Crime Motorist shoots dead two environmental protesters blocking a road - Driver caught in traffic gets out of his car and guns down demonstrators when they refuse to move in Panama

  • Shocking footage shows the man gunning down two environmental protesters in Chame, Panama
  • The pair were killed and one person was arrested in connection with the incident, officials said
  • ***WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES***
By CHRIS JEWERS
PUBLISHED: 09:46 EST, 8 November 2023 | UPDATED: 12:08 EST, 8 November 2023

This is the shocking moment a motorist shot dead two environmental demonstrators at near point blank range after becoming enraged over their road blockade in Panama.

Harrowing images captured the shooter, a frustrated elderly man, climbing out of his car to argue with the eco-protesters who had stopped traffic on the Pan-American Highway in the town of Chame.

He initially attempted to reason with the protesters, but moments later pulled a handgun from his pocket and began gesturing wildly as his frustration grew. Despite the imminent danger, the protesters stubbornly refused to curtail their demonstration and continued to argue back and forth with the disgruntled motorist, who became visibly more enraged with each passing moment.

For a time it looked as though the gunman was prepared to back down, but when one protester holding a flag stepped towards him, he snapped the pistol back up and fired at his target from mere feet away.

Terrified onlookers and other protesters helped move the victim to the side of the road and laid him down on the ground as the gunman calmly began dismantling a small barricade made of stones and tyres erected by the demonstrators.

Still undeterred, another protester wearing a black t-shirt and jeans tried to confront the gunman and was also shot. Footage shows how he recoiled from the shot, holding his upper chest in pain and with an expression of disbelief on his face.

He is shown hobbling away to the side of the road as other protesters run for cover, before slumping to the ground.

Horrified friends of the victims rushed to their aid, with bystanders seen applying pressure to the wounds in an attempt to stem the blood loss - but neither victim survived their injuries.

Police descended on the scene and promptly arrested the shooter, dragging him away in cuffs and bundling him into the back of a squad car.

77558147-12725473-This_is_the_sh.jpg
This is the shocking moment an irate motorist shot dead an environmental protester in Panama. He went on to shoot another man in the incident before being detained

Motorist shoots dead two environmental protestors blocking the road



77557515-12725473-Police_also_pu.jpg
Police also published a photo of the detainee - an older man with greying hair and glasses - seated with one hand cuffed to a pipe, either in a police station or van. He was earlier seen walking down the road towards the protesters
77563025-12725473-The_man_was_se.jpg
The man was seen pulling a gun from his pocket and waving it in front of the protesters in the middle of the road
77563021-12725473-The_man_is_see.jpg
The man is seen gesturing with the handgun in his right hand, as he argues with the protesters blocking the road
77557519-12725473-One_man_seen_i.jpg
One man, seen in a black t-shirt holding a flag, got into a heated argument with the man (lfet). The video cuts to the man holding the flag falling to the ground
77557513-12725473-This_is_the_sh.jpg
This is the shocking moment one of two environmental protesters blocking a road in Panama was shot dead by an irate driver
77557517-12725473-The_first_man.jpg
The first man to be shot is seen being treated on the ground
77558119-12725473-A_second_man_a.jpg
A second man also confronted the gunmen. This photo was taken moments before he was also shot by the angry motorist in Chame, Panama

The tragic incident came amid the latest round of protests in a three-week long demonstration against a controversial government mining contract in the country, officials said.

Several avenues in the capital were blocked Tuesday by small groups of protesters, while the Pan-American Highway was obstructed in several spots, hindering transport of food, fuel and medicine.

The deaths followed local reports that a demonstrator was run over and killed on November 1 by a foreigner attempting to cross a roadblock during a protest in the west of the country.

The contract, given final approval October 20, allows the local subsidiary of Canadian mining company First Quantum Minerals to continue operating an open-pit copper mine in a richly biodiverse jungle west of the capital.

The contract is for the next 20 years - with the possibility of extending for a further 20 years if the mine remains productive.

Since protests began, the government nearly passed legislation that would have revoked the contract, but it backtracked in a late-evening debate at the National Assembly on November 2.

