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

[shotgun09]

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.

According to the witness testimony on Friday, two of the remaining illegal immigrants were running back to the border and were unable to jump the fence. Per his statement, the two other individuals were aprehended that day by Border Patrol. But! Get this !!! The police did not interview either BP nor the other two individuals. Maybe they could have answered a few questions on what happened on Jan 30. There was zero follow up, or vetting of their stories!!! It is this type of sloppiness and haste that has me worried.

 

[neesaki]

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?

I keep reading here how he has changed his story multiple times. I dont recall reading that in the news reports , but could have missed it?
For the record here, could you please post links verifying that Kelly has changed his story multiple times? TIA

 

[Deleted member 39678]

When Is Deadly Force Justified?​

Like many stand-your-ground laws, ARS 13-405 states that you do not have to retreat before you threaten or use deadly force against a person trying to use deadly force against you as long as you are in a place you are legally allowed to be and are not committing a crime.

For example, if someone points a gun at you on the sidewalk, you are legally allowed to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself.

Other conditions that must be met for deadly force to be justified include:

• You would be justified in using physical force under ARS 13-404
• And you have a reasonable belief that using deadly force is immediately necessary for your protection against the attacker’s use or attempted use of deadly force.

Self-Defense Law: Is Arizona a Stand Your Ground State?

In certain situations, the use of lethal force is the only way to defend yourself from serious injury or death. Some states have a “stand your ground” law that protects individuals in these situations. Knowing

vannormanlaw.com

 

[SteveS]

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.

In a technical sense, I think that's where the AZ law in this case would tend to land IF the facts can be proven as you state them. However ...

1 I am not convinced all of those "facts" will hold up to scrutiny. And there's a lot to be known about the whole group that day, which would be very relevant and yet we don't even know who they are.
2 When it comes to credibility, I think it's going to be hard to believe the state's witnesses, because
(a) it is indisputable that they are known, repeat criminals, in this country illegally, who intentionally broke into this man's homestead and invaded his space, and
(b) what they claim happened is contradicted by Kelly, a man without a criminal history, living his life, retired, lived as a responsible citizen all his life, on his own homestead and at his home (not in public) who through no fault of his own was forced to defend himself and his wife. The fact is that he brought LE to his land, twice, to be involved with what happened, which further confirms who he is imo.
3 And at the end of the day, I see a jury ultimately being asked to pick between the criminals invading a man's homestead, and the man who is minding his own business when uninvited criminals illegally break into and invade his place. In that context, I think they will choose to see it as self-defense.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

I am totally on board that the prosecutor is acting like a cowboy flying off the handle in rushing to charge this guy.

Look at how long the investigation lasted before Alec Baldwin was charged. The shooting occurred October 21, 2021 and Alec wasn't charged until just recently.

Proof that the DA is rushing can be seen in the quick downgrade of the first degree murder charged to 2nd degree.

Despite the rush, the prosecution would not skip the most fundamental step:

That being an official medical examiner examining the body to determine cause of death. No DA can charge anyone just by assuming cause of death, that would be incompetent.

 

[NuttMegg]

Some of Kelly's changing stories

Charges downgraded for Arizona rancher who fatally shot migrant on his property

George Kelly’s lawyer, Brenna Larkin, entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf Friday after prosecutors downgraded his charges from first- to second-degree murder.

nypost.com

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

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.

This is part of the reason I have trouble with the witness statements.

The witness said “he felt they were being hunted the way the shooter came out of the brush.”

Buitimea’s body was found about 100 yards to 150 yards away from Kelly’s home.

Detectives with the Sheriff’s Office determined that there was about 120 yards between Buitimea’s body and where a handful of spent AK-47 bullet shell casings were found near Kelly’s back porch.

Case of Nogales rancher charged with murder moves to trial after witness dramatically details shooting

Witness testimony revealed new details about the case of George Alan Kelly, the Nogales rancher accused of murder.

www.azcentral.com

Shooting from the porch seems to be more consistent with Kelly’s statement since that is the area the shell casings were found. What brush was he coming out of? Could it be the landscaping around his home?

