By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
Does Aurora PD offer equal protection to all?
Let me start with the top-line story before I get to an easily-missed detail.
The first link below is to a CPR article which details how an employee of the ICE detention facility in Aurora allegedly shot a protestor.**
A quote gives some detail:
“Police reported that Booth [the alleged shooter and employee of the facility] and his colleagues had been unable to get into the facility for their work shifts due to the protest. The two women reportedly took pictures of the employees’ cars and got into a verbal altercation with the employees before walking away. Booth then took out his personal firearm and fired one shot in the direction of the women, hitting one woman, police alleged. He got back into his car and drove away, according to Aurora PD.”
Pretty serious. No reasonable person would want a peaceful protestor to be shot, and it’s not okay to return bullets for words, no matter how harsh. Mr. Booth was arrested. He’ll have his day in court. I await the justice system playing out.
There’s more here, however. Revisit the first two sentences of the quote above. The employees could not get into work due to protestors. The women reportedly took pictures of the employees’ cars (presumably including license plates).
Let me pause here to reiterate the above. This is not an excuse to shoot someone. The behavior of the protestors doesn’t justify shooting anyone. It doesn’t justify any sort of physical response.
But it does justify a law enforcement response.
Put aside this particular incident. Put aside the fact that a protestor got shot. It’s not that those aren’t important to note, but they are so noisy they’re clouding something else that is important.
People working for the Federal government are not able to get into their jobs because of massed protests. They have people following them, almost surely hectoring them and saying awful things. They have people taking pictures of their personal vehicles AFTER following them and hectoring them.
Do they not deserve a police presence? Do they deserve some protection (I don’t think a reasonable person would assume that the protestors wanted pictures of their personal cars because they’re gearheads or something)?
Let me quote again from the CPR article:
“Aurora Police said they were continuing to investigate and pledged to protect the rights of peaceful protesters. ‘This is a tragedy on all fronts, and the Aurora Police Department will investigate this incident with the same commitment to transparency and integrity as we do all shootings,’ said Aurora Chief of Police Todd Chamberlain in a press release. ‘We remain committed to ensuring an ethical, thorough, objective, and comprehensive review of this case. Violence of any kind will not be tolerated in Aurora. Constitutional rights are a pivotal part of a just society – violence is not.’”
So that you can see the statement in full, I found the tweet by Aurora PD and link to it second below.
Reading that quote, I don’t get the sense that Aurora PD or Chief of Police Todd Chamberlain has much in the way of concern for maintaining civility while the protests happen. Protecting peaceful protest, yes. Preventing violence, seemingly partially. Making sure those working for the Federal government can go about their daily jobs, not really.
Those are some big accusations to make, so out of a sense of fairness, I reached out to the Public Information Officer for Aurora PD to ask about that.
Quoting the relevant bit from the email I sent:
“I want to approach this from a different angle. In multiple articles (including CPR’s) I noticed that the protestors blocked these people from getting in, followed to their cars, and took pictures of their cars. I would like a statement from Aurora with regard to what you think and/or are doing about making sure that Federal employees are safe getting through the protestors and that they are not harassed and/or that they are safe in their private lives (e.g. why would they need pictures of the cars/license plates if not to dox them).”
The answer I received was “We have no comment to share on this at this time.”
I’m sorry, I just don’t find that acceptable. The police are agents of the government and we entrust them with a fair bit of control and power.
Yes, they should be protecting peaceful protestors. They should also be protecting others going about their business peacefully, even if the protestors don’t like it. They should be keeping things civil.
Not responding to reasonable questions about those things at the very least gives the impression that the police are taking sides. That the needs of one group take precedence over another.
I am not camped out and watching the action at the detention facility in Aurora, but given the heartburn about it I see in the lefty media, I’m guessing there are protests there regularly. I hope that the Aurora PD is, despite their lack of willingness to say it out loud, keeping all sides peaceful down there.
They need to. It’s not their job to protect and serve only some of us.
If you live in Aurora and find this repugnant too, I urge you to join me in emailing the city council and/or mayor (see “Related” below).
**In case you weren’t aware, the facility is run by a private contractor on behalf of the Department of Justice and ICE.
https://www.cpr.org/2026/07/17/ice-jail-employee-arrested-in-protester-shooting
Related:
First, the link at bottom is to the bio on the chief of police for Aurora.
Second, I’d like to note that sheriffs are elected officials and thus directly responsive to the wishes of the people. Chiefs of police are not. They are hired by city councils and mayors and thus a reflection of the priorities of that group.
https://www.auroragov.org/residents/public_safety/police/executive_leadership_team
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.