AZ - Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, allegedly shot and killed with an AK-47 by rancher George Alan Kelly, 75, Kino Springs, Jan 2023

[Laughing]

Oh, okay, so for the gun shot wound, LE says that they can't tell, while attorney says shot in the back:

Chief Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told the judge that prosecutors intend to prove second-degree murder — that Kelly had no basis for “intentionally, knowingly, or under circumstances recklessly” shooting an AK-47 rifle toward eight or so unarmed migrants about 80 to 100 yards (meters) away.

“There is no justification for shooting an unarmed man in the back,” Hunley told the judge.

No autopsy report, so no information from anyone trained in forensic examination of gun shot wounds yet.

Still awaiting....

 

[Cool Cats]

The prosecutor wouldnt say that TO A JUDGE if it wasnt true, had backup

Right. The prosecutor would not put this on the record in open court without at least getting an official preliminary autopsy report. Only a coroner can officially verify that he was shot in the back.

 

[Cool Cats]

Oh, okay, so for the gun shot wound, LE says that they can't tell, while attorney says shot in the back:

Chief Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told the judge that prosecutors intend to prove second-degree murder — that Kelly had no basis for “intentionally, knowingly, or under circumstances recklessly” shooting an AK-47 rifle toward eight or so unarmed migrants about 80 to 100 yards (meters) away.

“There is no justification for shooting an unarmed man in the back,” Hunley told the judge.

No autopsy report, so no information from anyone trained in forensic examination of gun shot wounds yet.

Still awaiting....

Autopsies are mandatory in crimes of foul play.

Just because the public cannot see an autopsy report does not mean there is not one available to the prosecution. The prosecution always gets at least the preliminary autopsy report when deciding if they are going to file charges.

Of course the police can't tell, it is the coroner's job to determine this.

Autopsy (Post Mortem Exam, Necropsy) Medical Levels, Forensics, Procedure

Read about autopsy (post mortem exam, necropsy) medical procedure and levels. An autopsy is the examination of the body of a dead person and is performed primarily to determine the cause of death, to identify or characterize the extent of disease states, or to determine whether a treatment has...

www.medicinenet.com

This type of autopsy is referred to as a forensic autopsy and is performed to gather information of interest to authorities and to determine the manner of death (homicide, suicide, accident, natural death, or undetermined manner).

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Oh, okay, so for the gun shot wound, LE says that they can't tell, while attorney says shot in the back:

Chief Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told the judge that prosecutors intend to prove second-degree murder — that Kelly had no basis for “intentionally, knowingly, or under circumstances recklessly” shooting an AK-47 rifle toward eight or so unarmed migrants about 80 to 100 yards (meters) away.

“There is no justification for shooting an unarmed man in the back,” Hunley told the judge.

No autopsy report, so no information from anyone trained in forensic examination of gun shot wounds yet.

Still awaiting....

Yep. No ballistics and no autopsy yet, just some unreliable eye witness accounts. JMO.

 

[PriorTheCreator]

Yep. No ballistics and no autopsy yet, just some unreliable eye witness accounts. JMO.

Why is it unreliable? What makes you come to that conclusion? The state is treating it as reliable, why do you think its not.

<modsnip>

Also, Kelly is the one who has changed his story multiple times. Why is he reliable?

 

[NuttMegg]

If the circumstances were reversed here & GK was dead with C-B being held on 2nd degree murder charges would C-B still be the victim if "he was crossing the border in search of a better life"? What if C-B were a drug runner & GK just collateral damage in a cartel war.

Respectfully, you don't even live in U.S. or in a border state in the U.S. How can you be so sure about everyone involved when there hasn't even been a trial?

JMO

Because we are free to state our opinions on the case since Kelly has been charged. And drawing from news accounts in MSM.

The circumstances aren't other than what they are, so why imagine a whole new scenario.

I think TOS allows respectfully stated opinions from anywhere in the world.

As I opined last night, I think Kelly shot the victim by accident, probably thinking he was once again shooting over the heads (imo) and later embroidered a story to cover himself. Full of contradictions. I also think he will get off due to the sympathy garnered by articles that show damage from "supposed" illegal immigrants. Imo there will be a deluge of articles like this.

Imo

 

[FLmom777]

Because we are free to state our opinions on the case since Kelly has been charged.

