- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
Really? Come on man…
Oh look. A conservative traitor instigated the violence.
I am many shades of unsurprised.
Domestic terrorists folks. Every last one. Because they’ve all chosen to support it despite knowing. Time to start treating them like the terrorists they are.
You mean the thugs hired by 50501?
I know Arturo, and if you did any sort of due diligence, you’d know he’s a hardcore leftist.
If you think Arturo was a ‘conservative traitor’, I think you have more problems with simply accepting what our right wing media apparatus chooses to push.
I assume the national guard and marines will roam the syreets of SLC now.
What I’m reading is that the guy with a rifle, Gamboa, has attended protests armed before. It looks like the peacekeeper thought he was a shooter, but there’s no evidence so far Gamboa did anything illegal.
Yeah in another thread there’s an interview of the rifleman from his time in a punk band talking about the system. This is likely going to be a shit show when the partisan pundits pick it up
Yea what I read was that he was “pointing a rifle at protesters”.
Don’t aim a gun at a person if you are not ready to fight and die.
I would argue this is not only self defence, but public defence.
Edit: looks like its not completely clear if he was brandishing the rifle or just open carying, obviously my argument doesn’t technically hold water if he was just open carrying.
I would also argue that open carying a weapon well know for use in mass shootings right next to a large crowd is probably a dumb idea even if it’s legal to do.
It looks like the peacekeeper thought he was a shooter
As he should.
Brandish a firearm in public, you are attempting to intimidate others, so you’ll get treated like the terrorist you are.
Isn’t this what the NRA wants? Sounds like a good guy with a gun stopped a potential mass shooting.
I just posted elsewhere, but in short, there’s no proof that Gamboa brandished a gun, and I’ve seen a video which looked like he was pointing the rifle downward. Not saying it can’t go the other way once more info comes out, but just like when you shouldn’t automatically take the police’s word when they shoot someone, we shouldn’t take the word of private security.
Pedantic arguments about the word brandish are pointless. He was walking through a crowd with a a rifle and wearing a mask. We don’t like it when the cops do it and shouldn’t tolerate it when anyone else does either. It’s too risky for us all and mass shootings are a real danger here.
Is it pedantic when it means the difference between life and death?
I’m not saying I agree with someone open carrying at a protest. I’m saying if that’s all they’re doing it’s not appropriate to charge them with murder, when if they were only open carrying it would be the security officer who overreacted and shot an innocent bystander to death.
A situation we could have avoided if there were stricter gun controls, but there aren’t.
I agree with you, but if you look at the video he’s not pointing it down holding it weakly, he’s got it pointed slightly below waist level basically ready to fire. It seems like he’s not ABOUT to fire, but he’s in a combat stance with the rifle and his hand position being ready and shooting in less than a second. If you hadn’t been looking at him the whole time I could easily see someone thinking he had just raised his weapon and was about to shoot.
That’s not the law, or reality in America. It’s a regular occurrence at certain protests for people to open carry weapons. Not saying I would do it, but it’s not sufficient cause to shoot someone.
Brandishing a weapon is not the same as carrying it. Brandishing is what you do when moving the firearm in a way that indicates you are threatening to shoot. In the worst case, it involves pointing the firearm at someone.
If someone purposely points a firearm at you, you have every right to fire in self defence. At least those were the rules of engagement we were taught regarding interactions with civilians at home when I was in the army.
This gif isn’t loading on my phone, but supposedly it’s the same as a video I had seen earlier - it shows Gamboa walking towards the street but his rifle is pointed down. It also shows the yellow vested people pointing their guns toward him. If the gif also doesn’t work for you, scroll further up in the thread to at least see screenshots. The op of that thread, Chad Loder, has been commenting on this shooting a fair amount. https://bsky.app/profile/nope-notnow.bsky.social/post/3lrp7xsx3vs22
Open carry and brandish have distinct legal definitions.
This gif isn’t loading on my phone, but supposedly it’s the same as a video I had seen earlier - it shows Gamboa walking towards the street but his rifle is pointed down. It also shows the yellow vested people pointing their guns toward him. If the gif also doesn’t work for you, scroll further up in the thread to at least see screenshots. The op of that thread, Chad Loder, has been commenting on this shooting a fair amount. https://bsky.app/profile/nope-notnow.bsky.social/post/3lrp7xsx3vs22
Oh to be clear I wasn’t arguing the reality, but brandishing is what he’s accused of and that’s legally very different from open carrying.
