- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
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 must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.Ah, I see. That is much clearer.
The testimony given is that Gamboa had pulled out his weapon while hidden behind a barrier, and was in a firing position while running into the crowd is supported the video. At the very beginning of the video, it shows him walking, then running, while holding the weapon in his right hand.
I guess if he ducked away to surreptitiously pull the weapon out, he should have… I don’t know, slung it, rather than held it, and responded to the folks who drew on him, rather than try to run into the crowd.
I wouldn’t have stepped out of cover with my hands on it if that were the case. But also, if I were open carrying, I wouldn’t be wearing a ski mask.
Nothing about his actions read proper to me.I agree that Gamboa’s actions were at the very least inadvisable.
Pointing out: he starts running after the peacekeeper fires upon him, not before.
I don’t think we know what happened before that video started. Peacekeepers said they shouted at him to drop the weapon. Was he aware of their presence before they shot? What exactly was said?
The eyewitness accounts I’ve seen so far in the news seem perhaps one-sided and I’ve been speculating that the police could have put some trust into the statements of the peacekeepers that they interviewed.
Regarding his ski mask, SLC is a ski town. Many people own balaclavas, and I saw many people at the protest wearing them. I saw pictures of people at the Thursday protest wearing them as well. The organizers pointed out to be careful about taking pictures as some people might not want their identities revealed. Personally, I wore a mask.
A guy in a mask with a gun looks scary, and I don’t think what happened is surprising. However, many of the right wing militias open carry while wearing masks. They do so because it is legal and is in fact their right. What I’m ultimately saying is, given the evidence available, if I were on some (fantasy) jury, I would so far be thinking “reasonable doubt”.
Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of situation these nuts want to happen. “He was just exercising his rights.” He was there to intimidate, harass, and be a nuisance. Probably had wet dreams about some lib with a bat approaching him so he could claim self defense and be a “hero” like that other little bitch a few years back.
If a Democrat showed up to a Trump rally with a gun and a mask the cops would dump mags into them without hesitation.
Sure, but he was a leftist in a punk band with lyrics that were very aligned with the values of the protest. Personally, I’m not seeing the right wing mass shooter angle.
Edit: also not really seeing that his intention would be to get a rise out of the libs either… Though if he’s a leftist it could be that he despises libs just as much as he despises conservatives. I’ve just never seen a leftist act with the same intention as right wing militia guys before. But who knows.
These fucks always try to score legal kills, same as Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman. It’s not new, but innocent people always end up paying the price.
I’d like to see the video as well. If anyone has a link, would appreciate it.
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
It exists because of British troops disarming the populations of their colonies centuries ago, and is implemented in its current state due to a massive number of laws and court cases since.
The US Constitution should have been rewritten from scratch multiple times by now so outdated bits like that went away.
Do Americans not see how insane it is to allow such a “right” at a mass gathering? The risk is so obvious with literally no benefit.
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.
Your country is whack
Thanks, we know that. Got anything helpful to share with the class?
Your hearts are in the right place!
SOME of our hearts are in the right place
… maybe whack it (intentionally) a bit more until it resets?
(It’s not sarcasm; protest & topple the bourgeoisie that keeps you down.)
Yeah, we’re working on it. Things are just getting heated up now. It takes a lot of critical mass to do what needs to be done. That takes time, unfortunately.
If whacking it could fix the country, I’d have done so singlehandedly (sometimes two for variety) back in the 2000s.
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.
Nobody is being quiet about it, though. People are on the ground doing real things to try to change this. Like, ALL kinds of people. It takes time, and saying things like “your country is whack” isn’t helpful in and of itself. Saying “looking at this thing happening in your whack country right now” (like this post) is helpful. I didn’t ask anybody to solve our problems.
And we hope you change for the better!
Me too!
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.
Yeah, again we know our country sucks. What else do you have? Because if you seriously think that “It’s not anyone else’s problem” then, have I got news for you
Certainly isn’t my problem. The American ego that has been flaunting sole victory over the axis in world war two, discrediting valid economic models such as democratic socialism, placing military bases throughout the world… You guys have been so immensely egocentric and egomaniac that this is incredibly cathartic to see.
Can’t wait for your whole fucking cardboard empire to crumble and rot like it fucking deserves. You’re no better than anyone else. In fact you are way way worse. Welcome to your personal “shithole”.
Okay, you seem to believe that every American is somehow perfectly reflected by its government, which is reductive but I get it, you’re upset.
But if you live on planet Earth, whether or not it suits you, it absolutely IS your problem. My government is an extractive, imperialist bully. My government’s military is single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels and biggest single institutional emitter of greenhouse gases. My government has no qualms about making it your problem.
