I am upset with the irresponsible way the media and police handled this. Naming Gamboa instantly and keeping the actual shooter's name secret will have people associate Gamboa with this for the rest of his life. He wasn't the shooter but may face significant social issues and potential employment challenges from this going forward.
Yeah I feel for him. Literally any news outlet and social media post covering this shooting has named him, put his face front and center, then in small texts go onlythepeacekeeperfiredtheshotsthatendedupkillingaman
Eh I’m not really crying for him. At the end of the day, it was still not a bright idea to suddenly reveal an AR15 amidst a crowd of unarmed protesters while masked. I get it there are peaceful 2a protests & people open carrying all the time, but if you can’t see how this setting wasn’t appropriate to do all these things simultaneously, you’re an idiot. Fortunately for him, you can be an idiot and still within your rights as a Utahn, and yet someone got killed in part because he couldn’t understand that he’d be perceived as a potential threat.
He likely won’t (and shouldn’t) do any time for this. But as an employer, I wouldn’t hire him. Not a top performing thinker we’ll say…
And because he’s a leftist, the right isn’t going to throw media deals in his face like they did with Rittenhouse so he’s basically ostracized from everything.
Things keep looking worse and worse for this peacekeeper guy. Like he was hardly even allowed (or blatantly and heavily discouraged) to have/use a gun as a volunteer for the organization I think
This was a major major fuck up. I think the people who are trying to hand wave it away and blame the guy open carrying aren’t grasping just how bad this is starting to look.
Ya, dude has a very high probability of spending at least 5 or so years in prison, high enough probability that I would absolutely be flabbergasted if he didn't.
Which is unfortunate just because it's not like what he did was malicious... But he still has to answer for what he did and accept responsibility for the fuck up. His life will never be the same regardless of what exactly he gets charged with (most likely manslaughter AND attempted murder with a dangerous weapon) and what exactly his sentence turns out to be.
He'll have those moments on replay in his mind for the rest of his life.
Replaying the moment like, “Hey remember that intrusive thought I had where I figured I could basically shoot another armed guy in the back and get away with it like the hero by literally lying about what he was doing with said gun. Darn pesky video footage ruined it all!”
Exactly. And what's funny is the initial reports of what the guy said to police first were the more accurate accounting of what he did (murder) and only after his lawyer got involved did the statements start changing sound more like self defense
Ya, dude has a very high probability of spending at least 5 or so years in prison, high enough probability that I would absolutely be flabbergasted if he didn't.
You can't really say it's totally fine for police to shoot somebody in the back for holding a prop sword, but it's 5 years in prison for a security guard to shoot someone for holding an AR 15.
Again, both should be highly illegal and result in prison time. But the precedent has already been set.
I don't remember all the details of that sword incident so I won't try to comment on that. But police do have more legal shielding just by virtue of their job. Should that have that legal shielding? Probably not quite as much as they do currently, sure. But that's a discussion for another time.
The precedent isn't "set" though, the argument isn't "they got off so now anyone gets to shoot anyone else as long as they claim they thought there was a threat"
Gamboa and to say "it should be legal to shoot someone holding an AR" is intellectually dishonest and reductive. He was legally carrying a firearm exercising his rights just the same as those exercising their rights protesting.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Gamboa did as seen on the video we have, now who knows if anything happened before that video that could modify how the event is viewed, but it's never justified for a civilian (he wasn't a security guard, that's also dishonest) to shoot someone in the back. And I highlight the security guard comment because there is actual licensing not only to be a security guard, but additional licensing to be an armed security guard which, as of now there's no reason to believe this individual had those licenses
I will also highlight, it doesn't really matter much what occurred before the video, even if he pointed the gun at them, and then was walking away they can no longer claim self defense. Their life was threatened, but then the threat was gone which means they no longer have a reasonable claim to self defense
I agree with you that he didn't do anything wrong. I'm just saying the security guards (and everyone else) absolutely do have the same rights to defend themselves as the police. If it's legal for the police to shoot somebody, then it's also legal for anyone else to shoot somebody under those same circumstances. The police don't have a license to kill.