The circumstances aren't other than what they are, so why imagine a whole new scenario.

I think TOS allows respectfully stated opinions from anywhere in the world.

As I opined last night, I think Kelly shot the victim by accident, probably thinking he was once again shooting over the heads as he describes in his fiction book, and later embroidered a story. Full of contradictions. I also think he will get off due to the sympathy garnered by articles that show damage from "supposed" illegal immigrants.

Imo

If they cross other than through a checkpoint they are not supposed illegal immigrants. By law they are illegal aliens, breaking the law.

 

[WingsOverTX]

im sorry but this madeup scenario has no bearing on the facts

I was responding to an OP who seems to think all facts are settled & it is easy to determine fault. My point is neither of those things are true. And when only one side (the immigrant's) is viewed as a trustworthy one & assumed a victim, myopia is not good logic.

I agree it has no bearing on the facts of the case we are discussing.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Why is it unreliable? What makes you come to that conclusion? The state is treating it as reliable, why do you think its not.

<modsnip>

Also, Kelly is the one who has changed his story multiple times. Why is he reliable?

As Loftus puts it, "just because someone says something confidently doesn't mean it's true." Jurors can't help but find an eyewitness's confidence compelling, even though experiments have shown that a person's confidence in their own memory is sometimes undiminished even in the face of evidence that their memory of an event is false.

But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime

Eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but rather than recording experiences flawlessly, their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They (like the rest of us) can make errors in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not actually happen

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Activities in this unit reveal how eyewitness testimony is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses.

www.psychologicalscience.org

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases

Eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but rather than recording experiences flawlessly, their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They (like the rest of us) can make errors in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not...

nobaproject.com

 

[PriorTheCreator]

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Activities in this unit reveal how eyewitness testimony is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses.

www.psychologicalscience.org

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases

Eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but rather than recording experiences flawlessly, their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They (like the rest of us) can make errors in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not...

nobaproject.com

Well LE knows who is reliable and who isnt.
They are rightfully treating Kelly as unreliable.

That's what happens when you change your story, make stuff up that doesnt fit the facts

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Tone down the bickering and angst in this discussion or there will be a loss of posting privileges.

Thank you.

 

[WingsOverTX]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I can see GK's actions possibly being judged reckless if there is proof one of his bullets killed C-B with legal penalties flowing from that.

I also feel strongly about this case & all the emotionally charged issues it brings to the forefront. However, fact finders are at work. Until their work is finished, I choose to leave room for doubt in all of my assumptions & those of others here, too.

MOO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well LE knows who is reliable and who isnt.
They are rightfully treating Kelly as unreliable.

That's what happens when you change your story, make stuff up that doesnt fit the facts

You get to believe any account of what happen that you want. I need more than what has been released so far. JMO.

 

[SteveS]

The victim was nowhere near his house.

You don't know that. At best, that is only your opinion, picking and choosing which details you prefer and which you don't.

But factually, you don't know where that man who was shot was, before he was shot. You (and we) really don't how the whole thing unfolded - none of us were there, and we have several accounts with varying details. Some of us are willing to wait and see what the facts show, rather than assuming we know it all.

The FACT is that in the hearing one of the state's witnesses says he/they were within 10 yards of the house when Kelly started shooting at them! You're saying he's a liar, and we shouldn't believe him, and he's making things up? If so, what else is he lying about?

What we don't know is significant. We can start with the fact that we don't even know for sure that the bullet that killed him came from Kelly's gun, and go from there.

 

[FLmom777]

Gabriel was unarmed. So this is false.
Maybe 75 year old Kelly misheard the shots in the western he was watching and wanted to play cowboy himself

Once more. He told border patrol he heard shots. Who was shooting? We don’t know and neither does GK. Maybe the shot was from a member of the group shooting the victim.

 

[Telltale]

I'd note they have backed all the way off the hunting for sport narrative. Which never made much sense. From the looks of it, had he not called it in, the body would have had no chance of being found, especially if dragged back towards the boarder. Had it been later, very easily blamed on cartel activity, especially after animals and weather did their work.

Now it has dropped to the man recklessly firing at a group of migrants on his land, accidentally killing one. Which is more likely. Though the circumstances of the shooting, the location of the land, the time law enforcement would take to arrive and the circumstances and armed etc nature of this and recent past intrusions are all going to be important to the reckless part.

