You're fired !

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,261
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1852723/posts

'You're fired,' man hears after saving a woman's life (because he had a gun)
Florida Times-Union ^ | June 18, 2007 | Jim Schoettler

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

Tonnetta Lee survived Tuesday's pre-dawn shooting at her Jacksonville apartment, and her sister and a neighbor praised Bruley's actions. But 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. ...............................................................
 
more..............

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061807/met_178250725.shtml



By Jim Schoettler, The Times-Union

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


Tonnetta Lee survived Tuesday's pre-dawn shooting at her Jacksonville apartment, and her sister and a neighbor praised Bruley's actions. But 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.

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. He also said he was acting as a citizen, not an employee, and shouldn't have been punished for trying to protect himself and others. He never fired the shotgun.

"I was expecting work to give me some kind of commendation," said Bruley, 24. "I was totally blown back. It was a crisis that most people don't go through."

Andrea Roebker, the company's director of public relations, said "We're not in a position to discuss any employment issues outside of [with] the employee.

She declined to comment further, citing confidentiality rules.

A complaint Bruley said was given to him by his supervisor Tuesday said he violated several company policies found in an employee handbook. Those procedures were also explained in a recent meeting and an e-mail, the complaint said. One policy prohibits any type of weapons being used in the workplace. The complaint cited him for "gross misconduct."

"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."

A police report said the shooting followed a domestic quarrel involving Lee, 24, and her boyfriend. Bruley said he was dozing off in his apartment when he heard Lee's screams. He said he then grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun he uses for protection and hunting.

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.

"I was kind of in a state of shock. I had blood all over my body," Bruley said.

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.

Neighbor Kevin Courson joined Bruley at the crime scene when he saw Bruley had a gun for protection. Courson said he is incensed by the dismissal.

"Here was a guy trying to do a good deed. He wasn't trying to hurt nobody," said Courson, 31.

Erica Jenkins, Lee's sister, said Bruley should still have a job. Lee couldn't be reached to comment despite several messages left with her sister and mother.

"If it wasn't for him ... she could have lost her leg or died," said Jenkins, 19. "He put his life in jeopardy for someone else."

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.

"If I'd lose my job again for helping some girl's life ... I'd do it over and over," Bruley said.
 
Aside from his heroic effort and quick thinking he should be fired. He violated a company policy.

What if it was a no smoking building and he saved her and lit up to calm his nerves....violation....you're fired.

I don't disagree with the result.

Good for him for running to this woman's rescue but he should have left the shotgun where it was.
 
The ironic thing is that he didn't use the shotgun.

He'll probably get a job offer or several out of this. With luck, that is.

Darius, I don't know if we are raising a nation of cowards, but we do seem to be raising a nation of passive victims.

Gary
 
Aside from his heroic effort and quick thinking he should be fired. He violated a company policy.

What if it was a no smoking building and he saved her and lit up to calm his nerves....violation....you're fired.

I don't disagree with the result.

Good for him for running to this woman's rescue but he should have left the shotgun where it was.

That sounds a lot like "zero tolerance," or more like "zero intelligence."

Anyway, this man was on the Neal Boortz show and his contanct information was taken in the event that there were any job or housing offers.

Perhaps a, "Congratulations, however you violated our company's no weapons policy. We will record this incident without further punishment. Just don't do it again," would have been fine. But termination; Jesus...
 
I don't have all the details, but it seems like the guy was "off duty, at home". It seems like he gets a good deal apartment for working in the building. And from his apartment, he went to check on his neighbor - like most of us would do.
If he smokes in his apartment, does that violate workplace smoking laws?
I think he's got a pretty good case. It isn't like he left home with a shotgun to go to work.
 
"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."
Let me translate that for you all:

Colin should have immediately called his boss so that she could call the company lawyers. This would give them time to threaten him with loss of his job if he spoke to the newspaper, radio or TV reporters and also time for them to spin this in a way in which the apartments wouldn't look dangerous even though someone got shot, in violation of their no-weapons policy.

That help you figure out what they meant?
 
I don't have all the details, but it seems like the guy was "off duty, at home". It seems like he gets a good deal apartment for working in the building. And from his apartment, he went to check on his neighbor - like most of us would do.
If he smokes in his apartment, does that violate workplace smoking laws?
I think he's got a pretty good case. It isn't like he left home with a shotgun to go to work.

If he's off duty then I agree, it's a totally different issue and would argue that he had a pretty good case. I didn't realize he wasn't working at the time.
 
That sounds a lot like "zero tolerance," or more like "zero intelligence."

Anyway, this man was on the Neal Boortz show and his contanct information was taken in the event that there were any job or housing offers.

Perhaps a, "Congratulations, however you violated our company's no weapons policy. We will record this incident without further punishment. Just don't do it again," would have been fine. But termination; Jesus...

call it what you want...

the states impose smoking bans in restaraunts and everyone yells that it should be up to the business owner to restrict it or not. So what if he does and you smoke on the job....wouldn't you expect the bye-bye?

