​Vigilante or Sheepdog?

On June 14, 2025, during a “No Kings” rally, members of the rally peacekeeping team, with handguns deployed, engaged an armed man carrying an AR-15-style rifle. The man dressed in all black and wearing a black mask turned from the peacekeeping team, shouldered his rifle and moved towards the demonstrators. At that point one of the peacekeepers fired three shots striking the man with a non-fatal wound while also striking an innocent protestor fatally.
At least that is what the media and law enforcement are reporting so far. I say that because often the media is more interested in first rather than correct. If it weren’t for the SLCPD report, I would not have led with the accounting of the event. Law enforcement is interested in reporting the facts, usually after a period of investigation.
Most of the reports I have seen from AP and local media agree on the lead of this posting. However, it is common for media outlets to parrot the same ‘facts.’  (Moment of silence for the death of true journalism…)
I am not posting this to be one more of the parrots. The story is getting enough of that already, well, until the news cycle finds the next sensational story. My interest is in analyzing the event from the perspective of a person who is armed and in the public.
I am not interested in the political aspects of the “No Kings” movement. Nor am I going to address the judgement of the ‘peacekeepers’ being armed. As a side note, Sarah Parker, a 50501 coordinator, is quoted in an AP article: “But the organizers ask attendees, including the peacekeepers, not to bring weapons, she said. Still, Parker said they stopped what could’ve been a larger mass casualty event.”
There are two important aspects to this quote. First, they asked the peacekeepers to not bring weapons. Obviously, the ones in Salt Lake City ignored that request. The second aspect is interesting since AP has, in the past, left out statements that do not promote their agenda. They included Sarah Parker’s opinion supporting the belief that the actions of the peacekeeper prevented a mass casualty event. I think I have heard someone say, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
I’ve spent quite a bit of your time and have not addressed my point. Thank you for hanging with me.
Let’s start with my headline, Vigilante or Sheepdog. An aspect of vigilantism is the lack of legal authority. Over the history of our great nation the vigilante has been both an asset to law enforcement and a major thorn in their side. True law enforcement involves very careful investigation to discern facts. Vigilantism has been more apt to act on emotion and the appearance of facts. Being a vigilante is very risky and can easily lead to criminal charges.
The reference to sheepdog is from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s body of work. His main focus is helping the soldier become more effective. He studies the psychology of killing and why most of us are incapable. In a peaceful society, having most of the population incapable of killing another human is a good thing. However, when the civilian is turned into soldier this natural tendency must be overcome.
The sheepdog stands over the flock and will defend that flock to its own death. This is what Lt. Col. Grossman calls the armed individual, such as those peacekeepers. Sheepdogs are willing to not only be armed but to defend others. They run to danger, not from it. Sheepdogs are vigilant, not vigilantes. They do not seek to enforce laws, only defend life.
What about those who took action on June 14th? Were they vigilantes or were they sheepdogs? Not knowing what they were instructed to do (besides not carry arms) I can’t say.
As a concealed carrier I can look at the reported events and apply my training. The first aspect is applying the gun safety rules. In a self-defense situation some of the four basic rules have to be ignored (don’t point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy and know your target and what is beyond) to stay alive.
When the decision is to use deadly force the rules of deadly force must also be applied.
You must be the innocent party. The threat must be immediate. You must fear death or great bodily injury for your life or the life of another. No lesser force is available. No means of retreat or escape. The peacekeeper certainly was an innocent party. The threat was immediate. There was fear for the lives of others. The force applied equaled the force presented. If you only look at it as both were deadly. I do not believe a handgun is equal to even a bolt action rifle, much less a semi-automatic. Both are deadly force. The last requirement would have an expectation that all the protesters would have been able to escape. Since that is unlikely, it is my belief that all the elements of the use of deadly force were met.
Since the peacekeeper was not arrested it is reasonable to believe the LEO’s involved agreed. I don’t believe that is the end of the story though. The SLCPD have indicated they are still investigating the actions of the peacekeepers.
Utah is a constitutional carry state. The peacekeeper was legally armed. While there are areas where carrying a firearm is not legal, the street is not one of them.
An area of vulnerability is hitting a bystander. This is always a threat. Even trained LEO’s miss their intended target 70% of time. We know as soon as that primer is ignited the sequence of events is in motion and cannot be stopped. We are responsible for piece of lead we sent on its supersonic journey.
The peacekeeper was not arrested; the threat was and charged with murder. This is consistent with criminals involved in a crime being held responsible for a death as a result of the criminal activity even when they did not directly cause the death.
It seems like a clearcut case of a good guy stepping in to prevent loss of life. However, the peacekeeper could still be vulnerable for negligence. As the case unfolds time will tell.