 

[shotgun09]

I really really wish that Mr Kelly's horse could talk.
Just sayin

 

[Vern]

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

It's not just based on an "assumed victim" having the trustworthy slant go his way.

Casings found around the accused's home at quite a far distance from the 'alleged' victims body. The accused's ever-changing story. The accused's million dollar bond. Sworn affadavits and statements in court.

Those things are also facts at this point in time and anyone can draw exactly the same (rather opposite) inference from these facts that have others determining that one story or another from the perpetrator is the actual truth of the matter. Myopia works BOTH ways.

That's why we have trials. But, just like in the Murdaugh thread or any other on here, people are going to form personal opinions based on the released, sworn details out in public thus far. Just because the dead individual in this case happened to be an illegal does not mean he was murdered. It does not mean he wasn't murdered either ... which quite a few seem to think automaticly settles the ends as "deserved". That's also not factual IAW Arizona Law which was already quoted and is, quite frankly, the law that will inform how this case rolls out and any instructions to any potential jury.

 

[Cool Cats]

I really really wish that Mr Kelly's horse could talk.
Just sayin

I suspect there are security cameras somewhere on the ranch property.

 

[Telltale]

Arizona rancher charged with murder for shooting Mexican national 150ft from US border

This report seems to make it clearer that his original calls about perhaps getting shot at was some time before the shooting, rather than an excuse/explanation given when he was calling up to report the man had been shot. - IMO thinking in the moment, but then not being entirely sure if those shots were being fired in his direction seems reasonable to such a situation rather than a deliberate change in story.

Now on the one hand, that could mean that there was a a significant gap in time between when he perceived he was in danger and when he (potentially I don't know if that's definitely established) shot the victim. Or it could be seen as evidence establishing why he thought he was in danger when (potentially armed) men were again - doing whatever it shakes out that they were doing when the victim was shot. (Made before he had the need for a justification for shooting someone.)

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I sure hope that all of the phone calls and interviews involving Mr Kelly and LE were recorded.

 

[WingsOverTX]

It's not just based on an "assumed victim" having the trustworthy slant go his way.

Casings found around the accused's home at quite a far distance from the 'alleged' victims body. The accused's ever-changing story. The accused's million dollar bond. Sworn affadavits and statements in court.

Those things are also facts at this point in time and anyone can draw exactly the same (rather opposite) inference from these facts that have others determining that one story or another from the perpetrator is the actual truth of the matter. Myopia works BOTH ways.

That's why we have trials. But, just like in the Murdaugh thread or any other on here, people are going to form personal opinions based on the released, sworn details out in public thus far. Just because the dead individual in this case happened to be an illegal does not mean he was murdered. It does not mean he wasn't murdered either ... which quite a few seem to think automaticly settles the ends as "deserved". That's also not factual IAW Arizona Law which was already quoted and is, quite frankly, the law that will inform how this case rolls out and any instructions to any potential jury.

Great points!

As to the casings, we don't know if they are related to this event. I sure wish we did know more about the weapons, ballistics & evidence gathered about them. Was anyone tested for gunshot residue (would that even be applicable to an AK-47)?

As to the law that will inform how this case rolls out, interpretation of that law is the critical thing, as it is with all laws.

I'm willing to wait & see how this plays out. But I do think none of this would have happened if no trespass had occurred on GK's property. It's not like he stepped off his property looking for a fight from current facts in evidence.

YMMV just MOO

 

[Charlot123]

Agree. You don't shoot fleeing people either. The threat is gone if they are running away. I see this guy was shot in the back. That's a problem. A judge in AZ recently got into trouble for firing a warning shot and the man he shot at, had recently trespassed, thrown trash in his yard, and was driving past his home. The judge lost his cr@p and fired a "warning shot" and told him he was going to blow his head off. It bounced off the pavement and nearly hit the unarmed man.

Pima County justice faces misconduct charges after incident with firearm

Pima County Justice of the Peace Adam W. Watters faces formal misconduct charges, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct announced.

ktar.com

I sorta feel this rancher's case is similar to the judge's. Frustration/anger got the better of him and in this instance, someone died.

