4w ago

Protester shot and killed at 'No Kings' rally in Utah, police say

A man who was believed to be part of a peacekeeping team for the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City shot at a person who was brandishing a rifle at demonstrators, striking both the rifleman and a bystander who later died at the hospital, authorities said Sunday.

Police took the alleged rifleman, Arturo Gamboa, 24, into custody Saturday evening on a murder charge, Salt Lake City Police Chief Brian Redd said at a Sunday news conference. The bystander was Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, a fashion designer from Samoa.

Detectives don’t yet know why Gamboa pulled out a rifle or ran from the peacekeepers, but they accused him of creating the dangerous situation that led to Ah Loo’s death. The Associated Press did not immediately find an attorney listed for Gamboa or contact information for his family in public records.

News @lemmy.world

HellsBelle @sh.itjust.works

4w ago

Protester shot and killed at ‘No Kings’ rally in Utah, police say

apnews.com /article/utah-no-kings-protest-shot-killed-75c777eeedd59c80c85695c45385c507

85 comments

allegedly saw Gamboa separate from the crowd of marchers in downtown Salt Lake City, move behind a wall and withdraw a rifle around 8 p.m., Redd said.
When the two men in vests confronted Gamboa with their handguns drawn, witnesses said Gamboa raised his rifle into a firing position and ran toward the crowd, said Redd.
That’s when one of the men dressed in the vests shot three rounds, hitting Gamboa and Ah Loo, said Redd. Gamboa, who police said didn’t have a criminal history, was wounded and treated before being booked into jail.
Emphasis mine. If that's true, that could have become a mass shooting.
Still sucks to be the innocent bystander though.
- Yes, this is a tragic and complex way to have averted a mass shooting but that appears to be what happened. After being shot non-critically it appears the shooter lost their nerve, threw their rifle in a bag and tried to run/rejoin the crowd.
  I've been bracing myself for the disgusting politics to hit. Like I can feel right wing pundits hand wringing to show the armed protesters 'have no idea how to handle guns.'
  Adding fuel to the fire, we had a shooting last night at a multicultural festival where three were killed, one being 8 months old.
- Others have discovered that Gamboa has carried his rifle at other "non-right" protests while dressed in a similar manner. They may be a case of the shooter being jumpy.
  
  Maybe he was a wannabe Rittenhouse. Set up situations where he can claim self defense despite placing himself deliberately in situations that are potentially inflammatory.
  
  I would argue he should have carried his rifle the whole time and not concealed it in a bag and pulled it out amidst the crowd before I consider the jumpiness of the person trying to keep the crowd safe.
- That's what I thought at first, but the video doesn't support Gamboa raising his rifle. Video is short, and I'm not saying I know the whole story. But another likely possibility in my mind, based on the video, is that Gamboa was attempting to legally open carry. In hindsight might not be the best thing to do at a protest, but it's his legal right. For now I think it's best not to jump to conclusions.
  Edit: video link https://imgur.com/a/z3J25EB
  
  What video?
  The traffic cam video? The detail on that is horrific. I would not attempt to create any theories from that.
  If there’s other video to support your statements, can you link it?
  I’d say that his actions were not legal or sanctioned. He had the rifle concealed in a carrying case, which he waited until he was middle of a crowd, whereupon he removed it, and regardless of whether or not his handling of the weapon met the legal definition of brandishing it, he still handled it in a manner that incited panic.
  If he wanted to open carry, he should have had the firearm openly carried the entire time he was at the protest (including his outside approach to it) and he should have never put his hands on the weapon.
  
  Was that the video where one of the peacekeepers pulls the backpack away from the person and starts shouting about how he has a rifle, and then cops descend on the guy with the rifle?
  If so, that might have been them later detaining the peacekeeper who shot the guy who ran into the crowd (the same peacekeeper who accidentally shot the Samoan bystander)?
  Or maybe not. This whole situation is very confusing.
  Edit: Or more likely, the guy with the rifle who was called out and detailed by cops wasn't the volunteer but instead was the guy who initially ran at the crowd. Either way, it's still a confusing situation.
  
  but it's his legal right.
  One of the stupidest laws in existence
Your country is whack
- Thanks, we know that. Got anything helpful to share with the class?
  
  ... maybe whack it (intentionally) a bit more until it resets?
  (It's not sarcasm; protest & topple the bourgeoisie that keeps you down.)
  
  I’m sorry, let’s all be quiet about the murders happening at peaceful protests; the man who is attempting to install himself as god-king of the western world; the knee that this god-king is bending to Russia; and all the human rights violations occurring daily across the country so that you can keep living in your whack country in peace.
  A person doesn’t need to have an answer to a systemic clusterfuck in order to call it out, and calling it out reminds us that none of this is normal. If we stop calling the US whack, then people start accepting the whack-ness as the new normal.
  
  Your hearts are in the right place!
  
  And we hope you change for the better!
  
