally likely: the 911 operator's SOP would be to keep the caller on the phone as long as needed to get all the details needed for response, and at the point where he heard the screams, he did not have those details. IMHO the time involved with the 911 operator would have kept him from going to the victim's aid.

As I read the article, when he saw the victim's injuries, he handed the shotgun to a bystander while he applied a tourniquet. How the bystander handled the gun when police arrived is not clear, but since there is no mention of his arrest, etc., the emergency response personnel apparently did not feel threatened by the situation. The point is, the guy who was fired can hardly be accused of brandishing a weapon, and I don't agree that he used poor judgment under the facts made public so far.

Frank 2135

"Colin demonstrated extremely poor judgment in responding to this situation," the complaint said. "Colin's failure to immediately report this incident ... could have serious ramifications to the property, its associates and residents."

Just how would his calling at 2 a.m. (and probably getting a recorded message) have changed the situation?

I think the bottom line is that he was fired for simply getting involved. Pathetic.

A follow-up article said "The story hit a record on Jacksonville.com with more than 485,000 page views, and the Times-Union received more than 300 e-mails from as far away as London and Australia - all but one in favor of Bruley. Many of the responders mentioned their support for Bruley to carry his weapon."

It also said the gunshot had severed an artery in his neighbor's leg. She could have bled out in 1.5 minutes if it was a large artery (which wasn't specified).

BTW, did you notice the poll results to the question "Should Colin Bruley have been fired?"
1577 votes NO (96%)
57 votes YES (3%)

Sue