77560885-12725473-The_man_is_see.jpg
The man is seen standing in the middle of the road after being seen to have shot two people in the middle of the protest
77558139-12725473-A_man_is_seen.jpg
A man is seen holding a gun after walking up to a teachers' blockade on the Pan-American Highway in Chame
77559911-12725473-The_man_still.jpg
The man, still holding the handgun, is seen attempting to clear the blockade in the road
77558131-12725473-A_man_is_arres.jpg
A man is arrested after shooting two protesters with a gun in the middle of a teachers' blockade on the Pan-American Highway in Chame, Panama
77560819-12725473-The_angry_moto.jpg
The angry motorist is seen being put into the back of a police van after the shooting incident on Tuesday
77558137-12725473-People_react_a.jpg
People react after witnessing a man shoot two protesters with a gun in the middle of a teachers' blockade on the Pan-American Highway
77560801-12725473-A_woman_partic.jpg
A woman participates in a vigil for two two men killed in the shooting incident during Tuesday's protest

In an effort to calm tempers, congress last week passed a law that imposes a moratorium on new metal mining contracts and left it up to the Supreme Court to decide on whether to allow the contract with First Quantum Minerals.

Environmentalists have welcomed this decision by lawmakers, saying indeed it is the court that should rule on whether the contract violates the constitution.

But a powerful construction union called Suntracs, teachers unions and other organizations want the contract to be annulled through a law passed by Congress.

As a result, they are continuing their protests.

Source (Archive)
 
They were intentionally shot at short range after an argument. This wasn't some dude ramming through them to get to work on time, this was intentional murder. The dude took out his gun, waved it around, and then shot two people
Retards stood in road..... Fella with gun tell them to stop being useless and get out of road so he and everyone else can go about their day.... Retards come at man with gun.... Dumbfucks pulled a suicide by people who have shit to do.
 
They were intentionally shot at short range after an argument. This wasn't some dude ramming through them to get to work on time, this was intentional murder. The dude took out his gun, waved it around, and then shot two people

Mongoloid take. He repeatedly warned them to move and let him pass. The right to freely travel from point A to point B is one of the more fundamental human rights that exist. People thinking they can violate those rights and then hide behind "BUT IM JUST A PROTESTOR" is the same crap they tried when burning down stores and throwing rocks at people.

This is not even some new concept. Highwaymen have existed for centuries preying on innocent travelers. There is nothing noble about "give us what we want or you can't pass this road we've taken over". Humanity has been dealing with it for ages. The only new phenomenon is 21st century highwaymen and their simps such as yourself pretending to be surprised when they receive the same punishment their forebears 1000 years ago incurred.
 
The right to freely travel from point A to point B is one of the more fundamental human rights that exist.
That literally doesn't exist at all.
I wanna travel to Elon Musk's mansion and tickle him for example.
Palestinians wanna travel from Gaza A to Egypt B
Dindus wanna travel from Afreek A to Yurop B - and sadly some of them even make it
TL;DR - you have no such free travel rights
 
That literally doesn't exist at all.
I wanna travel to Elon Musk's mansion and tickle him for example.
Palestinians wanna travel from Gaza A to Egypt B
Dindus wanna travel from Afreek A to Yurop B - and sadly some of them even make it
TL;DR - you have no such free travel rights

Ah okay, so we've entered the i'm only pretending to be retarded phase of your trolling. Makes more sense now. Good luck with all that.
 
That literally doesn't exist at all.
I wanna travel to Elon Musk's mansion and tickle him for example.
Palestinians wanna travel from Gaza A to Egypt B
Dindus wanna travel from Afreek A to Yurop B - and sadly some of them even make it
TL;DR - you have no such free travel rights
The right actually does exist for American Indians. Under the jay treaty specifically they have the right to travel all over North America no matter what country.
I can't wait for the GoFundMe tbh, I hope my nigga is freed he didn't do nothing wrong.
 
I'd be interested to see how a case like this would pan out in the US involving one of those assholes that glued their hand to a public highway and someone who warned them that they were going to drive over them if they didn't move. Everyone knows that highways contain cars in transit, it is common sense that if you are in the middle of a highway with your hand glued to the road that you may die, you were warned by a motorist in advance that you needed to move or you may die because they intend to use the highway as intended. The guy had the option of chopping his hand off to get out of the way of the car and choose not to. The protest was unauthorized and was in violation of the law. Could the guy driving the car be convicted of a criminal act?

