How Utah’s self-defense law could impact charging decisions in deadly ‘No Kings’ protest shooting

SALT LAKE CITY — As Salt Lake County prosecutors are weighing what charges, if any, to file after a deadly shooting at the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City, Utah’s self-defense law is likely a factor influencing the deliberation.

“We have one of the strongest self-defense laws in the country,” said Utah attorney Mitch Vilos, who helped write the law and has authored two books about gun laws.

Vilos said he doesn’t envy the job of Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill.

“I know Sim Gill personally. He’s a man of integrity,” said Vilos. “And I just agonize every time he has to make a decision like that.”

The decision before Gill’s office is whether to charge Arturo Gamboa, the man police arrested after shots rang out — or a self-identified “peacekeeper”, the unidentified man who opened fire, wounding Gamboa and killing an innocent bystander.

“You don’t have anyone with evil intent that I know of based upon the news stories,” said Vilos.

Based on the information officials have provided to the public thus far, Vilos said he doesn’t see how prosecutors can win a case against either man.

“The man with the AR-15 might have been, you know, there to protect,” he said. “And the peacekeepers were there to protect, and they were faced with an immediate potential threat.”

A criminal prosecution against the man who fired shots could involve multiple hurdles, Vilos said, including Utah’s self-defense law. It was changed in 2021 to allow defendants a chance to try to get their case thrown out before trial in what’s called a justification hearing.

“It requires a state to show by clear and convincing evidence that it was not self-defense,” said Vilos, or in this case, the defense of others.

There’s also the high burden of proof a jury would have to find — beyond a reasonable doubt.

While Vilos doesn’t think prosecutors can meet the burden of proof in a criminal case, he does believe the man who pulled the trigger could be liable in civil court, where the standard of proof is lower.

“There’s almost always insurance coverage here,” he said.

But he also said sometimes a criminal conviction can interfere with whether an insurance company will pay out damages.

“If there’s justice in this case, it’s probably going to be an insurance company paying damages,” said Vilos.

With no one currently in custody related to the shooting, prosecutors are no longer under a strict deadline for when they have to make those tough decisions.