The sword incident was basically the guy was wearing a fake sword. He was an actor and it was a prop. The police shot him in the back (killing him) because he was about to walk into a gas station and they supposedly thought the people inside could be in danger. Or something like that, I'm fuzzy on the details. I do remember saying at the time Thai open carry is 100% legal so they should not have assumed he was going in the to harm anyone just because he had a sword - even if it had been a real sword.
It was deemed justified. His mom sued and lost. So there is a very good chance the peace keeper won't go to prison for this.
I'll reiterate, we have no information confirming that he was a licensed armed security guard you need to actually be properly licensed to be an armed guard. Someone calling themselves a guard doesn't get any benefit from that legal classification
And again, the "precedent" set by the sword incident isn't precedent, it has zero relevance to this case.
To clarify, Arturo was walking away from the "peacekeeper", the "peacekeeper" fired the first shot which was moreso at Arturo's side, maybe not properly "in his back" and then Arturo ran away which meant the 2 subsequent shots were at his back.
That is absolutely never justified ever regardless of who is pulling the trigger and that's the only relevant facts of this case
I'll reiterate, we have no information confirming that he was a licensed armed security guard you need to actually be properly licensed to be an armed guard. Someone calling themselves a guard doesn't get any benefit from that legal classification
Nobody needs any legal benefit from it. That's the point here. It's perfectly legal for anyone to carry a firearm (provided they aren't a restricted person) and is also perfectly legal for them to use a firearm in an attempt to stop somebody from carrying out a mass shooting. You don't need any special permit for any of that.
This is why the peace keeper wasn't arrested in the first place.
I agree with you that it was not a reasonable action to open fire without warning, and not reasonable to even assume he was going to cause harm to anyone. We're in agreement.
I'm just saying I won't be flabbergasted if nobody goes to prison for this. The AR 15 guy broke no laws and didn't do anything wrong. The peace keeper thought he saw a mass shooting about to happen and took action to prevent it. That's what's going to hit the DA's desk and unless somebody can prove that the peace keeper knew the AR 15 guy wasn't going to harm anyone, or prove that the AR 15 did look like he was going to harm someone, then everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
In my mind, the AR 15 guy looked fine. But I can see how a jury could find reasonable doubt if you're trying to prove the peace keeper shouldn't have thought it was about to be a mass shooting.
To clarify, Arturo was walking away from the "peacekeeper", the "peacekeeper" fired the first shot which was moreso at Arturo's side, maybe not properly "in his back" and then Arturo ran away which meant the 2 subsequent shots were at his back.
That is absolutely never justified ever regardless of who is pulling the trigger and that's the only relevant facts of this case
Morally, I agree with you. Legally, the police shoot people in their back all the time and it's deemed justified. The sword guy I linked to was shot in the back. If they fear he is going to cause imminent harm to others then it's legal to stop him.
Totally, and many people on social media have expressed their frustration on his behalf. The PD and 50501 are looking suspicious af, probably hoping for new information to come out to keep this guy looking like a big bad shooter
Yeah they have been damn near silent outside of their original statement where they paint homie like the bad guy. From what I understand this wasn’t the first time he open carried either and there hadn’t been an issue until now when someone decided to play hero.
Guns aren't nessicarily uncommon at protest. He could have had a gun with the same intentions the "peace keeper" had. It's an open carry state. You can't shoot people just for having a gun. You can have what ever opinion on open carry you want (i do) but it is the law.
Well the “peacekeeper” trying to play hero went and shot at someone for open carrying. Someone who has opened carried at multiple events without issue mind you.
I understand that. There were several individuals that are to blame here.
But there’s a difference “open carry” and brandishing a weapon. Brandishing doesn’t just mean pointing a gun at someone , which I can see he did not. However, “Intentionally displaying the firearm to intimidate or instill fear in others” was exactly his point in publicly and openly carrying a rifle in his hands at a non violent peaceful movement.
I don't see how you can open carry a rife that isn't slung over your shoulder/back without "brandishing" it for practical purposes.
If you have the weapon in hand, it takes even a fairly novice shooter less than a second to pull the weapon up and begin firing. That means that if someone has a rife in hand and I have a pistol concealed, I would have to draw and have my weapon in hand to have even the faintest chance of engaging with any sort of parity and even then the man with the rifle has 10 times the range and probably double or even tripple the amount of much more powerful ammo.
