Protester shot and killed at ‘No Kings’ rally in Utah, police say
Protester shot and killed at ‘No Kings’ rally in Utah, police say
Salt Lake City police say a demonstrator who was shot at the city's “No Kings” protest has died and that the bullet that killed him appears to have been fired by one of the demonstration's peacekeepers.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
As always, ACAB.
Why bring up ACAB in this situation? The police were not involved in either side of the shooting. Per the article’s description the rifleman pulled out a rifle and appeared to be readying to fire before a protest peacekeeper (not police) shot and injured him using a handgun. Unfortunately in the cross fire one protester was killed by the peacekeeper but it looks like this prevented a potential mass shooting event.
Unfortunately in the cross fire one protester was killed by the peacekeeper but it looks like this prevented a potential mass shooting event.
No. Some idiot larper fired into a crowd and then hit and killed the wrong person. He's the one that should be in custody.
honestly, it reads more like the man with the rifle pointed into a crowd and started advancing towards them. literally protecting others is not larper behavior. a larper would incorrectly identify the time and place, but it's not as though the shooting here was unjustified; an immediate threat to multiple lives was present. now, should the peacekeeper be the one to hold a gun? it doesn't seem like it. i am confused as to why they are not being pursued for charges but whatever, the system doesn't make sense to me anyway.
The guy had an AR-15 so could have just started spraying the crowd ... but he didn't.
The second part of that is assuming that those who saw him separate from the crowd 'knew' what he was going to do. They didn't. They may have suspected something was up so could have followed him or called police instead of shooting into a crowd and murdering an innocent bystander ... which is what the shooter was supposedly trying to avoid.
Did you miss the part where they confronted him and he raised his gun and charged at the crowd?
You should also brush up on the definition of murder.
That narrative doesn't really match with the video I saw at all. The protectors are across a street from him and pointing their weapons at him. They were far enough away that he may not have even been able to know they were talking to him. He is walking towards the crowd (and in range to shoot at them without getting closer if he was intending to do so) but is not pointing his rifle at them or holding it in a threatening manner. The video cut out as soon as he started running and I couldn't tell from it when the shooting actually started. But it's conceivable that he started running because he was shot. I'm not saying he didn't have malicious intentions but it's certainly not a cut and dry situation based off the evidence available.
Edit: heres the link to what I saw - https://imgur.com/a/z3J25EB
It really looks like a different story if you watch the video.
No, I saw that. Thing is he didn't shoot. They did ... into a crowd.
So who did the right thing here? The guy who didn't shoot or the guy who shot into a crowd?
You don't raise a gun and point it at people unless you intend to shoot it at them.
Should the peacekeeper have waited till he started spraying bullets until he fired on an obvious threat?
Maybe he should've waited until a few people got shot first. Or waited until there was at least a confirmed kill?
Should he have called 911 and said "officer there is a man here drawing an AR-15 on the crowd please hurry before he shoots somebody" and wait 15 minutes for the cop to arrive?
Like...I don't know what you expect here. If there's one time when it's acceptable to shoot first, it's when somebody already has a gun pointing at you.
This whole thing is a shining example of "good guy with a gun". It's the second-best possible outcome, only being better if Ah Soo weren't struck in the crossfire. .
Where in the video did he raise his gun?
I don't think you can see it in the video, but it is literally the first sentence of the article...
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.
"Brandish" is a specific word. It implies aggression.
brandish 1 of 2 verb bran·dish ˈbran-dish brandished; brandishing; brandishes transitive verb 1: to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) "menacingly brandished a knife at them"; 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner "brandishing her intellect"
If I were to brandish a rifle at you, you would have every right to shoot me first and ask questions later. Especially given the circumstance and current events.
I’m going to go with the evidence I trust, the video, as opposed to the word of the guy who was specifically told he was not allowed to have a weapon that shot into a crowd. So far the evidence leaves me with doubt of the official story being reported.