What's your take on that, @AnOminous ? Since the person was given ample opportunity to move, was warned ahead of time, and was themselves committing a criminal act, what is the liability of the motorist that ran over them?
 
I'd be interested to see how a case like this would pan out in the US involving one of those assholes that glued their hand to a public highway and someone who warned them that they were going to drive over them if they didn't move. Everyone knows that highways contain cars in transit, it is common sense that if you are in the middle of a highway with your hand glued to the road that you may die, you were warned by a motorist in advance that you needed to move or you may die because they intend to use the highway as intended. The guy had the option of chopping his hand off to get out of the way of the car and choose not to. The protest was unauthorized and was in violation of the law. Could the guy driving the car be convicted of a criminal act?

What's your take on that, @AnOminous ? Since the person was given ample opportunity to move, was warned ahead of time, and was themselves committing a criminal act, what is the liability of the motorist that ran over them?

I would think the locations pedestrian right of way laws would play a part.
 
I would think the locations pedestrian right of way laws would play a part.

Nope. Not in the middle of a highway. Roads have designated safe crossing points. They are called crosswalks. Crossing a road without a a safe crossing point is jaywalking and is against the law. Also, right of way only applies for transit across a road, if someone is sitting on the road, that is not transit. Further, a right of way for pedestrians only exists if there is no inherent danger to the pedestrian or those using the road for proper and lawful conduct, none of that is true for someone in the middle of a highway. Right of way also doesn't apply because they are using the road in a way that is inappropriate and inconsistent with its purpose, which is a crime.
 
It's a protest, and what gramps did was double homicide, not just "fucking back". Allowing and encouraging murder as an appropriate reaction to protests will not work out well
>double homicide
Well duh.

“HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain whether he fell by one kind or another -- the classification is for
advantage of the lawyers.”
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
What's your take on that, @AnOminous ? Since the person was given ample opportunity to move, was warned ahead of time, and was themselves committing a criminal act, what is the liability of the motorist that ran over them?
It's Panama so I assume they have their own laws, but in general, not even in Texas would you be entitled to shoot someone for merely annoying you. Now if someone like an EMT with a dying patient in an ambulance just happened to shove some moron aside in the process of getting to the hospital, it would become a bit more ambiguous.

It is almost never going to be considered justified to kill someone just for obstructing a motorway, though, whether or not you agree it's a protest or just view it as a crime.

Put it this way, though, put me on the jury of a case like this and if the guy has the remotest shred of a defense, I'm going to view it as charitably as rationally possible. Oh, he has a touch of Alzheimer's? Oh, his wife just died? Oh, he had Intermittent Explosive Disorder and this set him off? Involuntary manslaughter, okay.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to see how a case like this would pan out in the US involving one of those assholes that glued their hand to a public highway and someone who warned them that they were going to drive over them if they didn't move. Everyone knows that highways contain cars in transit, it is common sense that if you are in the middle of a highway with your hand glued to the road that you may die, you were warned by a motorist in advance that you needed to move or you may die because they intend to use the highway as intended. The guy had the option of chopping his hand off to get out of the way of the car and choose not to. The protest was unauthorized and was in violation of the law. Could the guy driving the car be convicted of a criminal act?

What's your take on that, @AnOminous ? Since the person was given ample opportunity to move, was warned ahead of time, and was themselves committing a criminal act, what is the liability of the motorist that ran over them?

Driver who killed BLM protester on I-5 in Seattle sentenced to over 6 years

On July 4, 2020, Kelete was traveling at “freeway speeds” on Interstate 5 when he swerved around a barricade of demonstrators’ vehicles and into a group of protesters, hitting Taylor, who later died in the hospital, and critically injuring Love.

Kelete had told officers he had been in withdrawal from the medication Percocet, which contains oxycodone, and was struggling with an untreated addiction, court documents say.
I'm assuming he couldn't afford a decent lawyer if he plead guilty in this case. Or maybe he failed a drug test and plead down to manslaughter.
Shortly after Taylor’s death, Matt Taylor called for the firing of a King County Sheriff’s Office deputy accused of posting an offensive meme that appeared to refer to his child. “It’s disgusting and it’s unfathomable to me,” Matt Taylor said at the time.
See, all this does is make me want to see the "offensive meme."
 
