4 ms·
>The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that. This is the part I
by codewright 14y ago
>The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that.
This is the part I would have qualms with. The problem is that the presentation of context in the filing isn't great. I saw a one-liner that mention Nguyen telling somebody else about Dunphy having a Glock or something.
>I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun.
Please no. Not what I was getting at. I'm mostly concerned with the dissonance in what the filing is trying to convey versus how it might be perceived.
Mentioning that somebody carries a firearm in itself isn't a threat, it's heavily contextual. I have little trouble imagining that Nguyen was mentioning it in a threatening manner from what's provided in the filing though.
- rhizome 14y agoThe 'presentation of context in the filing' is only to establish some circumstance, the very definition of "context." the details will come out in court if it gets that far.
- trhtrsh 14y agoThere are different laws for concealed carry vs open carry, and "brandishing" a weapon is a crime. It is very much a relevant issue to determine the context in which a gun is mentioned. Connecting a firearm mention to an otherwise unrelated statement is quite reasonable interpreted as an implied threat to use the firearm.
- mjwalshe 14y agoAnd there is a lot of specific case law in terms of guns in the work place which many employers do have problems with.
- justin66 14y agoAfter reading #44 through #50 it's completely unclear what problem you could have with the way the information was presented.