Also it wasn’t open carried to the protest, it was retrieved mid protest from a hidden location
This gif isn’t loading on my phone, but supposedly it’s the same as a video I had seen earlier - it shows Gamboa walking towards the street but his rifle is pointed down. It also shows the yellow vested people pointing their guns toward him. If the gif also doesn’t work for you, scroll further up in the thread to at least see screenshots. The op of that thread, Chad Loder, has been commenting on this shooting a fair amount. https://bsky.app/profile/nope-notnow.bsky.social/post/3lrp7xsx3vs22
Exactly. The peacekeeper who shot into the crowd should be charged instead.
I dunno about that. The peacekeeper saw the dude get into a confrontation, go retrieve a rifle, and run back aiming the rifle at the crowd.
I suppose your argument is that the guy hadn’t actually pulled the trigger when the peacekeeper acted? That seems insane to me.
The shooter and another person in a neon vest 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.
No confrontation is in the article. If you have another source that says there was, please provide it.
Edited the order of events in my comment. Sounds like the confrontation didn’t happen until after he grabbed his rifle.
That is what I’m thinking. At first I went along with the speculation that Gamboa was intending to shoot into the crowd. But after reviewing the video, it looks more like he was just walking and open carrying with the rifle pointed down. It might not have been the best move in hindsight, but he had the legal right to do so.
Also after listening to his Slugmag interview I’m just not seeing the motivation for a mass shooting. Unless maybe he intended to shoot cops or something. He just doesn’t seem to fit the profile & ideology of a mass shooter.
Edit: the interview if anyone is curious https://www.slugmag.com/soundwaves/episode-364-rade/
Dressed in all black with a mask and a gun walking briskly toward a crowd…
Which video are you talking about? Please provide a link.
EDIT: I think this is it. The short snippet shows the barrel pointed down. Having a masked gunman in a crowd of people is terrifying af!
Helpful link, thank you
Maybe guns are bad, and maybe if you bring a rifle to a high tense situation and hold it in any manner that may seem threatening, you deserve to get shot. Super sad that an innocent died. Had the “good guy” with a gun hit the target only, then at least there would only be one less moron carrying an AR-15 today, not a sad casualty.
Yup. If you brandish a firearm in public, you are clearly trying to intimidate others. You deserve to be shot down.
Does this apply to the people that open carry AR-15s when they go to McDonalds?
Adding another obligatory “brandishing and open carry are legally distinct acts” to the thread.
Watch the video.
“Read theory.”
This isn’t theory, this is a real scenario. Watch the video, read an interview with Gamboa, , I have actually interacted with the man and know his personal politics, I have stood next to him at protests while he was armed with multiple guns and felt safe. He’s a left wing gun rights and safety advocate with an established history in the community.
Stop obeying and doing as you’ve been told and use your eyes, ears, and brain.
What does this have to do with your fantasy of shooting people in a McDonalds?
Yes. Ammosexuals should be illegal.
I can’t tell if there’s a /s missing there or not, but if there is, this person allegedly pointed the gun into a crowd and advanced showing intent. I would also agree that even in jest, if you brandish, you are signalling intent and immediately forfeit your right to life.
As always, ACAB.
Lol. You are one dumb loser.
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.
No, you’re wrong, the cops should have been protecting the protesters. They didn’t do that. So the protestors had to protect themselves. Because they are not trained to do this, and innocent person was hurt. This is a failure of the police, not a failure of the protesters. And fuck you.
The guy brought a gun, but from what I can see he didn’t break any laws before being attacked. I’m confused on what the protester was protecting himself from. He too brought a gun there.
I’m not ok with someone being shot for thought crimes, assuming what they might do. That’s a very slippery slope.
Also, the person you replied to layed out their opinion in a very respectful way, and you end with fuck you? You sound like a child who can’t process their emotions.
The rifleman allegedly pointed his rifle at the crowd, which is illegal, not a thought crime. The protester was defending the crowd from the rifleman, not protecting themselves directly.
The cops shouldn’t have been protecting the protestors. The cops should have been protecting everybody.
But we know to expect failures of the police. And we know we have a “god-given” right to defend ourselves.
And we know that police have no actual requirement to protect the public from dangerous situations anyway. That is settled case law.
And we know that calling the police when somebody is already marching towards you with an AR-15 pointed at your crowd is a waste of precious time.
The cops did nothing wrong. They also did nothing, but that’s besides the point.
You posted this and even you didn’t read the article?
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.
Pathetic loser says what?
So, you’re a pathetic loser, as you said the thing pathetic losers say.
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.
So you still haven’t read the article you posted, huh?
2025 in a nutshell.
2025? This is internet tradition going much further back. No, not Reddit. MUCH older.
Doesn’t actually look like the cops were involved in the situation at all.
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.
It really looks like a different story if you watch the video.
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
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?
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.
So the peace keeper should have waited until someone was murdered before taking action?
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.
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”.