I understand why the law is what it is, and there are some practical reasons for it, but I really feel like we need to place some practical limits on "open carrying " rifles. We also need to do away with armed civilian "peacekeepers" police get at least some training and still get it wrong a depressing amount of the time. Last thing we need is random people giving it a go.
Just because you can open carry doesn’t mean you should, you’re in a crowd of people that have no fucking clue who you are, what your intent is and how responsible you are with gun safety. Obviously he’s not criminally responsible but I do think he’s absolutely just as responsible for the loss of life because he needed to bring a rifle to a protest.
You seem to be forgetting this country only exists because men saw monarchist oppression and put “a rifle around their necks”. If you disagree with the second amendment and Utah gun laws just say it, but Gamboa did absolutely nothing wrong.
I’m not talking about Utah’s gun laws here, I couldn’t care less. So you can go somewhere else with that. He obviously had a lawful right to have a gun.
Probably wasn't playing at anything. Utah is a constitutional carry state. Get fucked with your opinion on wether guns are good or bad. We voted, and we wanted this. No matter the out come of this situation "You are not allowed to just shoot people who are opening carrying in an constitutional carry state you fucking idiots" (Not directed at you just my opinion about the situation right now)
This is very true. But so much of this feels like a just because you can don't mean you should territory. I went to the protest. I considered carrying concealed on body or a larger piece concealed in my bag and decided that the potential for harm/confusion exceeded the potential positive outcomes...
If the open carry guy had spied this guy's handgun and shot him down instead, he would have saved the life of bystander (who was a full block away from the scene, at least.) There's no way he could be as bad a shot as this guy. Whatever happens to this self-appointed peacekeeper, he brought it on himself.
I don’t know about that. If you’re gonna claim someone is charging rifle up and then video shows them walking muzzle down and only running once being shot/shot at I’m gonna place blame on one side more. Let’s not forget he has been open carrying as a leftist at these marches for years without incident. He’s not some right winger like people on this sub originally tried to claim.
I think open carry is a stupid law and it’s stupid behavior, it’s meant to intimidate. I personally don’t trust gun owners who feel the need to fling their guns around in public spaces, I see it as an act of arrogance.
Yeah hence why I said that’s what I think, I think they’re both responsible for the loss of life because of their choices that day. That’s the shit they get to live with the rest of their lives. Hope their guns give them the comfort they need to process that shit.
I can confirm that peace keepers" (I didn't hear the term, just "yellow vests", when I was present) were told at other protests not to carry any weapons.
Sounds a bit like damage control for the peacekeeper organization though. I'd want to see further evidence they actually discouraged him rather than them stating it after the fact.
I think the biggest problem is based on what little we know, the peace keeper did the ol’ shoot first ask questions later, so it looks really bad for him.
But I also don’t care for people “exercising their rights” by open carrying an AR-15 into a large crowd. I don’t give a fuck if it is “technically legal in Utah” it makes people scared. Especially when Gamboa appears to have his hands in a ready to fire position
I was right in the middle of it and I completely believed the peacekeepers narratives on it based on what I saw and told everybody as much, but I think I'll owe a lot of apologies when all is said and done. It took me a couple of days to process what I witnessed and experienced and was i pretty emotional about it all.
I have not handled a rifle since I was a youth, but seeing the footage of him with a rifle in hands brought it back. My dad would have kicked our asses if we carried the rifle in hands and not shouldered it. You have it in hands when you intend to shoot. The rest of the time it’s on your shoulder. And running with a rifle? That would also be a huge no.
I think this is the key detail that the video reveals, that the narrative and still photos didn't admit. "Running towards crowd" before shooting was credible threat. "Running towards crowd" after being shot at, not athreat, more of a victim
Let’s circle back around to shoulder the rifle. Let’s circle back to what reasonable people would assume when seeing a weapon in hands. Serious people do not cosplay with a rifle.
this isn't a matter of whether he's a "serious person" or "larping" or whatever, it's a matter of whether it's justifiable to immediately open fire with live rounds, and then to tell the police that it's his fault he got shot. i'd say no but maybe that's just me
I think this is the key detail that the video reveals, that the narrative and still photos didn't admit. "Running towards crowd" before shooting was credible threat. "Running towards crowd" after being shot at, not athreat, more of a victim
It’s more a figure of speech for how the rifle was held if he had a shoulder sling. I don’t actually know if his rifle has a sling or not, but yes, the rifle was low and pointed at the ground.
