The volunteer, tasked with security for the march and later identified as Matt Alder, saw Gamboa assembling a legally owned, legally carried AR-15-style rifle near the march in downtown Salt Lake City on June 14. Alarmed, Alder called for another volunteer security guard before drawing a concealed handgun. As Gamboa tried to rejoin the march, Alder opened fire, hitting Gamboa and killing Ah Loo.
Immediately after the shooting, police arrested Gamboa on a murder charge. The arresting officer claimed that Gamboa’s actions had created the situation that caused Alder to fear for his life and the lives of others, prompting Alder to open fire.
As a result Gamboa was blamed for Ah Loo’s death for having “acted under circumstances that showed a depraved indifference to human life, knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that created a grave risk of death and ultimately caused the death of an innocent community member,” according to a police statement.
Gamboa was held without bail for five days under suspicion of committing a violent felony. Police briefly detained Alder but did not take him into custody.
Lesson is, make it count fellas. If you’re gonna carry to these events, at least get yours in.
I think the lesson here is that you should read the article before commenting.
I read the blurb here, im not leaving unnecessary digital trails around the internet by pinging random political articles.
Dude was held without bail for 5 days, longer than the guy who actually fired a weapon an shot someone.
Please enlighten me if you think Im missing critical information on how to live my life, friend.
This platform is a link aggregator. If you’re not going to click links, could you just like, not be here? Cool.
You know what, you’re right.
Here is some critical information you appear to be missing:
2).Your IP address visiting a news article is not a “digital trail” you need to concern yourself with.
You work for an intelligence agency and can confirm that? I assume my isp logs everything I do. Because if someone asks them to, they likely will.
And what if the ISP keeps the log that you visited some news website sometime in December? What are you afraid of?
If your opsec is so strict that you cannot visit a news website, then I think you are seriously breaking your own opsec by posting here.
I wouldn’t call what I do opsec. I am aware of my digital footprint. I work with computers, and am aware of some techniques for identifying desirable information in unstructured computer data. I do not know what every link on this platform may do wrt to those techniques, and therefore abstain for the most part from clicking things I dont recognize. Forgive me for simply being hegenic. The same thing on cnn is much less problematic.
Edit: I think I may have decided this isnt the community I should be spending tons of time in.
Honest question, because I try to be mindful of what I post, why is CNN better?
I don’t link to CNN, CBC, BBC, etc. to expand the media diet on Lemmy. I made this com and it’s trashy sister, !wildfeed@sh.itjust.works, in the interest of media pluralism, which means avoiding most news conglomerates. Still, I don’t post from any source I haven’t vetted by looking into their legitimacy, independence and fact-checking history. I’m not sure how to check for what makes you hesitant to click.
So I’m wondering how I can do that. If not, how could I better convey that these are legitimate sites? As far as I know the Lemmy TOS and most journalism copyrights prevent me from copy-pasting entire articles, so that isn’t an option.
I think its just a personal hang up. I’d have to personally know that the sites weren’t problematic. I think I just need to keep my thoughts to myself here.
If you wanted to do something, not that you should on my account, you could compile a list of sites you have vetted paired with what made you feel the source wasnt problematic.
How was that user misled exactly? What details are they leaving out?
Most of them. They’re in the article. The one I linked on this community that links to articles, on a link aggregator platform.
Edit: It’s weird that you’re downvoting everyone telling people to read articles in a discussion about an article.
Well if there’s so many that’ll be pretty easy to give me an exact example like I asked for. How were they misled exactly?
Also I will freely continue to downvote comments that waste my time because they don’t actually address anything.
I linked it above, conveniently at the top of this thread so I don’t have to type it all out.
edit: If you don’t want to read the news, hate the suggestion of reading the news, and believe people are wasting your time by telling you to read the news, this may not be the right community for you.
Well that’s telling isn’t it?
Also I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. No one ever said I didn’t read anything. Were you not reading the usernames? Maybe you need to do a little bit more practicing what you preach.
I intentionally take excerpts from the middle of articles so it doesn’t look like the whole story. I read we’re not supposed to copy/paste whole articles for legal reasons. Regardless, Unicorn Riot is a pretty damn good, ethical journalism hub to visit.
You missed a lot. You can find out what by clicking the link to the article.
Removed by mod
Is that the lesson? What do you mean “at least get yours in”?
I was being sarcastic. A guy open carrying, following the law, gets shot at, and he’s characterized as a murderer. A guy shoots at someone following the law, kills someone else, and he’s sleeping peacefully at home tonight.
It makes it appear that protesting is less acceptable than violence. Similar story with Kyle Rittenhouse. Shooting your firearm is considered proof that you feared for your life, and are therefore justified.
I think the “lesson” here is, if you’re going to participate in a “peaceful protest”…leave your fucking guns at home.
All you’re doing is putting everyone around you in danger…from law enforcement on the one side, that’s itching for an excuse to escalate violence against protesters…to private security in the other, that’s itching to shoot at counter protesters looking to start trouble.
No, either Americans have the right to wield guns, in which case y’all need to just accept that and realize that assembling a gun during a protest is legal and therefore not suspicious Or, y’all need to realize that your gun laws and culture are incompatible with modern society, and do something to change them.
There’s a massive difference between a "protest’, and an armed confrontation with police. One is a display of solidarity in the face of violence…and the other is simply asking for it.
Thats right. May as well bring you own zip ties and cuff yourself and sit on the curb too. /s
Protesting is not a safe activity.
You’ve obviously never been involved in organizing. The safety of the protesters is always your number one concern. Cops are already dialed up to maximum, looking for any excuse to use crowd control tactics against us. You bringing a gun into that scenario makes you a convenient excuse for them to use violence against the rest of us. And if that’s the case…don’t come. All you’re doing is endangering everyone else, who’s actually there to protest.
I dont own a firearm. And I wouldn’t spend time organizing a protest, but to each their own.
My point was that the police seem to be sending mixed signals about what’s acceptable behavior, making it more likely someone would no longer choose to accept their authority, and could result in violence. Like what you’re saying my lonely words on a mostly quiet social platform would do.
My words here have 0 effect compared to reported violence in the news, just chill dude.
Shouldn’t the lesson here be not to hire trigger happy security guards who murder people because of a hunch? That really seems like the better lesson. Shocked that’s not what you took away from it.
Jesus, yes…that too. Why anyone would have thought having armed security there was a good idea, is beyond me. At the end of the day, they charged the right person.
My point is, the whole situation should have never happened in the first place. Conditions like that…adding a gun to the equation only means more potential for problems. And in this case, it resulted in someone else getting killed.
Oh! I sort of thought that was what you meant but wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic lol - thanks for clarifying 😅
But the shooter will face charges, as per the headline, and the man legally open carrying will not.
The lesson here is that gun laws are completely fucked. I can understand that when a security guard sees a guy assembling a weapon and then joins a protest, that the security guard may very well suspect that the guy assembling the weapon is a threat.
The “correct” response from security would be to go to the weapon assembler and detain them (preferably) before the weapon is assembled - not wait until the “threat” is in a crowd of people and then open fire.
The “security volunteer”, a title which means nothing, had a gun. Why should he be allowed to detain an individual who also has a gun for the sole reason of them having a gun?
Missing the forest for the trees…