TBH as it stands, it looks to me like the Prosecutor jumped the gun in pushing a extremely politically charged narrative without the evidence needed to meaningfully back it up. What they dropped to is more reasonable and likely, however when it comes to reasonable doubt, it appears that there are still gaps in the evidence wide enough to drive a truck through.

From what we can gather, it appears to me that the suspect called law enforcement several times that day to report armed groups and immediately after he found the body. Both the witness and suspect have changed their stories in significant ways. Including the witness suggesting they were close to the house looking for water. There does not appear to be a bullet to link the wound to the suspects gun or a coroners conclusion it was a front or back shot... (hopefully ballistics can at least show distance/direction.) Etc etc.

Now does any of that make his actions justifiable? I can't say, but it sure makes a clean cut case of second degree murder a far harder sell to a jury, especially one also living with boarder crossings and cartel activity. Remember he doesn't have to prove his actions weren't reckless, the state has to prove they were

IMO whether it will fly in court will hinge heavily on the make-up of that jury.

 

[SteveS]

Gabriel was unarmed.

This is not "known fact." All we can say with certainty is that when the body was found, there was no weapon found with it. But there were others in the group (which we know ALL of whom left, including the witnesses, and went elsewhere after shots were fired), and it's possible they had weapons, and they also took his weapon(s) with them.

 

[Cool Cats]

This is not "known fact." All we can say with certainty is that when the body was found, there was no weapon found with it. But there were others in the group (which we know ALL of whom left, including the witnesses, and went elsewhere after shots were fired), and it's possible they had weapons, and they also took his weapon(s) with them.

Good thinking "outside the box."

Could have been armed but his weapon was removed by the witnesses who were at the scene.

Defense attorneys have a lot to work with. Reasonable doubt everywhere from just what we are hearing so far.

 

[shotgun09]

Right. The prosecutor would not put this on the record in open court without at least getting an official preliminary autopsy report. Only a coroner can officially verify that he was shot in the back.

Respectfully, and without naming other specific cases as to derail this thread...there are many many cases I have followed, where the prosecution is quick to judge , charge and claim things, that afterwards have been found to be untrue. In this case specifically, I find the rush to charge Mr Kelly questionable at best. The investigation was over...as soon as they questioned Mr Kelly, IMO. There are no ballistics, no autopsy reports, and very limited witness interviews. Heck, they didn't even question about the reported gun shot heard first by Mr Kelly, nor did they question the two victims about the 'dead horse' that they each claimed to have seen, just prior to their accomplice being shot! (There was no dead horse found, btw ).

The vetting of the two witnesses/, (both having records of illegal entry and smuggling others) .. who were questioned in court on Friday was astonishingly absent, IMO. Their stories were complete with dead horses, and 'sheriffs badges', and 'book writing equipment' seen near the body. ( None of those were found) And, these two were only added, after the state dropped the first degree murder charges.

It surely raises serious questions on the rush to arrest this man who was defending his home, his wife and his property.

Moo
And Peace

 

[evilwise]

Okay, so - in the interest of bringing down the bickering. I went ahead and looked at Arizona's law about using force or deadly force.

13-411 - Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

This was a pretty interesting one and like I said earlier when we were first informed this incident took place in Arizona (rather than Texas) I am even more sure now that this guy is going to jail. The above law is an interesting read and a series of articles leading me to it were also interesting. It seems Arizona introduced a bill last year that could well have made what happened legal but it was defeated. Perhaps our shooter was confused by partisan reporting and believed it was passed into law.

Arizona bill allowing deadly force for property damage fails

The legislation failed after several Republicans rejected the major expansion of the state’s laws that allows lethal force only to stop very serious crimes.

www.12news.com

The law as it stands was interesting. It doesn't draw much of a line between force and deadly force (seems to be dealer's choice) and it spells out a list of specific offenses under which it is considered justifiable including sexual conduct with a minor. I wonder how many dads take advantage of that one.

Finally, I bet the autopsy is going to reveal that the victim was shot in the back and that what actually happened was that the immigrants were too close to his house and he did initially fire a warning shot or three over their heads which is why that's his claim. Then I bet as he saw they were running he impulsively decided to take a pot shot that he didn't expect to hit. I doubt any of the others took the time to recover anything from the body either.