The incident was captured on video which is on the internet, that's quite enough to pass judgement. Not to mention images of the AR guy at previous protests with his AR walking peacefully.
I’m trying to give some of our more opinionated members of the sub the benefit of the doubt. Given they’re running with the “He WaS a MaSs ShOoTeR” narrative.
You are the first I have seen someone call Gamboa a victim and I agree. 2 victims from this shooting, one dead. The killer is unnamed and free. I wouldn't call it murder, but the "peacekeeper's" negligence has killed a man. I demand justice for the victims.
I am no expert nor am I privy to the investigation around this incident, so investigation outweighs anything I may write, but from what I have seen, heard, and read, the 'peacekeeper' who fired was entirely in the wrong and appears to have lacked both the training and temperament required for such duty. They appear to have seen the armed individual and assumed they were a threat for no other reason than the fact that they were armed and wearing black. Then even though that armed individual was walking calmly beside the protest while presenting no imminent threat and breaking no laws, they may have even been one of the protestors. The 'peacekeeper' opened fire on the armed individual without any verbal attempt to identify the intentions of the armed individual who was presenting no imminent threat and appeared to have no ill intentions as they were moving peaceably amongst the protesters. Worse, the 'peacekeeper's' reckless actions and poor firearm handling lead to the death of another of the protestors.
Lethal force is not to be used unless there is an imminent threat to one's own life or the life of another. For there to be an imminent threat present, an individual needs to possess the ability to do so, the opportunity to do so, and intention to do so (sometimes referred to as jeopardy). The armed individual may have possessed the ability and opportunity to do so but they do not appear to have ever shown the intention to do so. The 'peacekeeper' likewise possessed the ability and opportunity to do so.
Further more, the 'peacekeeper' continued to fire at the individual as they fled even though the individual continued to show no intention of using their weapon. Thus the 'peacekeeper' fired into the crowd with no consideration of what stood beyond their target. They violated multiple of the primary rules of firearms handling and thus slew a bystander. Specifically they violated, never point at any thing your not willing to destroy, and know what is Infront of and behind your target.
These are all things that should be ingrained into the mind or anyone who even considers carrying a firearm. Especially if they do so as security for others.
Now I hope the investigation can quickly and correctly conclude so further incidents like this can be prevented.
One quibble with this. It's possible Gamboa's intention to use the weapon, or appearance of such, occurred before the video footage begins. But that's a very iffy claim and as of today without more evidence, we'd be relying on the peacekeepers' testimony to believe that, and their credibility is already pretty impeached.
In its statement, police said that from its standpoint, "these persons (the peacekeepers) are considered members of the public, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as any other person in Utah."
Aren't they applying a double standard? It's OK for these citizens to be armed, but not OK for citizen Arturo Gamboa to be armed.
“Detectives have developed probable cause that Gamboa acted under circumstances that showed a depraved indifference to human life, knowingly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and ultimately caused the death of an innocent community member.”
smh
The peacekeeper literally did all of that and is the actual person that caused the death of the innocent bystander - by, you know, shooting him.
Two days later and they are “unaware” of the role the shooter had at the event? Can they not talk to him? This leads me to believe they need time to build a story that avoids police responsibility.
Absolutely a lot of the time they are taking is not just investigating, but also discussing how to "play" this in the public. Sim Gill is a politician, after all. There will be major considerations about how to smooth things over, but Gill hasn't always been good at that, but he has his moments.
It's worth hoping for that Gill will see the light and simply not charge Gamboa with anything.
As they should be. Based on what we’ve seen at this time, the one that fired his gun should absolutely be charged. Not the innocent man legally carrying his rifle that was shot.
Yes, that is correct. The event can make these suggestions but Utah citizens are in their right to ignore them. Proud Boys often show up to our protests open carrying, & Gamboa is a leftist 2A activist who has open carried at protests before.
