3 ms·

While I agree with you in principle, there's more to it than that. There was another report that claimed that the employee suddenly refused to cooperate with a

• proactivesvcs 9y ago
  My take on "there's more to it" is that the employee had allegedly already caused two false alarms through his own actions. The fact that he made a written statement then refused any other cooperation suggests to me that, rather than shirking his duty by this act, perhaps he knows better than to dig himself a hole by trying to be "helpful".
• csense 9y ago
  > It's likely their lawyers told them to stop talking, and that we don't know the full story here Any defense attorney will give him this advice. My guess is the investigation into this is not looking to discover the truth, it's looking for someone to blame. And the lower they are on the totem pole, the better. If the investigation is an impartial arbiter only concerned with truth and justice, then the guy should cooperate. In the real world, it's probably a kangaroo court that will forget all exculpatory statements and amplify all damaging ones. So if he tells the investigators: "Yeah, I clicked on it, but the message told me it was not a drill, and my manager never advised me there was an ongoing exercise" Then the prosecutor will tell the court: "During questioning he confessed to clicking the button. It's an open-and-shut case, send him to jail!"