They were intentionally shot at short range after an argument. This wasn't some dude ramming through them to get to work on time, this was intentional murder. The dude took out his gun, waved it around, and then shot two people

They were Environmental protestors. They wanted to reduce carbon, so he did.

F-faFbxWMAAey0q.jpg
 
It's a protest,
Again, forcing hundreds of people to be confined to their vehicles in the middle of fucking nowhere isn't a protest. It's false imprisonment.
and what gramps did was double homicide,
Yep.
not just "fucking back".
Nope. It was most certainly was.
Allowing and encouraging murder as an appropriate reaction to protests will not work out well
I don't encourage murder. I simply stated this is an obvious eventual reaction to fucking with people.

If I were to say, "Fucking with hundreds of strangers will eventually have negative and most certainly deadly consequences" That's a statement of obvious fact. That's what I did here.
Now if I were to say, "Fucking with hundreds of strangers should be responded too with hunting down the perpetrators and killing them in the act." That's a statement of encouragement.
Knowing the difference is key.
They were intentionally shot at short range after an argument. This wasn't some dude ramming through them to get to work on time, this was intentional murder.
That would have still been intentional murder.
The dude took out his gun, waved it around, and then shot two people
Which is probably the funniest part. Someone waves a gun in your face and tells you to knock your shit off. You now get to make a choice, do you:
A: Assume the person who is yelling in your face and waving a gun around is bluffing.
B:Decide that discretion is the better part of valor and fuck off.

Corpse #1 chose A and lost that bet.
Corpse 2 after watching the birth of corpse #1 then decided to advance upon the killer and was killed. This is an amazing level of stupidity.

Someone made the comment about "destroyed families", lets not forget that the event that set all this into action in the first place was a bunch of morons who decided to harass people who had nothing to do with what they were protesting rather than going to where the politicians were and protesting there.
 
If you get held hostage at a robbery in theory you have a right to defend yourself and kill the person holding you hostage (though it probably rarely happens). Why shouldn't the same principle apply when you are being held hostage by a bunch of protestors? The way I see it, they got what they deserved and it's 100% self-defense.

Unlawful detainment? I like it. That would be an interesting basis for an affirmative defense.
 
If I were to say, "Fucking with hundreds of strangers will eventually have negative and most certainly deadly consequences" That's a statement of obvious fact. That's what I did here.
Fuck with thousands of random people in a way that would cause rage in a normal person, and you will eventually run into the Wrong Person to Fuck With and they will do what every one of those other people wanted to do, and you will get no sympathy.
Corpse #1 chose A and lost that bet.
Corpse 2 after watching the birth of corpse #1 then decided to advance upon the killer and was killed. This is an amazing level of stupidity.
And this is why I have zero sympathy. And "did they deserve to die for blocking a road" doesn't even enter into it. Stupidity does, though. They did shit that was virtually guaranteed to ensure everyone they encountered that day would feel nothing but furious hatred for them. This is basically buying a ticket to get blown away.

They bought a stupid ticket, took a stupid ride.

Nothing of value was lost.
 
The A&N circlejerk is cringe as usual. Giant pile of pathetic faggots making the same 3 predictable jokes and sucking each other off for updoot reacts and karma harvesting. Using any excuse to say ghoulish shit about how members of the out group should be murdered, because you're so downtrodden in your own lives that all you have is petulant anger. Like you wouldn't all be terrified at the sight of someone getting murdered in front of you for- what? Mildly inconveniencing people? And you'll grouse all day about their methods, as though you wouldn't endorse a protest 10x as destructive if it was for your team. Making up fables about blocked ambulances to make yourself feel better at the stiffy you've got at the sight of someone with actual balls venting the anger you keep pent up all day.
Were you deprived of oxygen as an infant or something? He was in the right. They had absolutely no business being there. Yeah it's sad people died but this is why there needs to be a law barring people from blocking roads and highways. Its very inconvenient.
 
@Mr Processor

I remember that case, and it wasn't exactly protestors backing up traffic, then a driver taking matters into his own hands. The BLM protestors were fucking around on a mostly empty highway, then the defendant rolled onto the scene in a stolen car and hit the two protestors at nearly 60mph. From what I remember of the video, he had plenty of room to evade them and simply didn't because he was going too fast. The two situations aren't really comparable.
 
Back