No it is not. It very clearly explains the difference between him and a security guard and is entirely about the actions in this incident. You just don't want to hear.
You said he felt tough, and utilized a useless pejorative. Whether or not it is accurate is completely and utterly immaterial. The statement was positing that, contrary to your assertion, the act of going into a unstable area to protect property is not inherently foolish, and in no way renders one in any way responsible of the situation blows up. Did you not respond by casting an irrelevant aspersion on his motives, and insinuating that wanting to be a hero is a wrongful motivation and renders one liable for a non ideal outcome, while a hired individual intent on personal financial gain would be totally rightful in his conduct and being on the scene? That doesn't sound good.