  Do something about it 😏
  
  Lmao cope and seethe some more, Americunt. Maybe choke on some burgers while at your local school shooting while you're at it.
  Your country fucking sucks. Deal with it lmao. It's not anyone else's problem but your own. So keep coping.
- WE KNOW
- Not the whole US. Here in Lemmy you get to know a lot of very reasonable people and the No Kings protests showed they are real people too. Yes, the USA state is too damn tangled with some of their founding fathers ideas, which are obsolete, their hegemonist mindset and a stale democratic system, but reading and listening to this people has been refreshing lately. I'm really proud of these people finally getting out, taking to the streets. Just hoping they will be prepared for a long and hard fight.
Wait, so, trying to follow this: someone pulled a rifle on protestors, so a "concerned citizen" pulled a gun on that person, shot, missed, killed a bystander, and then shot again? Am I following this right? And the person being held accountable for the death is the guy who initially pulled the rifle, not the random citizen firing a weapon into a crowd?
Is this that "American exceptionalism" I keep hearing about?
EDIT - Nevermind, there's a lot more detail after the wall of ads that convinced me the article was done.
- No, you are not following it right and clearly responded based on the one sentence headline and your assumptions. It was a dedicated safety person as part of a team, not some random person. They were there to defend against violence directed at the protesters.
  Redd said the man believed to be part of the peacekeeping team, dressed in a neon green vest, fired three shots from a handgun at Gamboa, inflicting a relatively minor injury but fatally shooting Ah Loo. Redd did not share the man’s name.
  When the two men in vests confronted Gamboa with their handguns drawn, witnesses said Gamboa raised his rifle into a firing position and ran toward the crowd, said Redd.
  It absolutely sounds like they stopped a mass shooting event, sorry it wasn't perfect.
  
  ~~No, I am responding based on the whole article.~~
  What the fuck does "believed to be" mean in this sentence? Why do we not know? Were they hired protection? Are they a trained professional? Or are they an idiot with a gun who thinks they're an action hero?
  The article is very unclear on this front.
  EDIT: Ha, no I wasn't. Ad space is pervasive, and I had believed I had read the whole article when I had only read like a fifth of it.
- There's something in many US States called the felony murder rule. Utah is such a state. Essentially, if a person commits a serious crime (a felony) and someone else dies as a result of that crime, that person can be charged with murder even though they might not have been directly responsible for the death.
  In this case, a man with a rifle was threatening the lives of peaceful protesters. That is a felony. The people present to protect the protesters fired on him to keep him from killing other people. Sadly, an innocent bystander was killed. Had the rifleman not committed the felony in the first place, the bystander would be alive today. Thus the guy with the rifle is being held responsible for that death.
- Yeah i dont get it either. In a normal country the guy who shot the other person dead would be under arrest for manslaughter, or grievous bodily harm (or equivalent) at best. It'd be the job of the DA to decide if a charge would proceed, or a jury to decide if the charge is valid.
  They killed a guy by firing unsafely into a crowded area, and they are from what I can read - a volunteer in a green vest, whom was asked by event organizers not to carry a gun. Not law enforcement, not hired security, no guarantee they have any weapons training - yet they're apparently fine to shoot people they deem a threat and walk off home-free, even if they accidentally shot someone else dead. "Oh, that was your dad? My bad - I missed".
  
  Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don't just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.
  Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They're not trained professionals, and they're definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It's actually fucking despicible.
  
  Christ up a tree, that was an untrained volunteer who fired and killed an innocent bystander? And was told not to carry? I had assumed police were doing security. I hope the idiot gets charged with at least manslaughter. That was entirely irresponsible. I'm sure the charge is going to land on the arrested guy but honestly the volunteer is responsible for unsafely firing.
- I'm not from Utah but it is weird even for the USA. They keep saying the "believed to be a peacekeeper". This makes me think maybe they had hired security of some kind who were allowed to be armed but no one else at the protest was? Again I'm not familiar with gun laws in Utah.
  
  I think it was volunteers who had taken on the responsibility of responding to threats to the protesters. They weren't specially blessed to be armed, just wearing vests to let other people know they were friendly and carrying for defense. The guy with the rifle was probably also legally allowed to carry a weapon but was doing it in a way that seemed threatening.
  
  That is police talk trying to avoid being declarative before they confirm the facts, it doesn't imply they disagree.
- And the person being held accountable for the death is the guy who initially pulled the rifle, not the random citizen firing a weapon into a crowd?
  I mean, yes? Pulling a gun on someone is functionally a declaration you intend to shoot them, so self-defense rules apply. Brandishing a weapon is also a criminal act, so it's pretty clear-cut. Without people running security and forcefully responding to threats a fascist will open fire into one of these one day. We have no idea whether that was the case in this instance, which is exactly the point.
  
  "A person believed to be part of a peace keeping team" and "people running security" are not the same thing. At a glance this looks like the "good guy with a gun" mythos that pro-gun advocates keep spreading cost an innocent person their life.
  If this is professional security who fucked up, sure, there's a discussion to be had. If this is a volunteer peacekeeper who showed up strapped, he is part of the problem, not the solution.

85 comments