Guess the ND in the parking lot was not important?

[Hammerhead]

It was his weapon, right?

So if I pick up your bacon and throw it at, say, ATM, then it's your fault ATM was hit with bacon?

We don't know who was handling the firearm during the ND, just that there were people coonfingering a firearm.

For all we know, the ND could have happened while he was clearing the firearm for coonfingering, and the rifle discharged.

There has not been any further information revealed about the ND that I've seen, including in all the media reports and posts here from SnS.

The ND holds no bearing on why SnS was fired from his job.

 

[sepe]

So if I pick up your bacon and throw it at, say, ATM, then it's your fault ATM was hit with bacon?

We don't know who was handling the firearm during the ND, just that there were people coonfingering a firearm.

For all we know, the ND could have happened while he was clearing the firearm for coonfingering, and the rifle discharged.

There has not been any further information revealed about the ND that I've seen, including in all the media reports and posts here from SnS.

The ND holds no bearing on why SnS was fired from his job.

There is an easy solution to the possibility of clearing the weapon for show-n-tell....DON'T PLAY SHOW-N-TELL especially when the gun is loaded. No, it doesn't have any bearing on why he lost his job but if he was on property the security company provides a service to, I'd have not had a single issue with the owner/HR if they would have fired him that night or the next morning.

 

[j706]

Depending on the circumstances (Which we really don't know) he could be charged with a crime. If it was like it sounds and they were in an apartment complex fondling a weapon and acting stupid I would have charged him myself. Let the lawyers work it out. Someone could have easily been wounded or killed. Even if the weapon was pointed in the air that bullet will be coming down somewhere. There is no excuse for that type of nonsense. Oh and by the way....it is still not to late for him to be charged.

 

[bwframe]

...The ND holds no bearing on why SnS was fired from his job.

There is no way this can be known without all of the information. We do not have it. Only the account of the one who chose to leave the ND out of his story.

One thing is more sure than anything else though. If there had never been a ND, extremely unlikely we would be discussing this.

 

[NYFelon]

Depending on the circumstances (Which we really don't know) he could be charged with a crime. If it was like it sounds and they were in an apartment complex fondling a weapon and acting stupid I would have charged him myself. Let the lawyers work it out. Someone could have easily been wounded or killed. Even if the weapon was pointed in the air that bullet will be coming down somewhere. There is no excuse for that type of nonsense. Oh and by the way....it is still not to late for him to be charged.

I don't know your setback laws, but here it is unlawful to discharge a firearm within 500' of any building, structure, or dwelling house unless you have written consent from the property owner. Other than say, if you have a similar statute, what exactly would you have charged him with?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I don't know your setback laws, but here it is unlawful to discharge a firearm within 500' of any building, structure, or dwelling house unless you have written consent from the property owner. Other than say, if you have a similar statute, what exactly would you have charged him with?

Criminal recklessness has been used before in situations where a shot is fired "recklessly." An accidental/negligent discharge could meet that distinction.


IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this section, "hazing" means forcing or requiring another person:
(1) with or without the consent of the other person; and
(2) as a condition of association with a group or organization;
to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.
(e) A person, other than a person who has committed an offense under this section or a delinquent act that would be an offense under
this section if the violator was an adult, who:
(1) makes a report of hazing in good faith;
(2) participates in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report of hazing;
(3) employs a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2); or
(4) supervises a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2);
is not liable for civil damages or criminal penalties that might otherwise be imposed because of the report or participation.
(f) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) is presumed to act in good faith.
(g) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) may not be treated as acting in bad faith solely because the person did not have probable cause to believe that a person committed:
(1) an offense under this section; or
(2) a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the offender was an adult.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.31; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.323-1987, SEC.1; P.L.216-1996, SEC.17; P.L.1-2003, SEC.94; P.L.75-2006, SEC.3.

 

[NYFelon]

Okay, so similar to Reckless Endangerment here.

S 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of
serious physical injury to another person.
Reckless endangerment in the second degree
is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,
under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person.
Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.

Thank you sir. I thought it might be something like that, but I didn't want to presume.

 

[downzero]

But "reckless" is a higher standard than "negligent." Being reckless means more than just being an idiot.

 

[Doug]

He wasn't fired for criminal recklessness.
He wasn't fired for owning a dog.
He wasn't fired for having untied shoes.
He was fired because he declined to state whether or not he had a gun in his car.
And that is prohibited by law.

 

[actaeon277]

He wasn't fired for criminal recklessness.
He wasn't fired for owning a dog.
He wasn't fired for having untied shoes.
He was fired because he declined to state whether or not he had a gun in his car.
And that is prohibited by law.

Nicely stated.

 

[Hammerhead]

There is no way this can be known without all of the information. We do not have it. Only the account of the one who chose to leave the ND out of his story.

One thing is more sure than anything else though. If there had never been a ND, extremely unlikely we would be discussing this.

You are partially correct. The ND led to the illegal memo denying the right to possess a firearm (one the company didn't approve of) in his vehicle, and thus lead to the illegal questioning about the presence of said firearm due to the illegal memo (by then company policy). When the termination of SNS was conducted, they admitted that it was because of the illegal memo (policy) and illegal questions that he refused to answer.

I realize that the ND was stupid. I realize that the ND lead to the illegal memo/policy and illegal questioning. The former employer still did not fire him for the ND, but for the refusal to answer an illegal question due to an illegal memo/policy.

I highly doubt Guy would have taken the case and filed the suit otherwise. You did read the documents he filed with the court, didn't you?