Especially since he was 72. Minor cognitive impairment is not uncommon at this age.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The autopsy report found that the bullet entered Buitimea’s body from the back lower right portion of his ribcage and exited from his left upper chest area, according to testimony from Jorge Ainza, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department detective who arrested Kelly.

The path of the bullet through the victims body is interesting. Entered low in the back and exited in the opposite side, upper chest.

I wonder if it's possible to use that to determine the location of the shooter? JMO.

Case of Nogales rancher charged with murder moves to trial after witness dramatically details shooting

 

[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....

From linked article posted above:

Yes there is an autopsy report according to Court testimony:

The autopsy report found that the bullet entered Buitimea’s body from the back lower right portion of his ribcage and exited from his left upper chest area, according to testimony from Jorge Ainza, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department detective who arrested Kelly.

 

[Charlot123]

Did the man who was shot cross a fence or go through a gate to intrude on private property? Was that property marked appropriately for no trespassing? I don’t think I’ve seen any info on that yet.
I have 58 acres in the middle of no where. If someone comes on to my marked and fenced land without letting me know, they risk being shot by me. My husband travels, I’m home with my elderly mother in law. If it’s dark out and hear voices I’m not waiting to see if they are close enough to determine if they are armed and there won’t be any warning shots unless I miss. Especially if there are voices, that means more than one and you don’t know how close the quiet ones are. There is no reason to be on my land unless you let me know you’ll be on my land, ie my neighbors have my number. I walk up and down my 700 foot drive way all the time, that’s just under 2 football fields in length and it doesn’t take me long. I don’t have a hard time believing this man was fearful for his and his wife’s life in the dark. I’m also not sure if he could tell under darkness and trees which way they were going, so shot in the front or back, he fired at them, where people weren’t supposed to be; on his private property, people he determined were a threat to him and his household.

IMOO.
ETA:
I reread and saw, eating lunch so day time. I guess I assumed it was night. If there is a group of men sneaking around my land during the day without permission, rules still stand. You aren’t supposed to be on my land I don’t know who is closer and not seen. And at that distance, with my scope I would be able to tell who is facing me but dressed in hoody or with a cap/hat and no scope. FedEx and UPS have box at end of drive to leave things, my contractor lets me know when they are coming out, friends call.

It is a complex situation. To my shame, I never thought about the simple fact that a large portion of US territory bordering Mexico could be private land. And of course, those who cross the border, be it illegal immigrants or cartel members, would probably choose the private land because if they went by public roads, the border patrol would have caught them easier.

This case creates a complex situation for the future. If they deem a 72-year-old man without a prior history of such behavior, guilty, they put any landowner living next to AZ-Mexico border at an immense risk. At the same time, "stand your ground" has limitations, what if a person got lost?

It is not a situation where I could immediately have an opinion, either way.

Just wonder, Kelly has a huge acreage. If he intentionally killed the guy, wouldn't it be easier to conceal the body? The group with the victim would probably not complain to the border patrol. This is what makes no sense to me.

 

[shotgun09]

From linked article posted above:

Yes there is an autopsy report according to Court testimony:

The autopsy report found that the bullet entered Buitimea’s body from the back lower right portion of his ribcage and exited from his left upper chest area, according to testimony from Jorge Ainza, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department detective who arrested Kelly.

I sure would like to see a computer generated animation of just how that shot could travel in that slanted upward direction. Where would the shooter be positioned, and how? And, where would Mr Kelly have to be positioned for that shot to have happened in that way? Certainly not on his porch, where all the casings were found. Paging Grey Hughes!!!

 

[Telltale]

The path of the bullet through the victims body is interesting. Entered low in the back and exited in the opposite side, upper chest.

I wonder if it's possible to use that to determine the location of the shooter? JMO.

Case of Nogales rancher charged with murder moves to trial after witness dramatically details shooting

Clipped from the above article

Hunley alleged that Kelly shot and killed Buitimea in the back as he ran for his life.