Edit: to add to this, I live in Salt Lake and have attended many protests with this very man not more than five feet from me, he’s a left wing gun protection and safety advocate.
Even if no one shot, pointing a gun and charging at a crowd is dangerous. Causing a crowd to panic can cause crushing deaths.
Regardless, when a gun is pointed at something it is to shoot. The basics of gun safety is to assume every gun is loaded and only aim at things you mean to destroy.
It's a bit unreasonable to defend the guy who rushed a crowd with a gun. However, it is completely understandable to criticize the person who shot into the crowd even if it was a defensive action.
Just to be clear here, the peacekeepers were civilians that organized themselves to defend protesters. Everyone involved in the shooting was a civilian. Police were only involved after the fact.
Police were only involved after the fact.
They chose to charge only one of the two people directly involved, and that's the problem.
The Lawyers for the county/state/nation are in charge of deciding if there is enough evidence for an arrest. The charges for the man with the rifle are fairly straightforward. If you are committing a crime and someone dies, even if you don't directly kill them, it is murder. Creating a panic in a crowd is a crime. All they need to prove in that case is he created a panic, and someone died because of it. They don't need to prove intent to kill, just to scare the crowd.
For the man who pulled the trigger, it will probably be a lesser charge. He clearly didn't intend to kill a bystander. So, they need time to collect evidence and to decide what charge to bring. That can actually take a while, and they might not feel that they can win a trial. In that case he would not be charged. It's way more complicated in his case.
No, it would be a problem to charge someone for a crime when they were acting in defense of others. The guy with the AR is responsible for the death of the bystander, not the guy who stopped him.
Also, police don't charge people with crimes.
So the peace keeper should have waited until someone was murdered before taking action?
So who did the right thing here?
The guy that tried to pre-emptively deal with a dumbfuck that brought a firearm to a public space to intimidate people who hold different political views than him.
You're making excuses for the person who initiated the problem, because you're massively pathetic.
Open carry is legal in Utah and several gun safety and advocacy groups are present and in support at every protest in salt lake, I’ve seen this guy before and have never felt threatened with him and his guns in the vicinity. Gamboa was allowed to have a gun, he had every legal right, the the guy who shot him specifically was told that he was to not be carrying a weapon.
You're buying into a propaganda narrative.
Watch the video.
Sounds like the cops are in the right here...
Gamboa was the idiot who pulled his rifle on a crowd of peaceful protestors.
The protestors, being smart, had peacekeepers who were defensively carrying.
One of the peacekeepers shot at Gamboa, and ended up hitting Ah Loo, who was (apparently) an innocent bystander.
Gamboa broke the cardinal rule of carrying a gun: don't point it at anything that you aren't planning to kill. Defensive peacekeeper took the appropriate action in disarming a very valid threat (especially considering the actions that MAGAts had been taking on protestors lately). Cops arrested Gamboa.
I've got sympathy for Ah Loo (and the peacekeeper that shot him)...but that death is on Gamboa. That's felony homicide right there. FAFO, Gamboa.
You posted this and even you didn't read the article?
2025 in a nutshell.
2025? This is internet tradition going much further back. No, not Reddit. MUCH older.
Not even internet, all news media back to local TV and and newspapers. Not all journalism is created equal, it's just easier to spot blatantly incorrect info when you also have videos posted to confirm yourself.
I based my comment on the following: the peacekeepers weren't supposed to be carrying weapons, yet one who did AND shot into a crowd - killing an innocent bystander - isn't charged. But they do charge another guy who had a weapon but never fired a shot.
So again, as always, ACAB.
Maybe next time, instead of assuming, you could just ask.
So you still haven't read the article you posted, huh?
The state's attorney can bring charges after an investigation, not some beat cop who stumbled into the situation.
Your hate is blinding you to reality my guy.
Pathetic loser says what?
So, you’re a pathetic loser, as you said the thing pathetic losers say.
Doesn’t actually look like the cops were involved in the situation at all.
Lol. You are one dumb loser.