An Arizona rancher went on trial Friday in the fatal shooting of a migrant on his property near Mexico, with his defense attorney maintaining his innocence as the national debate over border security heats up ahead of this year’s presidential election.
George Alan Kelly, 75, has been charged with second-degree murder in the killing of a man he encountered on his property outside Nogales, Arizona. The jury trial in Santa Cruz County Superior Court is expected to last up to a month until around April 19, with proceedings held four days a week with Mondays off.
Kelly had earlier rejected a plea deal that would have reduced the charge to one count of negligent homicide if he pleaded guilty. His case has garnered the sympathy of some on the political right, with several efforts raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for his defense, including several on the GoFundMe platform that were quickly shut down because of the charges against him.
He was arrested and charged last year in the Jan. 30, 2023, fatal shooting of 48-year-old Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea of adjacent Nogales, Mexico, just south of the border.
I don’t really see any difference between a migrant on your property and any other human being. If it’s fair game to shoot migrants, it should be fair game to shoot the Christian fundamentalists and Mormons knocking on my door.
Agree, but the context does matter here. Nogales is known for cartel drug (and human) smuggling. The article says the crossers on his ranch had been getting more aggressive(allegedly) so he armed himself.
The article also mentions that he saw 5 guys with large “backpacks” and rifles. That description is very likely drug smugglers (whose “backpacks” were actually 50-75lb marijuana bundles) and not just your average migrant crossers.
They also report hearing a gun shot.
But the article is sparse on how we get from that to the rancher “shooting over (allegedly unarmed) migrants heads” with a an ak47.
Especially because the timeframe was presumably “late lunch” aka broad daylight.
I’m always wary of jumping to conclusions because these stories are usually much more involved than headlines or even articles like this tend to let on.
Who the hell smuggles weed into Arizona? You can buy it at the store…
People who grow it outside the US and want to profit off selling it in the US is who is smuggling it. Why is it even still worth doing with legalized weed, simple it’s cheap to grow so it can be sold for a low price that legal markets don’t want to give up their high profit margins and governments who tax the legal sales are percentage based so they have no incentive to encourage lower prices and thus the illegal market is still profitable.
The entire opening scene of Beverly Hills Cop is Axel Foley trying to stop a truckload of cigarettes without government tax stamps. Bart Simpson also stored a truckload of Laramie 100 cigarettes in his room on behalf of his boss Fat Tony which they lifted off a truck for the same purpose.
Nobody is smuggling weed over the border when you can just drive it over from any nearby state.
Who knows what they were doing, but I think it’s unlikely they’re going to want to get in gun fights if they’re trying to sneakily smuggle something across the border.
Arizona had recreational weed available 3 years prior to this shooting. Not much weed is likely smuggled there. I’m no expert though, maybe bringing into legal states is less risky and then moving it to other states.
All that can be true and they still don’t make the person investigator, judge and executioner. I guess we’ll see what the defence says at the trial - I’m assuming “feared for his personal safety” will feature heavily.
You’re just trying to spread your anti-gun rhetoric.
Putting the hard work in for that Soros check!
Oh no! Anything but Marijuana!
The “rifles” part would be of more concern to the average man.
Exactly, how did he supposedly identify them as migrants without talking to them?
Yeah, pretty sure that’s the plan for most of them.
Republican Rep. Justin Heap says his bill would apply the law to farmers and ranchers using deadly force against trespassers on their land, not just in their home.
I just have a hard time believing anyone wants to live like this. Everyone aiming guns at each other waiting for the slimiest justification to open fire and whomever survives claims self-defense.
What if the person you’re aiming at is a zombie?
Zombies don’t count. They don’t have souls since they are voodoo.
But the Voodoo Zombies specifically work by enslaving souls/minds…
Is this where we find out your dark secret? Have you been killing innocent victims of evil Voodoo priests???
Wait, are you telling me I can’t marry a Zombie?
So if I have a pot on my back porch and I grow some basil in it, does that make me a farmer? Can I start shooting the delivery drivers who are bringing packages to my door?
“His case has garnered the sympathy of some on the political right, with several efforts raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for his defense”
I hate this country.
Also, I’m really puzzled that this walking maga stereotype used a Russian weapon to attempt to murder an entire group of brown people. You’d think a guy like this would consider that “commie” shit. These types make as much sense as religious nuts.
Wow. Just… wow
American Conservatives love Russia. It’s exactly the brand of Dictatorship they want.
People are unique. I’ve met conservatives who straight up told me they think communism could work.
I know that’s difficult for some of you tribalists to understand, accept, and especially admit.
They should try the Nitrogen mask on him.
If someone shows complete lack of empathy and kills other humans like this, why should we have empathy for him?
Because everyone deserves forgiveness?
All he has to do is cry some Rittenhouse tears.
I’m not American so I’d appreciate if someone could explain what’s wrong (legally, not morally) in this situation? From what I understand you’re free to shoot trespassers on your property, isn’t that what the whole “muh freedom” culture about?
From what I understand you’re free to shoot trespassers on your property, isn’t that what the whole “muh freedom” culture about?
Castle doctrine applies to people trespassing inside of your home, not just anyone on your land. We just had a guy get life in prison for opening fire on college students who drove up his rural driveway when they had the wrong address.
