Guns and Protests

[326MOD10]

Kinda comes back to the whole “intelligence of open carry” and “carrying vs brandishing” argument. Alternatively, why not try drinking really fast and slamming on brakes to precisely stop next to a crowd?

Guess I am a little stupid and don't understand your analogy.

Guess we shall see what happens.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Deke Thornton]

These "disturbances" today are mostly bought and paid for and many are just performances by people who do this for a living.

Source?

 

[AlHunt]

I can say one thing with absolute confidence. If I ever lost my mind and attended an event like this and saw that security was provided by armed volunteer "Peacekeepers", I would immediately turn tail and run as fast as I could.

My first 3 rule of any gunfight are
1) Avoid it altogether
2) Evade it if you didn't avoid it
3) Escape it if you didn't evade it

I haven't needed to make a 4th rule so far. Let's keep it that way. Haven't needed 2 or 3, just planning ahead.

 

[steelslaver]

The justifications needed to fire a bullet where there are innocent bystanders DOESN'T override your responsibility for that the results of that bullets damages.

If I am driving 90mph taking a heart attack victim to the ER and plow into and kill an innocent person , I am not innocent in their death.

WHEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO ACT YOU ALSO TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS. NOT just part of them.

 

[Lance Boyle]

Just watched a news story from the Salt Lake City Fox affiliate that showed a video that contradicts some of the statements given by the "Peacekeepers".

Video shows the guy with the rifle walking with the rifle at low ready and toward the ground .

The rifle guy didn't start running until the shooting began by the security guys.

Original statement said guy had rifle up in the firing position, running toward the crowd before shots were fired.

Going to be a mess for sure.

Here ya go.

New video of Salt Lake City protest shooting appears to contradict police

Video of Saturday’s No Kings protest in Salt Lake City appears to show a suspect with his rifle aimed down and not running until a volunteer begins shooting.

www.fox13now.com

I called it as the most likely scenario.

 

[Law-dog]

Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Edited to remove any political issues.

Maybe I do not understand your comment, I am old sometimes i miss things. . I have worked undercover at the federal level in the center of that state and areas including the southeast and and along the border and my time stationed there in the military was long ago, so things may have changed. However, current information tells us the protests marches do not change things anywhere in the nation. Not my opinion, just what I read from the think tanks at Harvard and other institutions that monitor such things very well and have for decades. And they say that any protest that include violence, just makes things worse for the side of the protestors, not my opinion, just reporting the data.

Protest Movements: How Effective are They?

The Commons is an online library for the change makers of the world and for those interested in social change, activism, organising, advocacy and justice.

commonslibrary.org

The internet has made protest marches even less effective because they document the dramatic, which includes all the burning, violence, and looting, and such. Last couple of weeks, CNN showed over 100 acts of violence in the California riots. as I watched live. They posted, I think 92 still photos of violent acts, that is hard evidence that people will remember and can see over and over again.


Regardless of the message sent by the mayor of LA and the gov of California, the massive actions of violence and flying of Mexican flags create the flash in the pan effect.. If you trust the data, and I have no reason not to. Ironically, in my feeble mind, at least, is that huge amounts of money is spent to plan these protests, and these studies suggest they do not change how people vote.

So, go do your "push back" all you want, but here is the research. I can list many more links but defer to not just flood the the thread. They all say the same.

Protests rarely change views or alter voting decisions, according to new research1.

Do Social Movements Sway Voters? Not Really, Except for One | Working Knowledge

www.library.hbs.edu

And practically, New Mexico is not a player in making national policy, most states are not including Oklahoma where I live. But that is a political discussion, I will not go there.

Love the state, including Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and even Raton and Chama and the entire northern border with Colorado. I have visited the NRA Whittington Center as many as 3 visits per year and have made dozens of vacations to your state and hope to visit again this summer, but only at elevations where the temperature is cool. And I am a green chili nut, like to buy it fresh every year from vendors along the roads. I can eat it everyday of the year. Strange, I know, but some of us are.

Thank you for the feedback.

 

[Lance Boyle]

No, I do not find that "obvious." I do think that it is humorous that some of the same people who insist that 2A was meant to protect the people from a bad government, by use of force, turn around and badmouth people who protest, what they see as bad governing, without using firearms.

The larger society gets to judge them in hindsight and assess if it was justified or not when violence or force is used. Our Revolution from Britain…justified because we won. The South’s revolution in the 1860’s,…well they lost.

Not sure what this has to do with the shooting at the SLC protest. The newly revealed video doesn’t show Gamboa running toward the crowd until he was shot at. It looks like the “peacekeeper” assumed too much. He owns it and owes for the life of Ah Loo. It also sounds like the event staff circled the wagons with the story of how it transpired to report to the police.

 

[biku324]

Maybe I do not. I have worked undercover at the federal level in the center of that state and areas including the southeast. NM is not not a big threat state. Walking around and protesting in New Mexico is not exactly my idea of pushing back and creating some worry about what happened in Minnesota. I am guessing nobody in that state knows there was even some protest or gathering where you were, my point is protests like the no kings thing do not change votes, most people do not care, and the fact that .000001% of the population shows up is not even remembered by most people.

