Reading between the lines, it sounds like there may have been a fairly aggressive interchange with his employer and the employer was concerned, and maybe rightly so. I’m inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt.
Based on the information given, I am not.
You are giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that is controlling the release of information. He has been charged with nothing and was detained for exercising his second amendment rights. A person should not be detained for crimes they might commit.
I can see where reading between the lines might give one pause in this situation (what we know of it anyway) but think about this. There was no call for alarm until guns came into the picture. Legally purchased guns, I might add.
Also, notice that nobody took away this guy’s car. Are cars not potential weapons? Nobody asked for a psych eval before he purchased guns. Was he OK up until that point? The WHOLE issue here is that this guy, no matter how unstable, was considered just fine until he decided to purchase a gun. There is something very, very wrong with that picture.
Exit interviews at the point of termination can be and are often heated, with the terminated employee being angry.
Unfortunately for those in the private sector this happens thousands of times a day in the U.S.
Question, if the employee made threats of violence to the employer, why has this not been reported?
Why would it be kept secret?