That is what I’m thinking. At first I went along with the speculation that Gamboa was intending to shoot into the crowd. But after reviewing the video, it looks more like he was just walking and open carrying with the rifle pointed down. It might not have been the best move in hindsight, but he had the legal right to do so.

Also after listening to his Slugmag interview I’m just not seeing the motivation for a mass shooting. Unless maybe he intended to shoot cops or something. He just doesn’t seem to fit the profile & ideology of a mass shooter.

Edit: the interview if anyone is curious https://www.slugmag.com/soundwaves/episode-364-rade/

What was the shooting for?

No idea

Was that guy confirmed to be the same shooter?

Not confirmed, but from what I can tell several eyewitnesses noticed something fishy with his backpack. The OP of the video has been posting on Reddit /r/saltlakecity and /r/publicfreakout, and there’s another video just beforehand where people are talking about the backpack.

The events are very chaotic. What I can tell from eyewitnesses statements: the perp shot somebody (supposedly in the head), and someone in a yellow vest (yellow vests were either cops or security who was with the organizers) immediately drew a gun and shot the perp back (would explain why in some photos it looks like he’s bleeding, and cops / EMS are rendering medical aid). Eyewitnesses said after that, a plainclothes cop who was among the protesters also drew a gun too, but by then the perp had ran off.

Meanwhile (can see from security footage posted by the news), police swarm in maybe a minute? after the shooting.

Supposedly someone maybe saw the perp putting the rifle in his backpack, and when he went to hide among other protestors, the guy in the video grabbed his backpack to get it away from it, opened it, found the rifle, and called police over and pointed out the long hair guy. Pretty sure several people in the area the video was taken were also interviewed by police, and it was enough to arrest him.

All we know now is that police have 3 people in custody and have been asking for more photos / videos of the incident.

I was about a block away and I didn’t hear anything as I was focused on something else, but my coworker standing next to me heard at least one shot. Shortly after we saw a dozen people running, and then a couple dozen more and people yelled “active shooter”, and then we were running too. I ran a block, and shortly after that saw an unmarked cruiser fly in, and then a couple minutes later saw a van with riot police pull up back to the main area of the march. Riot police got out and just stood there basically, and eventually got the rest of the marching protestors moving away from the area with the shooting, and then got everyone to disperse. There was no violence between protestors and cops. After the shooting everyone seemed happy to disperse. Riot cops were really just helping to direct everyone away at that point.

My speculation: I think the shooting was politically motivated, and the shooter intended to shoot many more people, but did not expect such a quick response to his actions. The people responding including yellow vest guy, and the guy who grabbed the backpack probably saved many lives.

Edit: I saw there is now what looks like security cam footage of yellow vest guy shooting the perp

Edit: News story just published corroborates some of what I saw eyewitnesses say. Unfortunately it’s confirmed that the victim died. Police are saying the victim was essentially collateral damage, shot by a yellow vest who was attempting to stop the man with the rifle and the backpack. Really sad all around.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2025/06/15/marcher-wounded-no-kings-protest/

Today in SLC someone took a rifle to our march and shot a protestor. Last I heard the victim didn’t make it.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/06/14/crowd-gathers-salt-lake-city-march/

After the shots, everyone scattered and the shooter hid among others who were trying to shelter & take cover. Some hero noticed the rifle sticking out of his bag, grabbed the bag and called police over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXjidb2vNwI

DM’d, thank you friend.

Thank you for this. My wife left about a week ago. It blindsided me, but I’m hindsight I could have seen it. She’s been throwing herself into her work for the last 4 years. I felt the lack of love, but never had the tools to express my needs. Whenever we talked about it, we ended up fighting.

In hindsight, if someone is not feeling love in a marriage, why would they stay?

Like you, we also always thought we had the tools to work things out.

I’ve learned now that in our relationship she has been anxiously attached – it makes sense now why I could never have the “rational” kind of conversation I wanted with her.

Meanwhile I have been avoidant or possibly fearful-avoidant. What I thought of as “taking a break in an argument when things get heated” to go independently deal with my emotions must have been painful for her, and she would then chase me. End result: neither of us was able to regulate our emotions.

I’ve was open to ENM in our relationship, but she was against it, so we never persued it. So it stings even more seeing signs that she’s been cheating on me. Though I guess, even in ENM, why would you keep seeing a partner whom you feel no love for anymore?

