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’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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
What? He’s saying the “credible threat” argument might not hold up because the deceased didn’t have any weapons.
deleted by creator
No, you’re just bad at reading comprehension.
deleted by creator
He’s not saying that “it might hold up,” even if it’s the defense they try to make.