By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A safety volunteer has been charged with manslaughter after fatally shooting a man during a “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City. The volunteer, Matthew Alder, fired three shots, one hitting a man assembling an AR-15 rifle and another killing rally participant Arthur Folasa Ah Loo. Despite having the right to use lethal force, prosecutors determined the third shot, fired over people’s heads, was reckless. The man with the rifle, Arturo Roberto Gamboa, will not be charged, while the widow of the deceased has called the decision “moral and just”.
Read the original article here
Safety volunteer charged in the fatal shooting of a Utah ‘No Kings’ protester… It’s a phrase that immediately grabs your attention, isn’t it? The core of the matter seems to be this: a person who identified as a “safety volunteer” at a protest in Utah has been charged with a crime related to a shooting that resulted in a death. It’s a complicated situation, made even more so by the very nature of the event – a protest against a particular ideology – and the presence of firearms.
What, exactly, is a “safety volunteer?” The provided information doesn’t offer a clear-cut definition, and that’s a significant detail. Without understanding the role and responsibilities of this person, it’s difficult to fully grasp the gravity of the situation. From the comments, it appears this person was associated with the protest organizers. Their job, at least in theory, was to help maintain order and potentially act as a liaison with law enforcement. It raises questions. Were they vetted? What kind of training, if any, did they receive? Was their presence officially sanctioned?
The comments suggest the “safety volunteer” shot at someone who was allegedly carrying a gun, and that person did not fire any shots. Then the shooter also hit a bystander, resulting in that person’s death. This is where the legal complexities come into play. The fact that Utah allows open carry complicates things further. In a state where carrying a firearm is legal, the circumstances under which someone can justifiably use that firearm become even more critical, and any decision to use deadly force has to be weighed against this backdrop of the law.
Initially, it appears, the authorities didn’t see enough evidence to press charges against the shooter. However, the legal landscape shifted. Now, the shooter faces charges. This means that the actions of the “safety volunteer” were determined to have crossed a legal line. The specific charge of manslaughter, stemming from reckless actions, hints at a critical detail: even if the shooter was justified in using force against one person, the resulting actions were reckless and endangering others. It also highlights an underlying theme: The potential for things to go wrong when untrained or improperly vetted people with guns are inserted into tense situations.
One aspect that comes up often in the discussion is the role of the “safety volunteer.” Some commenters suggest that the volunteer had ulterior motives or was acting as a vigilante. Was this person actually there to ensure the safety of the protesters? Or were they looking for a confrontation? Did the shooter have any training in de-escalation tactics?
There’s also a point that is made about political affiliations. Was the shooter a Republican? Did this affect their actions? While one comment points to public records, it’s essential to avoid making assumptions based on limited information. Focusing on the facts of the case, and what the evidence presents, is paramount. It’s important to remember that people’s political affiliations should not affect the objectivity of an investigation, nor should it change the facts.
The whole situation also highlights the broader issue of firearms and protests. If people attending a protest are armed, and a “safety volunteer” also has a firearm, what’s supposed to be a safe event can become incredibly volatile, where any perceived threat escalates the situation. This can lead to tragic consequences, as seen in this case.
In conclusion, it’s a tragic story of a protest, a shooting, and the legal fallout that follows. It underscores the importance of carefully considered rules, training, and a deep understanding of the law in situations involving firearms and gatherings of people. The case is a reminder that in our society where gun rights are protected, there is a responsibility for everyone to understand the dangers and take the utmost care. The final outcome of this case will be decided by a jury, and they will need to consider all the evidence and facts. The jury’s decision will hopefully bring some clarity to the situation.