In a volatile confrontation that escalated tragically, a retired U.S. lawyer, Kenneth Darlington, is now facing charges following the fatal shooting on Tuesday of two Panamanian environmental protesters. This incident, which occurred amid a roadway blockade, has sparked intense debate over the strategies employed by environmental activists and the responses they provoke.
Panama President Laurentino Cortizo expressed his sorrow, stating, “I express my condolences to the families of the two citizens who lost their lives. This is a fact that has no place in a society called to be supportive like ours.”
Most probably saw a post of an elderly man shooting environmental protesters in Panama but there is more to the story.
The man who killed two environmental activists in Panama was identified as Kenneth Darlington, 77, an American retired lawyer and university professor.
Not to… pic.twitter.com/quuSx8qpcz
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) November 9, 2023
The blockade, orchestrated by a powerful construction union and various teachers’ unions, was part of ongoing protests against “Law 406” and a substantial mining contract awarded to Minera Panamá S.A., a subsidiary of Canadian-based First Quantum Minerals. While the mining operations promise thousands of jobs and a significant economic boost, the demonstrations have led to substantial daily business losses, estimated at up to $80 million, and a nationwide halt to education.
Darlington, 77, allegedly resorted to lethal force after his attempts to negotiate or clear the barricade failed. The event unfolded on the Pan-American Highway, a vital transportation artery from Alaska to Argentina. Local media, present during the standoff, captured the harrowing moments leading to the deaths of Abdiel Díaz Chavez and Iván Rodríguez Mendoza.
The shootings underline the tension between the right to protest and the extent to which such actions can disrupt daily life and business. The retired lawyer’s activities, which may lead to house arrest due to his age if convicted, have prompted discussions about the nature of protest and the rule of law.
While the environmentalists’ tactics are often portrayed as a nuisance or economic blockade by their critics, their efforts reflect a commitment to environmental stewardship and a challenge to perceived corporate and governmental overreach. The blockade that led to this incident was part of a series of actions aimed at reversing a decision that protesters believe could have long-term negative environmental consequences.
The Panamanian government has been under pressure to respond to the immediate incident and the underlying issues that have brought protesters to the streets. The international spotlight on the incident could also affect the complex dynamics between the U.S. and Latin America regarding environmental issues and corporate interests.
This case highlights the delicate balance between the exercise of rights and the maintenance of public order. It also raises questions about the appropriate level of force in protecting one’s interests against perceived injustice. As this situation unfolds, it will undoubtedly serve as a pivotal example in ongoing debates about protest rights, environmental activism, and the consequences of taking the law into one’s own hands.