By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News reports that the widow of Afa Ah Loo, a fashion designer fatally shot at a June protest in Salt Lake City, is demanding accountability after over four months with no charges filed in the case. The man who shot and killed Ah Loo, a volunteer, has not been identified nor charged, with authorities still investigating his actions. Despite the district attorney’s statement that a decision is expected soon and potential charges are still considered, legal experts believe criminal charges are unlikely due to Utah’s self-defense and firearms laws. As a result, Ah Loo’s family plans to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit against the volunteer in the coming weeks.
Read the original article here
Utah Shooter that Killed One, Injured Another of No Kings Marchers Still Not Charged is a stark reality. It’s a situation where justice appears to be delayed, or perhaps even denied, and it’s raising serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of the legal system. The fact that the shooter, who took a life and injured another during a No Kings march, remains uncharged is, to put it mildly, concerning.
This case has multiple layers to it. The initial incident involves a volunteer “peacekeeper” who discharged their firearm, resulting in the death of one person and injury to another. According to the state’s legal code, murder can be charged if an actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another. It’s also against the law to cause the death of another while trying to cause serious bodily injury to an individual. The fact that the intended target wasn’t the one killed doesn’t absolve the shooter; Utah law specifically states that causing the death of a person other than the intended victim is not a defense to criminal homicide.
The context of the incident is important. The victim was a participant in the No Kings march, a protest against former President Trump. The shooter, who was also participating in the protest, was armed. Video evidence appears to contradict the shooter’s account of events, further muddying the waters and raising questions about the investigation.
This brings up another significant point: the shooter’s perceived “good faith.” While law enforcement may have initially believed the shooter acted in good faith, this doesn’t automatically negate the legal implications of their actions. Simply carrying a gun isn’t justification for shooting someone, regardless of any perceived threats.
The delays in charging the shooter, the video that contradicts his account, and the political climate surrounding the No Kings march all contribute to the growing sense that justice might not be served.
The political environment cannot be ignored. The fact that the victims were participating in a protest against the former president, and the shooter may have been a supporter of the former president, adds a layer of complexity. If the shooter had been involved in an attack with political leanings, it should also be noted that in other areas, like in Texas, right-wing murderers have been pardoned.
Another factor that seems to be contributing to the lack of charges is the open-carry laws in Utah. It is legal to open carry a rifle in the state, and the injured person was doing so legally. The argument that it is legal to have a rifle and therefore legal to shoot someone with that rifle, regardless of the consequences, is absurd.
The lack of charges is prompting suspicion of bias within law enforcement and the prosecution’s office. The claim that the police “always felt that he was acting in good faith” is, frankly, insufficient. The DA, not the police, makes the decision to charge. A growing number of people feel that the authorities are sweeping the issue under the rug.
The fact that the shooter has not been charged, despite the apparent existence of contradictory video evidence, fuels the perception that the legal system isn’t functioning equitably. This case raises difficult questions about the nature of justice, the role of political biases, and the challenges of upholding the law in a divided society.