Table of Contents
Abstract
The varied facets of pressure facing individuals in the workplace and at school have resulted in horrifying incidences whose eventuality is preventable loss of life. In the wake of increased awareness of the dangers lurking from the very people we associate with, the propensity to own and possess a weapon has resulted to worse outcomes during these violence outbursts. As a result, most States have favored laws that make it illegal for one to carry a gun to the work place.
Introduction
The death of two individuals following a fatal shooting at the Ohio State University came as a shock to many, while to others; it was a disaster waiting to happen. The events leading to the shooting were a clear indication the eventuality owing to the nature and temperament of the shooter, in the period leading to the shooting.
Events leading up to the incident
The actions of Nathaniel Brown, a custodian at the State University of Ohio refreshed the memories of the fatal shooting that took place at the University of Alabama. His tenure at the educational centre was set to end after the expiry of his probation period. However, the incidence sparked an outrage owing to the fact that his problems, duplicated at work and home started in succession with his hiring.
The days prior to the incidence were marked issues that had an impact on Brown's social and professional status. First, his female companion terminated their relationship, thereby leaving him a distraught person. In addition, a looming foreclosure compounded his troubles. The financial pressure was augmented by the notice issued by a labor-relations manager in charge of his probation, implying that he was liable for discharge from probation within on March 13.
The past few months were characterized by reports about his inability to adhere to simple directions at work as well as a shift in his attitude.
The relationship with colleagues diminished over time owing to his heightened belligerence and inability to appreciate corrections. Similarly, his supervisors had previously insinuated that Brown was careless, lazy and inefficient as a worker (AP, 2010).
Facts about the incident
Brown, who had previous job-related issues, was posted to Ohio State University on probation where he worked as a janitor. His probation was to span a period of six months from October, a period during which he would be under close supervision of labor-relations managers.
After a change in the supervisory staff, he became irate and got along with neither superiors nor juniors. Owing to a learning disability and amnesia, Brown was unable how to operate the implements for his job in a proficient way. A former supervisor expressed their sentiments about the progression of events after his leaving, owing to the fact that the relationship between Brown and rest of the staff was already strained (Shuler, 2010).
In his application, Brown had included information that was confirmed false. He stated that he had never been discharged from work before as well as that he had never been incarcerated. However, he had actually spent five years in prison, between 1979 and 1984, and no references were sought regarding his past employment as indicated in his application. The job review process had produced results that were apparently not acceptable to Brown owing to the fact that he turned violence. However, the aftermath saw two people shot dead and Brown seriously wounded in a suicide attempt. The trauma sustained in the suicide attempt contributed to his death before the police could apprehend him (White, 2010).
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
According to Hutchins (2010), he dished out threats and menacingly harassed fellow employees prior to the incidence, after it became clear that the job review results were substandard and were not sufficient to earn him a job at the institution.
The offender
Brown was described by former supervisors as a good worker but devoid of ample social skills. In his previous position at the Bobb Chevrolet, his supervisors assigned a shift on his own, and observed marked improvement in his performance (White, 2010). His critical nature made it impossible for him to work around people. However, in spite of the ability to work in seclusion, in the days preceding the shooting incidence, he became overly possessed and edgy. Minute instances were enough to topple his world and his reaction measured monstrous levels. The inability to accept the turn of events precipitated heated exchanges with his supervisor
Police response
Decker & Gray (2010) outlined that quick response to the scene led to rescue of one of the victims, who was hospitalized. Owing to the facts surrounding the case, the law enforcement authorities speculated on the motive behind the shooting as being the poor job performance report accruing to a recent evaluation. However, the evidence was not conclusive as to whether the recent job appraisal solely triggered the violent response. The history of the shooter however pointed accusing fingers towards his mental state owing to a culmination of events preceding the incidence.
Changes implemented following the incidence.
The State of Ohio is specific about laws relating to possession and use of weapons. The law enforcement authorities are mandated to limit the availability of guns at the workplace to reduce instances of violence. As observed from the incidence discussed above, Brown left the premises and went to fetch his gun, thereby giving enough time for most of the employees to leave the site (Shuler, 2010). Had he been in possession of the weapon during work, or during the other times when his violent outbursts placed him in collision course with workmates, the magnitude of the fatality could have been greater.
Similarly, it is important to consider the fact there was no retaliatory responses by the workers who were attacked, since they were not armed. The haphazard use of weapons at the workplace precipitated by attacks is bound to culminate in numerous casualties. As a result, gun control remains the best line of defense against school and work-related violence, since no one is able to fight back as postulated by White (2010).
As a result, it is illegal to school or the workplace. However, in spite of the illegality of gun possession in the workplace and at school, the incidence is a blatant pointer that the statute is not deterrent enough. Tougher measures have to be laid out in order to protect individuals from the dangers lurking from those individuals with heinous ideas. It is imperative to recognize the signs of brewing violence from the change in behavior and conduct.
In spite of the fact that no students were injured at the scene, the students and school-administration increased the efficiency of email alert-system used by the school to warn students of any looming danger within the compound. The incidence, which took place in close proximity to classrooms, is a wake up call for people to institute measures to protect students and workers from people with ill motives (Decker & Gray, 2010)
Conclusion
The incidence at the university spelt out the need for individuals in different setting to appreciate the personality of each associates in order to improve the predictability of their actions.
Any change in their temperament should be cause enough to raise alarm as well as corrective measures. By downplaying obvious social issues that overbear on the judgment of workmates, the risk cultivated could precipitate fatal outcomes, as observed in Brown's case.