Worker Says Coworker Threatened to Shoot People if Fired — Then HR Planned to Let Him Go the Next Day

An Atlanta worker said a frightening workplace situation became urgent after a coworker allegedly threatened to shoot people if he was ever fired, and the company planned to terminate him the next day.

The concern was shared in a post on r/legaladvice, where the poster explained that her husband worked with a man who had made violent threats connected to losing his job. According to the post, the coworker had allegedly said that if he got fired, he would come back and shoot people.

That kind of statement is not ordinary workplace anger. People complain about managers, bad schedules, unfair discipline, or being written up. They may say they are done with the job or that they hope the place falls apart without them. But threatening to return with a gun after being fired crosses into a much more serious safety concern.

The timing made it worse. The coworker was reportedly going to be fired the next day.

That left the poster’s husband and others facing an impossible question: what should employees do when someone has made a violent threat and the exact event tied to the threat is about to happen?

The poster seemed especially worried because this was not a vague, distant concern. If the coworker had connected the threat to termination, and management was about to terminate him, then the workplace needed a safety plan before the meeting happened. Waiting until after the firing could be too late.

The post did not read like someone trying to create drama about an unpleasant coworker. It read like someone trying to understand whether police, HR, management, or someone else needed to be told immediately.

Workplace threats can put employees in a difficult position. They may not want to overreact if the person was “just talking.” They may worry management already knows and is handling it. They may also worry that if they speak up, they will be seen as stirring up trouble. But when the threat involves a shooting and the coworker’s firing is already scheduled, hesitation can feel dangerous.

The poster wanted to know what could be done to keep people safe. Should her husband report it to police? Should management be told again? Should employees refuse to come in? Could the workplace delay the firing until security or police were present? Would calling police make things worse?

Those questions matter because a termination meeting can be one of the highest-risk moments in a workplace when someone has already made threats. A company may plan to collect keys, cut off access, escort the employee out, and notify security. But if the threat is specific enough, a normal HR process may not be enough.

The fear was not only about the firing itself. It was about what might happen afterward. If the coworker left angry, would he come back later? Did he know employees’ schedules? Did he know where people parked? Did the building have security? Would everyone be warned?

The poster did not describe a final outcome in the initial question. She was asking before the termination happened, which made the situation feel especially tense. There was still time to act, but the window was closing.

Commenters did not treat the threat as ordinary workplace venting. Several people said the company needed to know immediately if it did not already, and that police or security should be involved before the coworker was fired.

One repeated point was that employees should not assume management has the full context. A coworker may make a threat around peers, but that does not mean HR understands exactly what was said, who heard it, or how specific it was. If the firing was happening the next day, management needed to be told plainly and urgently.

Commenters also said the threat should be documented. If the husband or other coworkers had heard the statement directly, they should write down what was said, when it was said, where it happened, and who witnessed it. The exact wording could matter, especially if police or company security needed to assess whether the threat was credible.

Some commenters urged the poster’s husband to call police if management did not act. The advice was not to wait until something happened in the parking lot or lobby. A threat tied to a planned termination was serious enough to report ahead of time.

Others suggested practical workplace steps: have security present, terminate the employee off-site if possible, disable access before the meeting, escort him out, notify employees, and avoid letting him return to the building alone. Those decisions would belong to management, but commenters said employees should push hard for a real safety plan.

There was also concern about workers being kept in the dark. If a threat had been made, employees who might be at risk needed enough information to protect themselves without creating panic. That could mean adjusting schedules, limiting access, or making sure people were not alone during or after the termination.

The post did not end with an arrest or a confirmed incident. It captured the urgent moment before a risky workplace decision, when employees knew enough to worry but did not know if the company was taking the threat seriously.

That is what made the situation so alarming. A firing can already be stressful. A firing after someone allegedly said they would come back and shoot people is not something to handle like normal paperwork.

Commenters pushed the same message from different angles: report it immediately, document the exact threat, make sure management understands the danger, and involve police or security if needed.

Because when a coworker allegedly threatens violence if fired, the safest time to act is before the firing happens — not after everyone is already hoping he was only talking.