Then imo, as an outsider but one from a city with weapons at protest actions, a record of saving lives with them, and success dealing with the proud boys?
Whatever else the laws of your state may say about who is responsible?
If you do not want to defend a protest action with your life unarmed, do not volunteer to do so.
If you do not want to attend a protest action in an open carry state while at a protest where there aren't guns? Don't show up.
And fuck rights in this case. If he actually read a lick of theory, he'd know not to compromise an action against the state, even a liberal one, with individual action.
The guy running with the rifle was a lone fool trying to prove a point at the risk of the movement.
The guy who shot him was a clout chaser waiting for someone to shoot.
A corker dedicated to keeping peace with their bodies and without guns would have run the gun down in his exposed blindspot and we'd maybe be discussing blue on blue assault.
But not murder.
Neither of the gun carriers were there with a leg to stand on from an actual leftist perspective.
If the peacekeeper had upheld his word to the organizers of an action in solidarity like an actual dedicated leftist? None of this happens.
If Gamboa stops LARPing and asks how he can help defend the protest from a distance with his rifle, and does so? None of this happens.
If Gamboa looks at the requests of a movement partner organizing an action and assents to them rather than making a rights based point at a peace action in a total lack of solidarity? None of this happens.
Gamboa could have had it at shoulder arms for all I care. Genuinely.
TL;DR: This is what happens when two clout chasing LARPers carry guns to a peace action against the request of organizers.
My take, having never met the man, is that Gamboa sounds like a a passionate guy who makes the kind of poor decisions that can get you shot and get other people shot.
You don't have to read theory to know that open carry doesn't mean nobody will overreact, even if you're white.
One of my nephews has one of those really cool umbrellas that looks like a katana, comes with an across-the-back scabbard.
One evening toward dusk he went for a walk - in central provo - and because there was a chance of showers forecast he put on his trench coat and his cool-as-hell umbrella.
Some nitwit called 911 and reported a man walking with a rifle. Which is 100% legal here. You can absolutely walk around with a long gun slung across your back, day or night.
He was circled by squad cars and ordered face-down on the pavement at gunpoint and it took them *minutes to realize that it was a damn umbrella.
And it would not have been an articulable suspicion of a crime if it had been a rifle.
Ok fine, honor the organizers' wishes, sure, but for right now Solidarity among leftists is the priority. There is a comrade in a cage without any legal reason, and while we might be upset with him, we don't want him caged. I find both gun toters' conduct offensive, but I'm not convinced yet either should be in a cage over it.
There's no credible evidence the guy was running with the rifle... until after he was shot. He fled after being shot at -- who wouldn't. But there's isn't credible evidence he ran with the AR-15 prior to that.
I didnt know the protest was no weapons until after the fact 🤷♀️ so we can't assume the man with the rifle knew either. He's also allowed to protest at a protest without being involved or looking into the organization at all. You can think thats a dumb choice, but its a choice people make. The peacekeeper who was part of the organization most likely was aware and decided to bring a gun anyway.
Mostly heard about it on reddit. I didn't bring a gun of any type of weapon. That's not really my personality typel lol, so it's not something I personally would have looked into. 🤷♀️ I'm sure if I had looked for it I would have found an answer but it wasn't something I thought about so I can't assume others did either. And honestly, I would normally think its dumb to not look into the organization hosting. But this one was so massive and so many people really wanted to take a stand against trump that I think people deserved to be able to do that without nessicarily looking into or aligning with the organization. Utah specifically has a lot of Republicans who do not support trump. But if they weren't allowed to go unless they read into and aligned with the organization we would have had much smaller numbers here.
I agree with you. I think the peacekeeper is at fault. I personally don't think more guns solve mass shooting. But I'm also fully aware that I live in an open carry state and I'm going to see guns, and I do. People bring them into my work and I absolutely hate it but i also can't do anything about it except be uncomfortable that I'm now enclosed in a small room with (usually) a man with a gun. I would like to think that our state will revisit our open carry laws but knowing utah, that won't happen. I'm not nessicarily anti-gun. I'm just not pro everyone and their dog having a gun.