Now in this case the state didn't impose a weapon ban on this company and it's employees but the company did....and now it's wrong to fire a guy for carrying a firearm on company property? (if in fact he was on duty - in which case yes, her should be fired)

You can't have it both ways.

If you want businesses to have the freedoms to impose their own restriction without interference from the state you have to play by the rules.

or what is it? it's not a law so I'll carry there and sue when they tell me I can't?


Or is it because this guy came to the aid of an individual we need to overlook it?
 
Aside from his heroic effort and quick thinking he should be fired. He violated a company policy.

What if it was a no smoking building and he saved her and lit up to calm his nerves....violation....you're fired.

I don't disagree with the result.

Good for him for running to this woman's rescue but he should have left the shotgun where it was.


Do you really think running towards gunfire and a women yelling she has been shot without a weapon is a good idea?

It's gotten to the point that employer’s want their employee's to do absolutely nothing. Which means anything you do is basically at the expense of your job.

Do you think thats a good thing?
 
Do you really think running towards gunfire and a women yelling she has been shot without a weapon is a good idea?

It's gotten to the point that employer’s want their employee's to do absolutely nothing. Which means anything you do is basically at the expense of your job.

Do you think thats a good thing?

I don't have all the facts but lets suppose the woman was shot with an AR from a distance..sniper style.....

what the hell good is a shotgun going to be?

and no, I don't think it's ever a good idea to run toward gun fire. I think the guy is a hero. But if he violated policy then take the fall. According to the article he knew it was against policy.

But it was mentioned earlier that he may have been off duty in which case i don't believe the policy would apply to him if he was on his own time.
 
call it what you want...

the states impose smoking bans in restaraunts and everyone yells that it should be up to the business owner to restrict it or not. So what if he does and you smoke on the job....wouldn't you expect the bye-bye?

Now in this case the state didn't impose a weapon ban on this company and it's employees but the company did....and now it's wrong to fire a guy for carrying a firearm on company property? (if in fact he was on duty - in which case yes, her should be fired)

You can't have it both ways.

If you want businesses to have the freedoms to impose their own restriction without interference from the state you have to play by the rules.

or what is it? it's not a law so I'll carry there and sue when they tell me I can't?


Or is it because this guy came to the aid of an individual we need to overlook it?


The rule was against firearms while on duty. Since he was dozing off and said he was not acting as an employee, then I would say he wasn't breaking the firearm rule.

Or is it because this guy came to the aid of an individual we need to overlook it?[color]

If saving someone from dieing isn't a good reason to break petty rules, then what is?

Is it ok to let someone die if it’s against the rules to help them?
 
The rule was against firearms while on duty. Since he was dozing off and said he was not acting as an employee, then I would say he wasn't breaking the firearm rule.

Or is it because this guy came to the aid of an individual we need to overlook it?[color]

If saving someone from dieing isn't a good reason to break petty rules, then what is?

Is it ok to let someone die if it’s against the rules to help them?


The shotgun didn't prevent the woman fromn dying....

"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."

If he was off duty as the article indicates I think he should be allowed to keep his job. But I have doubts about his ability as a gun owner to just be handing a loaded shotgun to a neighbor.

But the shotgun didn't save the woman. His other actions did.
 
I don't have all the facts but lets suppose the woman was shot with an AR from a distance..sniper style.....

what the hell good is a shotgun going to be?

Statistically speaking, most violence in the US is conducted at bad
breath distances, even with guns. This lady being "sniped" would
be the severe corner case exception rather than the rule.

and no, I don't think it's ever a good idea to run toward gun fire. I think the guy is a hero. But if he violated policy then take the fall. According to the article he knew it was against policy.

Regardless of the policy that still doesn't change the fact that his employer
is a bunch of communist pansies. Yeah, I agree with property rights and all
that sort of thing, but this is an extraneous circumstance... not to mention he
was off duty when it happened. This isn't like the pizza hut driver in IN
who gunned down an armed robber and got fired for it. (Which, IIRC, he
just got a new job working for a more "RKBA friendly" non-chain pizza
shop. )

-Mike
 
Statistically speaking, most violence in the US is conducted at bad
breath distances, even with guns. This lady being "sniped" would
be the severe corner case exception rather than the rule.



Regardless of the policy that still doesn't change the fact that his employer
is a bunch of communist pansies. Yeah, I agree with property rights and all
that sort of thing, but this is an extraneous circumstance... not to mention he
was off duty when it happened. This isn't like the pizza hut driver in IN
who gunned down an armed robber and got fired for it. (Which, IIRC, he
just got a new job working for a more "RKBA friendly" non-chain pizza
shop. )

-Mike


I love that phrase and I agree with you. But knowing now that he was off duty I'm not sure they acted appropriately. But I have no idea what the conditions of his employment are and how they relate to his living there.

