this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
421 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24342 readers
3456 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 120 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

but it's his legal right.

One of the stupidest laws in existence

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 week ago (24 children)

Thanks, we know that. Got anything helpful to share with the class?

[–] Thistlewick 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

... maybe whack it (intentionally) a bit more until it resets?

(It's not sarcasm; protest & topple the bourgeoisie that keeps you down.)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

If whacking it could fix the country, I'd have done so singlehandedly (sometimes two for variety) back in the 2000s.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

~~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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

According to the reports I've read, including in the toplevel article here, the sequence of events is:

  1. The rifleman separated from the crowd
  2. The rifleman pulled a rifle out of a bag
  3. The rifleman ran toward the crowd with the rifle in a firing posiition and pointed toward people
  4. The security volunteer fired three shots with a pistol, striking the rifleman and a bystander
  5. 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

He was running ... TOWARDS the crowd.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›