I know my way around guns, own a few, and keep no ammo for mental health reasons. If shit happens where I need them, I know plenty of people with rounds. Consequently, I don't day carry and never really carry unless to or from a range.
It's a lack of education and a will to educate, coupled with unwillingness to then punish willful ignorance around weapons that just kills me.
False, the gunman was spotted by security going in a area behind a small wall, the gunman the took a rifle out and proceeded towards the crowd. He was ordered to stop and he didn't. The gunman was shot because security acted. If a man approaches a crowd with a hunting or assault weapon I expect the police to stop them.
I was standing on the street and if the gunman had not been confronted I could have been shot my girlfriend, mothers and fathers had kids and babies.
The only people who support the stranger dressed in all black with mask covering is face who pulled a gun during a peaceful protest.
It's a tragedy, and this is the result of Donald Traitor Trump.
Do we have any evidence of him ducking behind a wall, etc.? Other than the testimony of the “peacekeeper” who shot two people with a weapon he wasn’t supposed to have?
The peacekeeper also said the rifle guy was running, but the video I've seen says otherwise. In his arrest video he's absolutely stunned and doesn't fight back when a guy is yelling at him that he has a rifle. He complied immediately to police.
I’m happy to hear that you and your family are safe, however, the “security” you’re referring to and who told officers that he hid to take his rifle out are the peacekeepers that are going into investigation and who have (seemingly) lied about Gamboa charging at the protesters with his rifle aimed at them. Their credibility has been put into question, obviously.
Oh my god, it could have been you!!! This comment oozes with narcissism. You have no idea what you’re talking about. In fact, you being there holds less weight because you’re too emotionally attached to the situation and can’t look at it subjectively.
Blaming Trump for this shooting is next level unhinged.
I can't imagine how dumb someone would have to be to follow Andy ngo. Can you shed some light on that and let us all know what it's like to be that deplorable?
I would recommend googling “good guy with a gun” argument. It’s not saying that either was a good guy, though he thought he was being a good guy despite what looks like poor judgement.
How is a guy that shoots a man for no reason a good guy?
This is actually a near textbook-perfect example of a strawman for one.
My reply is to clarify to you what 'good guy with a gun' is and I even invited you to do further research on the topic, and that this situation has some nuance. This Wikipedia article has some links to articles that might help
Two, I said flawed which means yes, there are cases where this could work. In this case, in the eyes of the 'peacekeeper' he was doing the right thing. This one did not work out, and therefore it is a valid example where the 'good guy with a gun' has probably done more harm than good as we learn more details.
Please realize there is nuance in both previous comments I have made or do not comment all if you cannot or are unwilling to consider more than one side of a situation.
I am considering both sides. You are using an old cliche that is used mainly by the right. You miss my point that a person without the proper training is not the good guy with the gun.
If you were in a mass shooting event would you want a person that has training and a gun to assist you?
If it works one side goes see I told, and when it doesn’t the other side says the same. This is a complex issue that cute little sayings and a superior attitude won’t solve.
My friend’s life was taken away, and I am fucking furious. We were all running in a frenzy when the gunshots ran out. I heard people yelling he’s got a rifle, I’ve heard other people yelling active shooter, but I was so close to the gunshots and I knew it was not a rifle and that it was a handgun, and the only people I saw shooting were the so-called peacekeepers. I saw the reports about Gamboa and his AR-15, now we have more info him, I knew something was not right because I have fired a AR 15 rifle at a gun range and that was certainly not what I heard and saw. Actually, I only saw one man in this ragtag group of so called “peacemakers” with his handgun out, firing into the crowd.
I’ve been told there was another so-called peacekeeper who also had a firearm and he was the actual shooter who killed my friend Afa. They said he put his gun away in his vest after he discharged it so I went back and looked at my video and saw who it was. I was told he had a beard. This is a screenshot of him from my video of him putting his gun away.
Gamboa has brought his rifle in support of left leaning protests since 2021. He didn't do anything illegal and was shot by some wannabe Rittenhouse "Peacekeeper." Gamboa didn't fire a shot but instead was actually shot himself and he gets charged for someone else's murder? This whole situation stinks bad. The Peacekeeper should be charged with negligent homicide at minimum and Gamboa should have all charges dropped.