The autopsy report found that the bullet entered Buitimea’s body from the back lower right portion of his ribcage and exited from his left upper chest area, according to testimony from Jorge Ainza, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department detective who arrested Kelly.

Hunley alleged that Kelly issued no warnings and made no requests before he started shooting at the group of roughly seven or eight migrants on Jan. 30, according to court documents. D.R.R. said he “felt they were being hunted the way the shooter came out of the brush,” according to a motion filed by prosecution.

Buitimea’s body was found about 100 yards to 150 yards away from Kelly’s home.

Detectives with the Sheriff’s Office determined that there was about 120 yards between Buitimea’s body and where a handful of spent AK-47 bullet shell casings were found near Kelly’s back porch.

Kelly called the U.S. Border Patrol Ranch Liaison five times on the day of the incident, per court records. Kelly first called the ranch liaison at around 2:30 p.m. when he reported that he was being shot at and was shooting back, per court records.

About 6 minutes later, Kelly called the liaison back and said he had lost sight of the group running toward Kino Springs. Kelly said he heard a gunshot in his direction and that “it was too far to tell if they had any firearms,” according to court documents.

Authorities responded to Kelly’s residence and walked the property to search for members of the group but ultimately left and documented the incident.

Prosecutors alleged that Kelly “significantly changed” his story by the time of the third call to the liaison at around 4:23 p.m. During that call, Kelly claimed the incident began when he was eating lunch with his wife and heard a single gunshot.

Kelly said he saw his horse get spooked and run away at full speed before seeing a group of 10 to 15 men, armed with AK-47s, moving through the trees on his property.

Larkin claims that Kelly walked onto his porch and saw the leader of the group point an AK-47 at him, per court documents. Kelly subsequently fired several warning shots above the heads of the armed men before they scattered into the desert surrounding his property, according to a motion filed by the defense.

Prosecutors and the two witnesses to the event claim that everyone in the group was unarmed.
At around 5:23 p.m., Kelly left a voice message on the liaison’s phone telling him to call Kelly immediately. The liaison returned Kelly’s call and reported that Kelly sounded nervous or scared in the message, according to court records.

“This is worse than you can imagine,” Kelly said during the call. “This is bad.”

...

There are a fair amount of inconsistencies here. It does appear that everything may relate to the same incident, rather than the migrants (or other migrants) returning, and that the body was not found until later (having been missed by both suspect and the authorities when they first were called to check things out.)

Though, by the same measure, it at least appears, when he gave somewhat conflicting accounts, it was before (it seems) anyone knew that someone had been shot and killed, so the motivation to lie or cover up things isn't there (unless he found it prior to the fourth call.) The fact that the body was not found at the time, despite a police search, but hours later also does introduce reasonable doubt if the witnesses they have isn't considered sufficiently credible. I also (think) there was an article up thread that had his lawyers pushing back on the report he had said later they were unarmed and stated his remarks had been incorrectly recorded or something. Edit: As reported by FOX, via direct quotes from his defence in the first hearing.

TLDR, his accounts of what happened are pretty screwy as presented by the prosecution, which will be an issue for his defence, but there is still a lot here for his defence to work with IMO

The lower back to upper chest shot is also interesting. I imagine not impossible if a fleeing man is leaning forward and sprinting, but not what you would expect from either a falling bullet aimed over the head or an aimed bullet from some distance and possibly from the raised position of a porch. The ballistic breakdown is going to be important in this I imagine.

 

[Cool Cats]

I sure would like to see a computer generated animation of just how that shot could travel in that slanted upward direction. Where would the shooter be positioned, and how? And, where would Mr Kelly have to be positioned for that shot to have happened in that way? Certainly not on his porch, where all the casings were found. Paging Grey Hughes!!!

I wonder the same. Crime scene reenactment might show Kelly couldn't have shot him from the distance the witnesses describe.

Seems a bullet would travel straight through a person, not go into the body then veer upward.

Need a full autopsy to clear that up plus a forensic crime shooting reenactment.

Autopsy could show the ribs affected the trajectory.