If they let this guy get away with what he did, it’s actually a pretty scary precident for all of us.
You should read the article.
I think he’s lying, but the defense’s claim is that the group the man was in posed a credible threat, as an armed group.
Of course, his victim didn’t have any weapons, so gl with that one buddy. We don’t have the full picture but that’s a pretty damning detail by itself.
I already read the article. Jesus what a shitty take this is…
Why would you think the victim’s ethnicity (and the resulting presumption of criminality) is an appropriate defense for his killing? By that logic racists would be allowed to gun down Black people based on whatever violent stereotype they believe about them…
What? He’s saying the “credible threat” argument might not hold up because the deceased didn’t have any weapons.
He’s also saying the “credible threat” argument might hold up because the deceased was Latino. That’s the part I’m responding to here.
No, you’re just bad at reading comprehension.
Reading comprehension? Do I really need to spell this out for you?
CriticalMiss@lemmy.world suggested that in America, you can kill anyone on your property, and it’s legal. They aren’t from here, and America is insane, so I’ll forgive this misunderstanding.
I responded, explaining that castle doctrine applies to domiciles, not land. This is factually true in Arizona where this happened.
DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe responds to me, accusing me of not reading the article, which suggests that my take on castle doctrine was wrong due to missing context in the article. The apparent missing context was that the man was presumed to be part of an armed criminal group, though even DragonTypeWyvern admits that the victim was unarmed, and the article confirms this and that he didn’t have any contraband.
So what’s left to assume that this guy was part of an armed/criminal group? Well, the assailant accused him of being part of a cartel, and referred to him as an “animal”, so it seems pretty obvious that the victim’s Latino race/ethnicity and the assailant’s racist views were the deciding factor here.
And DragonTypeWyvern implies that my explanation of castle doctrine was flawed because I allegedly missed this detail? That somehow castle doctrine also applies if you think someone is part of a dangerous group, even if that group is a racial or ethnic group? That in that context you are free to kill unarmed people even without there being a credible threat? Fuck that.
Removed by mod
Typically deadly force can only be used if you think your life or safety is threatened, the police will still investigate the shooting and if they think your life or safety might not have been in jeopardy you’ll end up in court hoping to justify your actions to a judge and jury.
You can’t just shoot anyone on your property as some people will have legitimate reasons to be there. As the other person said, your life has to be in danger.
Some states have expanded this to cover public property as well (“stand your ground”) while many others give you a duty to retreat before you’re justified in killing someone.
Thank you for the explanation.
I’d be curious what the migrant was doing on his property and how the castle doctrine laws in Arizona come into play.
It’s in the posted article:
Kelly shot at a group of unarmed migrants who were walking through his nearly 170-acre (69-hectare) cattle ranch in the Kino Springs area, and Cuen-Buitimea was among them, authorities said.
He was walking.
Guy fired an ak-47 into a group of unarmed men walking towards the border on his huge plot of land and killed one of them.
Still justified to you?
Wasn’t commenting that it was justified, but the ruling will come down to how the interaction happened. Did Kelly say please leave, did he open fire, did the migrants refuse and began approaching him? Was this at close range, far range? All these details are missing.
The details are in the article. The article this comment thread is attached to. You could read it and get answers to some of your questions.
Instead, you keep making up excuses for why it would be okay for him to open fire on a group of unarmed men. Men that were over 300ft away at the time, walking off his property. Men the murderer later described as “an animal” to police.
You would know all these details if you read the article, but you just won’t seem to do that. I think we all know why.
Sorry your correct, I hadn’t previously seen the rest of the article because the read more button was dizzyingly hidden between ads.
He is claiming self defense and fearing for his life. Will be a tough case.
Just say you think the migrant did it. You are almost there.
Not what I was saying, but since this trial is going to last a month, there is more information than we know. I’ve done jury duty for a murder/homicide case and that only lasted about a week.
Being able to kill anyone (who’s clearly not a threat) touching your property, without any repercussions, is the most barbaric, feudalist weirdest shit I’ve ever heard of. This type of shit doesn’t belong to a supposedly developed country. It belongs to medieval vikings.
Sounds more like you heard an undesirable got shot with a cool gun and are wondering what the official conservative take is.
Obviously they can’t go with “he was a legal gun owner and a complete cunt and he killed someone because he wanted to, not because he was forced to” – it’s not profitable enough.
I’m an immigrant myself, you guys need to slow your role. Neither am I a conservative nor preach the 2a. You can be curious about the technicalities of a case without picking a side. I’ve marched plenty for liberal social causes, but I have never seen so many SJWs ready to attack than on lemmy.
But have you ever read an article?
Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a right-wing reactionary, don’t respond to “immigrant murdered by Texan gun owner” with “but what if he deserved it?”.
Removed by mod
What’s the word for believing things about others based on the color of their skin?
Nowhere did I say anything racist, you complete fucking moron.
I didn’t say racist. You did.
I asked you what the word was when you assume things about people based on the color of their skin. Which you objectively did.
Why are you curious, do you think he might have been doing something that deserved an extrajudicial execution?
Nope. I don’t agree with extrajudicial execution.
You mean that you are jealous and wish you could do it too.
Lol some of you people are sick.
