Wow, that's differant.
Still I'm wondering what the full story is, generally speaking most disgruntled employees who were let go for legitimate reasons don't do anything to retaliate directly. Part of human nature I guess, when people know they did wrong. Most cases where you see things like this there is a legitimate greivence, and one the system can't address.
I can't condone his actions, but at the same token this is a guy who was just thrown out of his home (where he was living), what he did for a living aside, that's inherantly pretty harsh, since I'm guessing the guy was about to become homeless.
Totally unrelated, but as someone who has been treated unfairly by former employers, I've been a big believer that the system itself needs to give terminated employees more recourse in such cases. I don't think the existing systems go far enough. For example when you go to a hearing and it's found you were terminated without cause, the most you get out of it is unemployment (part of which your former employer apparently pays). In the case of unjust termination, which can have a massive effect on someone, I don't think that goes quite far enough. Nor does it really make much of an allowance for someone who was dependant on an employer for lodging, a vehicle, or similar things which they lose. In the case of disgruntled employees doing stuff like this, I think the situation could be averted if there was more teeth to the system so to speak.
I'm also (despite my general conservative leanings) a big supporter of unions, despite all the things that can go wrong with them. Do adult film actors have a union? I'm guessing not.