Pretending it’s not your problem is like pretending the neighbor’s house on fire isn’t your problem. You can get away with that for a while, but eventually you’ll burn too.
“lol. I’m so detached and yet bemused. Lmao. Lmao look how cool I am lmao lmao”
Boy if you don’t get off the computer
Removed by mod
Wow.
Do something about it 😏
This article is literally about someone being shot at
& killedbefore they could attack a big group of people who are “doing something about it.”Update on this, the guy being shot at was a punk activist who had open carried at other protests. He probably wasn’t an active threat.
The person who was killed was not the potential attacker.
My bad. I even read the article twice and still my brain got muddled. I’ve corrected my comment.
Protests without violence are just manifesting. They’re empty of consequences and meaningful change.
You guys are posturing and cosplaying as protesters lmao.
Statistically, that’s not necessarily true….
We are. It’s going to take some time, and it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better, but we are.
Why doesnt your country do something about it! Because honestly please?
We are doing something about it, but these things take time, and we are at the very beginning of the endgame. We can’t just say, “End this,” and it’s done. It happens in steps, and we’ve just started this journey.
One of the first steps is getting everyone on the same page, and that’s what’s happening now. The massive, growing protests are proof that this step is working.
Another step is getting warm, comfortable, well-fed Americans to understand that their comfort will soon be coming to an end of they don’t do something about it. Even if they do something, it’s a good bet that there will be a few years of ferocious unrest before things settle back down. People aren’t ready for that yet, but if the MAGA Nazis keep it up, they will eventually provoke people into fighting back.
There are political Red Lines they would be advised not to cross, such as suspending elections. That would cause an enormous resistance, probably violent. No reason to be polite to those who have stolen our country.
Then there are personal Red Lines, which are different for each person. Right now, I wouldn’t get violent because my family needs me to keep a roof over their heads. I can’t get thrown in prison or killed. But I have family members that are members of vulnerable groups that the MAGA Nazis have declared to be enemies. If anything were to happen to family members, especially my son, I would have nothing left to lose, and would become VERY dangerous.
Bottom line: I no longer have any fantasies about dying at an old age. I have come to terms with the idea that my life may have a twist ending I wasn’t expecting. If the time comes that I have to fight back, I will do it, but I’m still hoping to avoid it, and make the MAGA Nazis pay for their treason and crimes through legal means.
That’s what the protests are the beginning of, the US population has not had a very successful popular progressive movement since the 60s. We’re rusty and the younger generation are inexperienced at this but we’re gathering momentum.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Parker is with the organizers, and she confirmed that they were part of the safety team. Redd is with the police, and is relaying the word of the organizers but hedging the wording for PR purposes.
“Our safety team did as best as they could in a situation that is extremely sad and extremely scary,” said Parker.
It really couldn’t be more clear.
It’s not clear. So it’s the person who is in the green vest and fired a trained police officer or not? “Safety team” is a meaningless term that could mean guy with gun license up to cop.
So it’s the person who is in the green vest and fired a trained police officer or not?
Not. Peacekeepers are civilians doing cop’s jobs because cops have no requirements to protect and serve.
I did miss that bit in the full article, so fair enough. It certainly could be more clear though: they’re burying the lede pretty badly by opening with the wording that insinuates we don’t know.
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.
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.
Okay I’ll get to the point: In a situation where they and a large number of other people were credibly going to be shot at, what the fuck did you want them to do? Duty to retreat doesn’t save crowds.
But what else could we have done?
What I want done is to create strong gun legislation instead of encouraging citizens to play action hero and see the civilian shot in the crossfire as an unfortunate but unpreventable casualty.
EDIT - I’m addressing everyone’s comments here rather than copy-pasting the same response to everyone. I had only read the first section of the article, having been fooled by the wall of ads on mobile into believing that the first five paragraphs was the whole article. Without the additional explination and context in the remaining article I had believed that, when approached by volunteer security, the man with the rifle had attempted to flee, and the securities’ response was to gun him down, and an innocent caught a stray. It was insane to me that people thought to defend that, but as people pointed out that the rifleman was running towards a crowd with the rifle in a firing position, I was wondering how the hell people got that from the 5 paragraphs. I reloaded the article, scrolled past a full screen of advertising, and discovered there was a lot more depth provided in the article than I had realized. With a rifle aimed at civilians, the security volunteer was right to take the shot, because the intent for harm was clear.
I stand by this being a systematic issue that needs solving at the root, but in the moment the security volunteer handled the situation correctly.
You need to get yourself an ad blocker.
Yeah I saw a grand total of zero ads in that article lol.