Go to all you want but you are not changing anybody else. If you have any data that protest marches change laws, I would appreciate some links. I have graduate degrees dealing with statistics, I always like to see new data and would certainly change my opinion if there were any credible evidence.

Studies from the history of the country do not show protests where violence accompanies them are just not very effective.

Protest Movements: How Effective are They?

The Commons is an online library for the change makers of the world and for those interested in social change, activism, organising, advocacy and justice.

commonslibrary.org

The internet has made them even less effective. The reason, CNN showed over 100 acts of violence in the California riots. Regardless of the message sent by the mayor of LA and the gov of California, the massive actions of violence and flying of Mexican flags create the flash in the pan effect. Nobody will care by the time the next election roles around. And the impact of some protest in New Mexico will not be remembered by anyone but those who attended.

So, go do your "push back" all you want, but here is the research/

Protests rarely change views or alter voting decisions, according to new research1.

Do Social Movements Sway Voters? Not Really, Except for One | Working Knowledge

www.library.hbs.edu

I can cite dozens of these if you want. People go protest to make themselves feel good, doing something they think. But the people will vote the same on key issues as they did before, no change at all.

And practically, New Mexico is not a player in making national policy. Love the state, including Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and even Raton and Chama and the entire northern border with Colorado. I have visited the NRA Whittington Center as many as 3 visits per year. Everyone who is a serious shooter visits there a few times.

And the 5051 group is nothing more than a Democratic resistance to Trump, their platform is the same, just showing up to remind people of their agenda, but nothing of substance. Essentially a hate group, latterly they hate everything Trump does. But they have no new agenda or issues to make the country better. You can just look at their signs and message and determine that, nothing is new.

50501 movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's quite a wordy post for protests that don't matter in a state that doesn't count.

 

[Law-dog]

Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Your babble describes you. We have a murder or a negligent homicide. A political action group called 5051 either hired or invited snipers to be at that march with deadly force to deal with whatever, they described in their contractual arrangement which we have not seen.

Nobody has the right to kill another person on purpose or accidentally. When any shooter kills another person, it is either a justifiable homicide or not. As i tried to explain but it went over your head, the dead guy did nothing wrong. The sniper who killed him did something wrong. It may be negligence, or if he fired too quickly under the circumstances, it may be more than mere negligence. Either way, the sniper and the political action group 5051, owes money to the family of the guy they killed.

A jury will decide if the rounds fired were proper or not, we will assume they were. Then the jury will decide if the ricochet, over power ammunition, poor training or just poor shooting caused the death of the innocent man.

Once the degree of culpability is determined, the jury will decide how much money is owed to the dead guys family. You cannot just claim you were protecting someone else, and kill a guy and walk away. Our Constitution and statutory form of justice does not allow you to kill people and escape liability. It is no different that if you have home invasion and shoot at the invader in your hallway, and your bullet goes next door and kills a toddler. Just because you were defending your home, does not justify you using a gun or bullet so powerful as to kill kids next door. You owe that family for the choices you made killing their kid.

That should not be hard to understand.


Here is a link to a law firm that discussed negligent injury. It might help you understand.

Can You Sue for Accidental or Negligent Discharge of a Firearm?

Gunshot victims and their families have a right to fair compensation under the law. Learn how to pursue an injury claim after a gun accident.

www.injuryclaimcoach.com

As far as the Utah case, the political action group 5051 was pretty foolish using private security to keep the peace. The would have been much smarter to have the local police department to keep the peace if that was a concern. Peacekeepers is a dumb name to call private security or snipers. They should have just called them Security. That peacekeeper name will come back to bite them.

I would love to be the attorney suing that group. There is no good explanation for how that one happened. Anyone testifying would be easy to trip up, and I would love to be the attorney taking their testimony. Without seeing the evidence, I cannot determine what went so wrong.

I do expect the Political Action group 5051 to rush out an offer to pay the family a million bucks or so quickly. Because they do not want a trial, they will pay more if they do.

Time will tell, stand back and watch. I expect the lawsuit to be filed in a couple weeks.

 

[326MOD10]

It was not a private security company but volunteers with the march.

As I stated previously the group asked protesters and the Peacekeepers to not bring firearms, according to the group.

Just FYI.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Here ya go.

New video of Salt Lake City protest shooting appears to contradict police

Video of Saturday’s No Kings protest in Salt Lake City appears to show a suspect with his rifle aimed down and not running until a volunteer begins shooting.

www.fox13now.com

I called it as the most likely scenario.

Anything to excuse a conservative mass shooter, eh?

By this logic, crawling around on a roof with a rifle aimed at-ish a VIP is totally legal and acceptable. By this logic, carrying a rifle into a school is fine until a trigger gets pulled.

So which is it?

Whipping out an AR at a crowd and ignoring a command to drop the weapon = hostile intent. Or do we like have to wait for the first round to be fired?

