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?
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.
He’s not saying that “it might hold up,” even if it’s the defense they try to make.
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.