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.

  • InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • Dempf@lemmy.zip
      0·
      11 days ago

      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

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        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.

          • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            11 days ago

            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.

        • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 days ago

          This article is literally about someone being shot at & killed before they could attack a big group of people who are “doing something about it.”

      • reactionality@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        03·
        11 days ago

        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.

        • MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          0·
          11 days ago

          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

          • reactionality@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            02·
            11 days ago

            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”.

  • Glide@lemmy.ca
    0·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      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”.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        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.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      0·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • Glide@lemmy.ca
        0·
        11 days ago

        “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.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          0·
          11 days ago

          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.

          • Glide@lemmy.ca
            0·
            11 days ago

            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.