Coworker Threatened to Shoot People if Fired — Then Police Waited Outside on Termination Day

A worker said a workplace termination became a public-safety concern after a coworker allegedly threatened to shoot people if he was fired, leaving other employees worried about what would happen when the company finally let him go.

The situation was shared in a post on r/legaladvice, where the poster explained that her husband’s coworker had allegedly made threats about shooting people if he lost his job. According to the post title, the coworker was scheduled to be fired the next day.

That timing made the situation feel urgent.

Workplace threats are serious even when nothing has happened yet. Employees may not know whether the person is venting, exaggerating, trying to scare people, or truly planning to hurt someone. But once a specific trigger is named — getting fired — and that trigger is about to happen, the concern becomes much more immediate.

The poster was not asking about ordinary office conflict. This was not about a rude coworker, a bad attitude, or someone complaining about management. The concern was that the coworker had allegedly said he would shoot people if terminated, and the termination was imminent.

That left employees and family members in a hard spot. The company may have been handling the firing internally, but the people who worked there had to think about their own safety. Should employees still show up? Should police be warned? Should the coworker be fired off-site? Should security be present? Could someone refuse to come in if they believed the situation was dangerous?

According to the headline angle from the original post, police were part of the discussion around termination day. That changed the story from a private workplace worry into an official safety situation. Once law enforcement is involved, the company is no longer treating the threat as simple workplace frustration. It suggests someone recognized there was enough concern to prepare for possible escalation.

Still, the poster wanted guidance. When a threat is known ahead of time, no employee wants to feel like they are being used as a test case for whether it was real. The safest termination plan would need to consider employees, parking lots, entrances, timing, notification, and whether the person had access to the building after being fired.

The post did not describe the coworker actually carrying out the threat. It captured the tense period before the firing, when everyone knew the risk factor and had to decide whether the company’s precautions were enough.

Commenters generally said this was not something to handle casually or leave only to office gossip.

Several people told the poster that police should be notified if they had not already been. A specific threat involving a workplace shooting tied to an upcoming firing is exactly the kind of situation where law enforcement and company leadership need to be aware before the termination happens.

Others said the company should have a safety plan. That could include police or security nearby, firing the employee at a controlled location, disabling access badges, collecting keys, warning reception or front-desk staff, and making sure employees were not left alone in vulnerable areas.

Commenters also talked about documentation. The people who heard the threat needed to write down what was said, when it was said, who heard it, and whether the coworker had repeated it. A vague “he said scary things” report is weaker than specific details about the threat and timing.

Some people urged the poster’s husband to take his own safety seriously. If he felt unsafe going to work that day, he could talk to management about working remotely, staying away during the termination window, or leaving early. No paycheck is worth ignoring a credible threat.

There was also advice not to confront the coworker or warn him in a way that could make the situation worse. The company and police needed to handle the termination carefully. Employees should not try to personally talk the coworker down or challenge him about the threat.

The post did not end with a detailed outcome from the firing. It ended with the question of how seriously everyone should treat a threat before the trigger event happened.

That is what made the situation so alarming. The coworker had allegedly said what he would do if fired, and the firing was about to happen.

Commenters did not tell the poster to assume it was only talk. They told her the threat needed to be documented, reported, and planned around before termination day arrived.

Because when a coworker threatens to shoot people if fired, the danger is not only what was said. It is whether the workplace takes the warning seriously before the moment everyone already knows could set him off.