That does absolutely nothing to address the current situation.
That’s great and I agree, but that’s not what we have now. What would you have them do differently in this particular situation with the resources, challenges, and restrictions we actually have, not what we want to have?
So did you want the shooter to instead walk up to the potential mass shooter and preach the benefits of gun control? Because otherwise you did not answer the question.
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.
You’d rather the protesters rely on the police to do this kind of thing? The group shooting them with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters?
Sorry, how many protesters were shot and killed by law enforcement this weekend?
Listen, I take your point, but the killing of random civilians isn’t better.
Believing police in the USA are anything near well trained or disciplined is naive at best. This incident is only one amongst many of the police using their firearm irresponsibly.
According to the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, applicants for a cosmetology license must complete at least 1,550 hours — or about 39 weeks if you assume 40 hours per week — of training at a licensed cosmetology school. The program must last a minimum of 10 months.
As of 2016, anyone who applies to be a law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer in Wisconsin must undergo 720 hours, or 18 weeks, of training — even less than what the Facebook post claimed. The training curriculum for jail and juvenile detention officers is 160 hours.
As always please read the articles for the full picture and nuance.
Wisconsin is not an outlier in this. There are many jobs in the USA that take more training than the police which do not carry deadly weapons and have blanket immunity to use them.
Believing police in the USA are anything near well trained or disciplined is naive at best.
Correct, which is why it’s not an opinion I expressed.
My statement was that giving untrained, undisciplined people weapons is a bad thing. The point was to address the whataboutism of “they’re out there shooting us right now,” not to defend the absolute joke that is police in the United States.
It’s hard to tell from this one report but it doesn’t seem like this was a particularly bad outcome. Of course it’s unfortunate that a bystander was killed but it sounds like they successfully prevented an even worse outcome. Besides, there are tons of stories of cops injuring or killing more than one bystander in situations like this. When it comes down to it I’m more inclined to trust the judgment of a commited private citizen than the police.
Now that I’ve discovered the rest of the article beyond the wall of ads, I agree. I had partial information, and wrongly believed it was all the information, as the blob of ads on my mobile device was a whole screen. That, combined with being on the way out the door in the morning, led me to believe I had read everything and everyone in this thread is insane. Thenn, someone made a specific reference to something I hadn’t read and I was prompted to go look, discovering there is much more article beyond our corporate sponsored break.
I legit thought they scared a dude with a rifle into fleeing, and then shot at him instead of letting him get away.
Hundreds have been shot by law enforcement the last couple weeks at various protests.
Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this.
Let’s try out the counterfactual: the assailant pulls out a rifle, aims it into the crowd, and nobody else in the immediate vicinity is armed. What happens next?
There’s a small chance he was just trying to scare people and disrupt the protest, but that sounds like the prelude to a mass shooting to me. It’s likely many more people would have died in that case. We can’t know of course and neither could the security volunteer; he had to make a hard decision in a split second in an emergency. He had to weigh the risk of shooting when he did against the risk of waiting, and he had the disadvantage of fighting a rifle with a pistol; it’s much easier to shoot accurately with a rifle, and the ammunition is more deadly.
The dude with the rifle was running. That whole argument is fine when someone is draw weapons and making threats, but they shot at someone trying to flee the scene after causing no harm and killed an innocent. Everything else is imaginary justification.
EDIT: Wondering where the hell everyone else got so much more information, I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text, which makes clear that the dude with the rifle pulled his gun into a firing position on the crowd. Fair enough, I was wrong and the citizen was right to have taken the shot. I blame the ad wall for convincing me that the news article was over.
I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text
That explains the confusion. Do you need a recommendation for an ad blocker?
Apparently using an adblocker and reading an entire article is American exceptionalism now.
According to the reports I’ve read, including in the toplevel article here, the sequence of events is:
- The rifleman separated from the crowd
- The rifleman pulled a rifle out of a bag
- The rifleman ran toward the crowd with the rifle in a firing posiition and pointed toward people
- The security volunteer fired three shots with a pistol, striking the rifleman and a bystander
- The rifleman dropped his rifle and fled
It’s easy to conflate running with fleeing, but running toward a group of people with a rifle pointed at them is charging, not fleeing.
He was running … TOWARDS the crowd.
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.
Police do this all the time. None of them ever get charged.
Yeah, I know, but they’re also heavily protected by unions. This guy maybe not so much
He’s also responsible for preventing a mass shooting. It’s a complex situation and I don’t really know at the moment what’s right.
Yeah don’t let those bystander deaths get in the way of a good thing now. Ok I do hear what you’re saying but I’m angry about it and can’t bring myself to disagree.
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.