 

[NYFelon]

But "reckless" is a higher standard than "negligent." Being reckless means more than just being an idiot.

I believe j706 was recommending the shotgun approach. Fling what poop you can and see if it sticks. If a prosecutor believes he can make the case for recklessness, he will file charges, don't you think?

He wasn't fired for criminal recklessness.
He wasn't fired for owning a dog.
He wasn't fired for having untied shoes.
He was fired because he declined to state whether or not he had a gun in his car.
And that is prohibited by law.

Yes, and it is admittedly somewhat off topic, but one of the LEO members said he would have charged and arrested the person in question. I asked under what law or statute he would affect such an arrest. Another of our resident officers answered with what he believes could be a probable basis for criminal charge. It was a secondary discussion, not entirely disconnected from the case in question.

 

[bwframe]

You are partially correct. The ND led to the illegal memo denying the right to possess a firearm (one the company didn't approve of) in his vehicle, and thus lead to the illegal questioning about the presence of said firearm due to the illegal memo (by then company policy). When the termination of SNS was conducted, they admitted that it was because of the illegal memo (policy) and illegal questions that he refused to answer.

I realize that the ND was stupid. I realize that the ND lead to the illegal memo/policy and illegal questioning. The former employer still did not fire him for the ND, but for the refusal to answer an illegal question due to an illegal memo/policy.

I highly doubt Guy would have taken the case and filed the suit otherwise. You did read the documents he filed with the court, didn't you?

The fact is that we have only heard one side of the story, correct? That side left out important information in the explanation. That in itself gives reason to question.

My apology if we have received the testimony of the employer and I am not aware. Have we?

 

[Doug]

You are partially correct. The ND led to the illegal memo denying the right to possess a firearm (one the company didn't approve of) in his vehicle, and thus lead to the illegal questioning about the presence of said firearm due to the illegal memo (by then company policy). When the termination of SNS was conducted, they admitted that it was because of the illegal memo (policy) and illegal questions that he refused to answer.

I realize that the ND was stupid. I realize that the ND lead to the illegal memo/policy and illegal questioning. The former employer still did not fire him for the ND, but for the refusal to answer an illegal question due to an illegal memo/policy.

I highly doubt Guy would have taken the case and filed the suit otherwise. You did read the documents he filed with the court, didn't you?

This is not in evidence.
The memo referenced the presence of a firearm; it did not mention the ND.
If the memo had said "Because of the negligent discharge of a non-approved weapon...etc," the ND might be related to the illegal actions and the firing. As it stands, the ND is not tied to the memo or illegal actions.

 

[KG1]

This is not in evidence.
The memo referenced the presence of a firearm; it did not mention the ND.
If the memo had said "Because of the negligent discharge of a non-approved weapon...etc," the ND might be related to the illegal actions and the firing. As it stands, the ND is not tied to the memo or illegal actions.

You are correct that the ND was'nt specifically referenced in the memo or policy but I think what he meant was the illegal policy prohibiting non approved firearms was adopted after the fact as a result of what happened with the ND incident and the point I think others are trying to make is that this whole illegal policy thing probably would not have happened if it were not for the ND incident therefore placing some of the blame at the employees feet.

 

[bwframe]

Any updates on this? Court date?

 

[RedneckReject]

There are many details left out here. Obviously they are left out for good reason. As with any lawsuit the less said the better. SnS has already probably said more than he should which is most likely why he hasn't posted anything else relevant to this. I do realize that in the beginning of all this he left out the details of the ND. Did anyone ever stop to think that he left it out because he didn't think it had anything to do with why he was fired? If I screwed up at work, continued to work for another 2 months, and was then told that I was terminated for something entirely different I probably wouldn't think my first screw up had anything to do with it. It's not like they fired him the next day or even the next week. Nearly two months went by. Also, no one knows exactly how or why the ND happened. Yes, it was a stupid move on his part. Yes, I'm sure he knows that, but don't make assumptions when the details aren't known. And to all the people who think he's "playing the game": shame on you. That kind of thinking is just deplorable. Someone is being frivolous because they sued an employer for willingly and knowingly illegally (that's a lot of adverbs....) terminating them? That's a horrible assumption to make. I'm fairly certain that (barring non-disclosure) everyone will know the details when all is said and done. Until then everyone will have to just wait and see. And no, there is no court date yet.

 

[TheCapulet]

You are correct that the ND was'nt specifically referenced in the memo or policy but I think what he meant was the illegal policy prohibiting non approved firearms was adopted after the fact as a result of what happened with the ND incident and the point I think others are trying to make is that this whole illegal policy thing probably would not have happened if it were not for the ND incident therefore placing some of the blame at the employees feet.

You can, in all seriousness, attribute some of the blame of a group or person violating the law to the victim of said violated law? If that's the case, I think you'll find a majority will steadfastly continue to disagree with you.

 

[bwframe]

You can, in all seriousness, attribute some of the blame of a group or person violating the law to the victim of said violated law? If that's the case, I think you'll find a majority will steadfastly continue to disagree with you.

What if all of the blame can be attributed to the "victim"?

 

[TheCapulet]

What if all of the blame can be attributed to the "victim"?

Then I think you'd be insulting Guy's intelligence. No sane man would take on a case he's destined to lose.

The only real info that we have is that some dude ND'd his gun one day. Then in an unrelated (a documented point by said employer) event, he was fired for not directly answering an illegal question. And we know that Guy Relford is on the case. Not only that, but we have evidence via forums that he's taken it upon himself to become an expert on the new IC in question. The last bits make me confident that it isn't likely a failing suit.