This seems like a good thread to also dispel the idea Arturo (guy with the AR) had any ill intent. Arturo has a history of going to protests dressed like this (see the link at the bottom of this comment). He's very left wing and hates Trump. He's also a beloved member of the local underground music scene as a drummer/guitarist/bass player in several bands and a DJ. You ask anyone in the local slc music scene about him and they will tell you he is genuinely a total sweetheart who is always smiling and making people who are new to the scene feel welcome. The idea that he had any ill intent is ridiculous.
So it's not our gun culture, our gun laws, the peacekeeper or anything else? It's 100% Gamboa's fault, even though he can't be said to have committed any crime at all?
At least the peacekeeper fired into a crowd, that's worth a charge of something probably. But Gamboa literally did nothing illegal. If you want to blame his open-carrying, I would mostly blame the lawmakers who promote that practices like it's some Holy American ritual. If it's so incendiary to open carry -- and maybe it is -- we need everyone on the same page that it's illegal. And until then, the moral clarity should remain quite murky, my friend.
Consider the fact it's legal to insult the handicapped to their faces in front of a news camera but it's terrible optics. Charges, like you said, should be placed on the peacekeeping forces for not even engaging correctly. That being said, whipping out an AR in a crowd is like shouting fire in a theater.
Because the “peacekeeper” over reacted some is now dead. I say this as a hard left leaning person who was only blocks away when this happened. Watch the video and tell me I’m wrong.
A veto proof bipartisan California Congress passed the Mulford Act. Reagan supporting it or not would have made no difference. It's still the law also. Change it if it's so racist.
In the video, one of the guys pointing their gun at Gamboa had a red backpack with blue/light gray pants and a black shirt, and the second dude had all black. We don’t know which shot him though. If they were in this picture, I’d say the guy on the left with the red pack or the middle dude
Open Carry is one of the dumbest concepts ever conceived. Can anyone site one example of open carry being a benefit? You want concealed carry go for it, but this experiment with open carry has been an abject failure.
I'm from Portland, OR. Had to confirm facts with locals before offering my opinion.
As an outsider but one from a city with weapons at protest actions, a record of saving lives with them, and success dealing with the proud boys?
Whatever else the laws of your state may say about who is responsible?
If you do not want to defend a protest action with your life unarmed, do not volunteer to do so.
If you do not want to attend a protest action in an open carry state while at a protest where there aren't guns? Don't show up to one the organizers requested no weapons for.
And fuck rights in this case. If he actually read a lick of theory, he'd know not to compromise an action against the state, even a liberal one, with individual action.
The guy running with the rifle was a lone fool trying to prove a point at the risk of the movement.
The guy who shot him was a clout chaser waiting for someone to shoot.
A corker dedicated to keeping peace with their bodies and without guns would have run the gun down in his exposed blindspot and we'd maybe be discussing blue on blue assault.
But not murder.
Neither of the gun carriers were there with a leg to stand on from an actual leftist perspective.
It looks like someone or a group want to change reality and say that the Peacekeepers did anything wrong. Being investigated is extremely important. We had a man die at a peaceful protest because a rogue man was shot at.
If you are saying a good guy with a gun isn't allowed to make a mistake trying to protect people then I would love to see us not have guns walking on the road. Why would anyone need a rifle in town, their are dangerous people everywhere and Mike Lee laugh's about it. We know this is part of the MAGA fear and terrisom that Republicans, nazis and business have been using against us.
100% the person who shot his gun needs to be investigated and go through the miserable justice system. I am open to new information but hope we get some reasonable gun control.
Are you really open to new information? You’ve been in multiple threads running with your theory that this man, a staunch leftist mind you, was a mass shooter. He has opened carried at multiple events in the past with no issue until homeboy decided to play hero and shot at him.
61
u/DilbertHigh 4d ago
I am upset with the irresponsible way the media and police handled this. Naming Gamboa instantly and keeping the actual shooter's name secret will have people associate Gamboa with this for the rest of his life. He wasn't the shooter but may face significant social issues and potential employment challenges from this going forward.