In the last week I have been cramming attachment theory, Gottman, NVC, trying to have some idea of what the hell happened. Now I realize that if I don’t work on myself, I will bring all of my problems to any future relationship. I’m only at the very start of the journey, and every day is still painful – our relationship lasted 15 years, and that can’t be unwound quickly.

Thank you for your service.

Yeah I posted my comment just before everything broke all over again lol. Got it working again but yeah always have to spend so much time fixing this shit thanks to Google.

It works, but requires a shit ton of time to constantly stay on top of fixing Play Integrity.

It would be pretty easily though, if anyone starts to think that it’s important.

Best we can do is silently block your messages if you fail Play Integrity.

I dunno, but I would think BSD shares a lot of the same ethos.

He posts a lot of his art on Lemmy.

If I have rate limiting set up (through crowdsec) to prevent bots from scanning / crawling my server, should I be as worried?

I think I remember being able to switch to anonymous user with it.

DV is difficult to get working properly on PC, and last time I tried to set up an HTPC I ran into tons of remote control issues and it wasn’t simple enough that I could just hand the remote over to a guest (or my spouse).

2019 Shield has plenty of issues sure, but it still seems like the best option for me, personally.

Agree about disable network on the TV itself.

SmartTube

You can connect Jellyfin to an SSO provider. It still needs work, and client support is lacking. Ideally I think it maybe should be built in rather than a plug-in (would definitely encourage more client support). But it exists.

https://github.com/9p4/jellyfin-plugin-sso

Feature request for oidc/sso:

https://features.jellyfin.org/posts/230/support-for-oidc-oauth-sso

As it stands, you could enable both the SSO and LDAP plugins, and let users do password resets entirely through your auth provider.

Basically, this is all stuff that comes with Plex out-of-the-box, but you sort of have to glue it together yourself with Jellyfin, and it’s not yet in an ideal state. Plex is much much easier to configure. I wouldn’t allow yourself to believe that Plex doing all this for you will make you totally secure through – there’s been multiple incidents with their auth, and IIRC the LastPass attacker pivoted from a weak Plex install. Just food for thought.

When I use the word “private” I mean that stores, for the most part, are not owned by the government. I am saying that laws related to private property apply in this situation.

Technically what we are talking about here is a private business open to the public. And we are specifically talking about non government here, since getting trespassed from public property is a bit different in some ways.

Yes, there are many laws that apply to a private business open to the public (ADA, civil rights, food safety, etc.).

But the store is still owned by a company or an individual. They have the right to determine who can be on their property and when, within the bounds of any other applicable laws.

For the most part my response was concerned with legalities, as you seem confident that a store could lose a lawsuit merely for trespassing an individual. It seems you are claiming that a private business does not have the legal right to trespass an individual?

I’m not questioning your ability to walk past receipt checkers without talking to them. I do the same thing.

I do not dispute that refusing to talk to the store makes things more difficult if their goal becomes trespassing you from their property. However, the store does not need your name to tell you that you’re not welcome on their property. If you return, you will be in violation of trespass law. The store also does not need your name to call the police and report a crime. In reality, yes, this is unlikely to happen to you, but it has certainly happened.

I am not attempting to put under scrutiny your ability to file in court the paperwork necessary for a lawsuit in the event that a store trespasses you.

My question is: what would be the legal basis for such a lawsuit?

If a private business decides to trespass you for any or no reason, what would be the basis of your lawsuit?

You are correct that you own the items after you purchase them, and the store has no right to stop you unless they are asserting shopkeeper’s privilege. For that, I believe they would need reasonable articulable suspicion just like any investigatory stop by law enforcement.

But at the same time, a private business has every right to ask you to leave for any reason at all, as long as they are not discriminating based on a protected class. They can tell you that you’re not welcome back, and if you return then you will almost certainly be breaking your state’s trespass law.

In reality, I don’t really see any store wanting to start the widespread trespassing of customers who are just walking out of a store with their purchased items (assuming no prior agreement with the store to stop or show receipt). It would be a big customer service risk on behalf of the store. However, it’s also untrue to say that just walking past a receipt checker is completely devoid of the risk of a store banning you.

To put it another way: you’re at a friend’s house, and he says you must stand on your head and sing the alphabet. You refuse. He has no legal way to compel you to comply. But he can ask you to leave his house and not come back. Your refusal to comply with his ridiculous alphabet related request is perfectly valid, but doing so can also bring some amount of risk that you’re no longer welcome.

Why does he suck?