Fact check: Does the 50501 movement hire the peace keepers for their protests?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available evidence, the 50501 movement did not formally hire peacekeepers for their protests in the traditional sense of paid security personnel. Instead, the organization utilized volunteer "safety volunteers" or "peacekeepers" who were specifically selected for their relevant experience ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The key findings show that:

• The 50501 movement explicitly did not hire private security or off-duty police officers for the protest ^[4]
• The peacekeepers were volunteers with military, first responder, and de-escalation experience who were selected by 50501 organizers ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• The individual involved in the fatal Salt Lake City shooting was confirmed to be a military veteran volunteer chosen by the organization ^{[2] [3]}
• The 50501 group provides resources for peacekeepers on its website, advising them to focus on preventing conflicts ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that emerge from the analyses:

• The distinction between "hiring" and "selecting volunteers" is significant - while 50501 didn't pay for security services, they did actively recruit and organize volunteer peacekeepers with specific qualifications ^{[1] [3]}
• The peacekeepers have no formal law enforcement designation - the Salt Lake City Police Department does not recognize "peacekeeper" as any formal designation ^{[6] [5]}
• A fatal shooting occurred involving one of these volunteer peacekeepers during a "No Kings" protest, which adds gravity to the question of organizational responsibility ^{[7] [1] [2]}
• Event permits did not mention armed security, suggesting potential gaps in official documentation of security arrangements ^[7]

The 50501 movement benefits from framing their security as "volunteer peacekeepers" rather than hired security, as this presents a more grassroots, community-oriented image while potentially reducing legal and financial liability.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

• The term "hire" suggests a paid arrangement, but the evidence shows these were volunteers, making the question technically based on a false premise ^{[4] [2]}
• The question lacks context about the serious incident that prompted investigation into the peacekeepers' role, potentially trivializing a situation that resulted in a fatality ^{[7] [1]}
• The framing ignores the ambiguity that multiple sources acknowledge - it remains unclear whether peacekeepers acted independently or under organizational direction, which is a key distinction for understanding responsibility ^{[6] [7]}

The question's phrasing could inadvertently spread misinformation by reinforcing the assumption that formal hiring occurred, when the reality involves a more complex volunteer arrangement with selected individuals.