So having said that I'm interested to follow this to see how it plays out.

Either way he's a hero.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago I lived in an apartment in CT. The owner was an attorney in Hartford who didn't want his name known to anyone involved with the apartments.

There was a very nice "live-in" couple who managed the apartment complex for the owner. His compensation included a free apartment and some amount of money. For that he was essentially "on call 24x7x365". Whenever anything happened, we contacted them, didn't matter day or night, weekend or holiday.

There were three buildings with 24 apartments in each building (2 floors). There were no office hours or formal office on-site.

This is the problem with the story above. He lives on-site, he's really "never off-duty" when something happens . . . even though this incident is well beyond the bounds of "managing an apartment complex". His actions were really those of a concerned neighbor, nothing more or less . . . and that makes him a hero in any thinking-person's eyes.

However, since he lives on-site, is provided the apartment as part of his compensation, and essentially is "always on duty", the corporate rules may well apply to ANYTHING he does at any time! The mere fact that he possesses a gun on-site for hunting (off-site) may well violate their rules. He may well have given up all his "Constitutional Rights" when he took employment with them and accepted the apartment as part of his compensation.

The corporation is going to take a lot of (well deserved) heat for this decision and the publicity is going to all be negative (as it should be), but I think I do see the problem here.

They would have been smarter taking him aside and re-affirming the rules, "off the record" congratulate him on a job "well done" and sent him back to work.

Anyone who lives in the typical "paper walls" of an apartment building, hears a gun shot or someone yelling out they've been shot, is a damn fool NOT to arm themselves. You have no idea what you are going to face or if bullets will come flying thru the walls at you.
 
You can't have it both ways.

If you want businesses to have the freedoms to impose their own restriction without interference from the state you have to play by the rules.

I believe that the company was well within their rights to do what they did, however it is still my right to think their decision is Bravo Sierra.

Anyone who lives in the typical "paper walls" of an apartment building, hears a gun shot or someone yelling out they've been shot, is a damn fool NOT to arm themselves. You have no idea what you are going to face or if bullets will come flying thru the walls at you.

I think that reasoning applies to any situation where a shooting may be involved!
 
Last edited:
Many years ago I lived in an apartment in CT. The owner was an attorney in Hartford who didn't want his name known to anyone involved with the apartments.

There was a very nice "live-in" couple who managed the apartment complex for the owner. His compensation included a free apartment and some amount of money. For that he was essentially "on call 24x7x365". Whenever anything happened, we contacted them, didn't matter day or night, weekend or holiday.

There were three buildings with 24 apartments in each building (2 floors). There were no office hours or formal office on-site.

This is the problem with the story above. He lives on-site, he's really "never off-duty" when something happens . . . even though this incident is well beyond the bounds of "managing an apartment complex". His actions were really those of a concerned neighbor, nothing more or less . . . and that makes him a hero in any thinking-person's eyes.

However, since he lives on-site, is provided the apartment as part of his compensation, and essentially is "always on duty", the corporate rules may well apply to ANYTHING he does at any time! The mere fact that he possesses a gun on-site for hunting (off-site) may well violate their rules. He may well have given up all his "Constitutional Rights" when he took employment with them and accepted the apartment as part of his compensation.

The corporation is going to take a lot of (well deserved) heat for this decision and the publicity is going to all be negative (as it should be), but I think I do see the problem here.

They would have been smarter taking him aside and re-affirming the rules, "off the record" congratulate him on a job "well done" and sent him back to work.

Anyone who lives in the typical "paper walls" of an apartment building, hears a gun shot or someone yelling out they've been shot, is a damn fool NOT to arm themselves. You have no idea what you are going to face or if bullets will come flying thru the walls at you.

That would have been the wise thing to do. But even if all the publicity up front is negative, the apartment complex and its association have more than enough money to weather the storm (if any). They are just in CYA mode and they don't care one bit that this guy risked his life and lost his job doing a good deed. As someone mentioned earlier, they would have preferred the lady to stay put until police and rescue arrived. They want zero liability and you can't really blame them. They're in the business to make money and anything firearm related is veiwed negative by most of the public so they want to distance themselves as much as possible from that image.

I mean you have to admit that we all have firearms for personal protection. In other threads alot of poeple including myself indicated that it would take a lot to draw a firearm in defense of a stranger. And that is because of the risks associated with losing the LTC, firearms and possibly our freedom from such an act.

The state says you can have it but they really don't want you to use it. So this company took the position and made the policy that that they don't even want there emplyees to have it so there is absolutely no liability on them for any accidents associated with such. Like if the shotgun discharged and killed someone as he was passing it to the neighbor.....they want no part of that.
 
The guy reacted just as I would in that situation...

Sadly... I would not be suprised about the firing.

Most complanies have a zero tolerance weapons policy. I cannot dissagree with the decision to fire him.

But like he said, he would do it all over again.
 
Back
Top Bottom