Considering that the LE standard is “I was in fear” it looks like the peacekeeper did exactly what they should have…it’s a minor miracle we didn’t have 10+ casualties from AR fire.

 

[326MOD10]

Actually upon reading many news articles out of Salt Lake the guy with the rifle was a frequent protester at BLM marches and other protest that were similar.

It was reported that he usually carried his rifle to provide security for those protesters.

He was taken into custody right away and a citizen saw him and alerted police. This guy said it was odd because he had the rifle in his bag and was asking others hunkered down with him what are we going to do now, or something along that line.

He never fired a shot despite having the opportunity after being engaged and was there among the very people it is said he came to hurt.

Now I don't know what happened but things like these make me wonder.

I will pass judgements when I know about little more.

 

[Doriangray6]

Conceptually I’d like to agree, but what do you do when the police are either apathetic, focused on the crowd as the threat (not protecting it) or even worse actively hostile to the protest?

Remember, just last week, we had a Republican sheriff in Florida literally threatening to execute protesters if the police perceived violence towards themselves. I don’t think we can count on law enforcement being there to protect and serve.

Also, it doesn’t appear these were snipers; it seems they were more like marshals (in the broadest sense of the term) armed with handguns, not rifles with optics and a prepared position for overwatch. They reportedly saw the shooter duck away in a suspicious manner and pull a rifle out, which of course is a massive threat. They then engaged him as he ran toward the protest, hit him and one civilian, and the shooter then tried to blend in before someone else put the pieces together.

Also worth noting that despite a heavy LE presence, LE was totally ignorant of the initial engagement. Proof no one can be everywhere.

The Supreme Court on several occasions has handed down decisions stating that the primary duty of state and Federal police departments and security agencies, even though they're funded by tax payer dollars, is to support and protect the interests of the "State" rather than to "Protect and Serve" the general public and that the only function of private law enforcement/security agencies, though they're subject to "most" state and federal laws, is to protect the interests of those that pay them.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

The Supreme Court on several occasions has handed down decisions stating that the primary duty of state and Federal police departments and security agencies, even though they're funded by tax payer dollars, is to support and protect the interests of the "State" rather than to "Protect and Serve" the general public and that the only function of private law enforcement/security agencies, though they're subject to "most" state and federal laws, is to protect the interests of those that pay them.

Absolutely; just another reason why protestors cannot necessarily trust law enforcement to follow laws, protect the public or not attack them if they’re offended.

 

[Doriangray6]

Absolutely; just another reason why protestors cannot necessarily trust law enforcement to follow laws, protect the public or not attack them if they’re offended.

"Beware what your country does to "others" for it will one day do the same to you"
Some graffiti I saw on a wall in Danang.

 

[dockmurgw]

I'm reminded of the nasty neighborhood cat that comes into your yard to crap in the kids sandbox. At least the cat has an excuse...it's a cat...and not on a self-described mission to burn out the 2A zealots.

 

[TaxPhd]

Walking with a rifle out toward a crowd = mass shooter in 2025; I’m not sure even tactical kit or an insinuation of a uniform would help. If I’m in the crowd and I see that, cover/escape and draw/shoot are my two priorities, I’m not outrunning 5.56 and letting him get the rifle up and firing means I’ve waited too long.

The highlight above is complete nonsense. If open carry in that locale is legal, and there are no laws in that locale about being armed while at or in close proximity to a protest, rifle guy has done nothing wrong. You don’t get to shoot him because of your beliefs about what he might do in the future.

 

[K Frame Keith]

Somebody else started one of these threads! Popcorn time!

 

[Lance Boyle]

Anything to excuse a conservative mass shooter, eh?

By this logic, crawling around on a roof with a rifle aimed at-ish a VIP is totally legal and acceptable. By this logic, carrying a rifle into a school is fine until a trigger gets pulled.

So which is it?

Whipping out an AR at a crowd and ignoring a command to drop the weapon = hostile intent. Or do we like have to wait for the first round to be fired?

Considering that the LE standard is “I was in fear” it looks like the peacekeeper did exactly what they should have…it’s a minor miracle we didn’t have 10+ casualties from AR fire.

lol, you’ll do well in life. Glad you weren’t hurt at the protest. And where do you get that scruffy dude with an AR was a conservative. He wasn’t, nice try on the gaslighting. This was all protester/anarchist friendly fire. They do have a right to protest, they do have a right to carry guns and government does bear watching for sure,….but they still own their actions.

Do we have an ignore button for trolls here?

 

[Law-dog]

It was not a private security company but volunteers with the march.

As I stated previously the group asked protesters and the Peacekeepers to not bring firearms, according to the group.

Just FYI.

I have not heard that. Do you have a link showing where the 5051 organization asked the "peacekeepers" not to bring firearms? Also, do you know who coined the term peacekeepers? It will all come out in the lawsuits down the road, but I am just curious.

If the organizer asked them not to be armed but they were without the 5051 organization knowing about it, that might let the organization off the hook for the wrongful death of the innocent guy attending the protest.

Thanks for any information.