As I can interpret, from this horribly written article:
A man (Arturo Gamboa, 24) was seen ducking behind a wall and grabbing a rifle (an AR-15 is how it’s named in the story). 2 men in bright vests (peacekeepers. as in…who? It’s not clear who they are) confronted Arturo with pistols drawn. Arturo raised his rifle and moved toward the crowd, and the peacekeepers opened fire. They injured Arturo and killed Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39. Arthur was an innocent bystander.
Arturo has been charged with murder for creating the situation that lead to Arthur’s death. The peacekeepers remain unidentified.
The peacekeepers were, I believe, working with the protest organizers. They have people in bright vests keeping people in the right designated areas, attending to emergencies, or giving armed response when shit goes down.
You have no idea how psyched I am that they are armed. Well, not happy that this is where we’ve ended up, but about the fact that they’re out there ready to defend the people. This isn’t the first video I’ve seen about them jumping into action with this sort of “armed maniac” situation.
I saw another post here with pictures of this guy carrying his rifle at other protests. He may have just be a leftist 2nd amendment enthusiast.
Who was so enthusiastic he felt like he had to raise his rifle and move towards the crowd with it, to show his enthusiasm?
I think he was about as leftist as the people on Lemmy who were super vocal about Gaza and the US economy, before the election, and then moved on and stopped caring about any of those issues or their relationship to the US presidential administration as soon as the election happened.
I really can’t tell what “raised” means in this context. It doesn’t say anywhere that he pointed his rifle at anyone. There isn’t enough information in this story to infer intent. And I definitely can’t deduce the political leaning of someone barely mentioned in a news story, regardless of your feelings on Gaza and the economy.
- He had a rifle.
- He was shot by unnamed people.
- The unnamed people also killed a bystander.
I really can’t tell what “raised” means
“Raising a rifle” has a single fairly unambiguous meaning to most people I know; although we have only the story’s word for that being what happened, it’s not like a confusing type of description of events, along with the other elements (him retrieving the rifle instead of having it carried with him, running towards the crowd ignoring people trying to talk with him, and so on.) I actually think they did a pretty good job of explaining the circumstances which sort of clearly point to one conclusion, without doing anything other than presenting the factual circumstances.
There isn’t enough information in this story to infer intent.
If we assume that what’s in the story is accurate, then yes, to me there is.
And I definitely can’t deduce the political leaning of someone barely mentioned
Correct. So why did you speculate that he may have been a leftist? I never said anything about his political leaning or the underlying motives.
“Raising a rifle” has a single fairly unambiguous meaning to most people I know;
Yep, it sure does. But this is a poorly written article from The Guardian. I’m not sure Brits know what an AR-15 is.
If we assume that what’s in the story is accurate, then yes, to me there is.
Don’t assume anything. It makes you an ass.
why did you speculate that he may have been a leftist?
Because it’s speculation. I see nothing in this one, poorly-written story that says anything other than some armed people in vests shot someone else carrying a rifle, and killed a bystander in the process. I’m almost certain the guy with the rifle didn’t shoot anybody, but that’s just…ahem…speculation.
Thank you. The last bit about the peacekeepers being unidentified may be the last piece of this puzzling article I could not comprehend.
Police shoot ‘No Kings’ demonstrator to death at Utah protest.Edit: Reading comprehension.
Magat terrorist attack leads to innocent bystander being shot and killed.
Fixed it for you.
He wasn’t shot by the police. He was shot by a civilian.
As it happens, the world is more complex than your pre-established prejudices you jump to. The police’s action was to find and arrest the actual shooter, which is, believe it or not, a good thing.
It was a genuinely rough read with all the passive voice.
But yeah, okay, I did totally believe a cop shot someone to death. I’ve been conditioned to expect it, because it happens so frequently.
You can dial it back now.
It’s literally in the subtitle: “Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, was apparently shot by member of event’s peacekeeping team.” And then at the beginning of the story, it explains in detail the situation, which honestly wasn’t all that complex, a short direct event with 3 people involved in it. I and apparently all the downvoters managed to read it and make perfect sense of it.
You just couldn’t understand it because of your prejudices. You can only draw one type of conclusion in this type of situation, and this wasn’t it, so you couldn’t comprehend and reached a totally different conclusion and then broadcasted it to everyone who would listen. It had nothing to do with passive voice. And now, you’re doubling down on the same prejudices that led you to be unable to read the article and make sense of the clear explanation. That’s why I was kind of blunt with you: Because you’re going to keep failing to understand the world, sometimes in situations that are a lot less clear-cut and immediately obvious than this one, for as long as you cling to those prejudices (which are pretty popular prejudices to cling to in the modern left.)
