Salt Lake 'No Kings' Volunteer Faces Manslaughter Trial Over Fatal Shot
Matthew Scott Alder, a volunteer on the security team at the June 14, 2025, "No Kings" protest in Salt Lake City, was ordered Tuesday to stand trial for manslaughter, a second-degree felony. The shots he fired killed Afa Ah Loo. Third District Judge Derek Williams made the ruling at a preliminary hearing after several witnesses testified. The charge sends Alder to a jury. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. The facts that matter are simple: a man carried a gun in public, a fellow volunteer panicked, and a bystander died.
Key Details
Witnesses from the protest security team testified that they saw a man they considered suspicious. They then learned he was armed. Shortly after, they heard three shots. Testimony at the hearing placed the gunfire with another volunteer, not the armed man.
- Event: "No Kings" protest, Salt Lake City, June 14, 2025
- Charged: Matthew Scott Alder, manslaughter, second-degree felony
- Victim: Afa Ah Loo, killed by one of three shots
- Armed man: Arturo Gamboa, carrying a gun, not pointing it at anyone according to the hearing record described here
- Ruling: Judge Derek Williams, Third District Court, found enough evidence that Alder's gunfire caused a death and that he acted recklessly
- Distance: The judge cited testimony of three or four people between Alder and Gamboa
Judge Williams stated a specific standard. At a preliminary hearing, the court must draw every reasonable inference in the state's favor. The judge does not weigh whether witnesses are credible or whether alternate theories hold up. That standard is low by design. It means Alder's defense will get its full hearing at trial, not here. The ruling says only that a jury should decide the question.
Background
Utah allows adults to carry firearms openly without a permit. The state adopted permitless carry in 2021, which means a man walking a protest route with a holstered or visible gun was not breaking state law. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that when the Second Amendment's text covers conduct, the government must justify restrictions by pointing to historical analogues. Carrying a gun in public falls within that conduct. Bruen did not, however, create a right to shoot strangers because they carry. Self-defense law has always required an actual threat, and it has always punished people who fire into crowds.
Manslaughter under Utah law requires recklessness, not intent. Prosecutors do not need to prove Alder meant to kill Ah Loo. They need to show he consciously disregarded a substantial risk of death and that his actions caused it. The "No Kings" protests drew large crowds across the country on June 14, 2025, and many events used volunteer marshals to keep order. Those volunteers are not police. They carry no arrest authority, and they answer to no training standard that courts have recognized as a defense for firing into a crowd.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This case reaches every gun owner who carries, protests, or volunteers at public events. Utah is the most direct example, but the question applies in every state with permitless or open carry. If a fellow citizen spots your holstered pistol and calls it suspicious, the law does not treat that as a shooting justification. A volunteer marshal with a gun who fires because he saw one, not because he was threatened, faces the same criminal exposure as anyone else.
Gun owners working security at rallies, church events, or community marches should take note. Your role does not expand your legal authority. Standing near a crowd with a firearm multiplies the consequences of every shot. Written protocols matter. So do communication with event organizers and a clear policy that carrying is not a reason to draw. Anyone attending a politically charged event should expect that unfamiliar people will notice their gun. Staying calm, keeping the muzzle in a safe direction, and leaving the area beats any confrontation.
Watch the trial record. The case will show how a jury treats a volunteer who claims he feared a lawfully armed bystander. Cases like this shape how prosecutors charge shootings at protests and how defense lawyers argue self-defense. A conviction would send a clear message that lawful carry is not probable cause. An acquittal would show that juries still accept fear as a defense. Either result will shape how events handle armed volunteers.
DownRange Analysis
Bruen gives this case a clear frame. Open carry in public is protected conduct. The government cannot punish a man for carrying a holstered gun without a historical analogue that supports the restriction. Alder's defense will argue that he reacted to a perceived threat, and the Second Amendment does not protect the right to shoot first. The court will judge the shooting on its own facts. The gun in Gamboa's hand did not make him a threat. Holding a lawful firearm is not an act of aggression.
Our read: the state picked the right charge. Firing three rounds with three or four people between you and a man who has not pointed his gun at anyone looks reckless on its face. Self-defense requires an imminent threat. Gamboa did not present one based on the testimony described. The defense will need to show Alder reasonably believed otherwise, and that will be difficult.
What should a gun owner do right now? Carry legally, keep your muzzle controlled, and never treat a visible firearm as a threat by itself. If you volunteer at events, get written rules and understand that you hold no special legal authority. If someone reports you as suspicious, de-escalate and walk away. Do not give anyone a reason to put you on the witness stand.
