An Arizona rancher has gone on trial in the fatal shooting of a migrant on his property near Mexico. The trial of 75-year-old George Alan Kelly started Friday.

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.

  • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    738·
    9 months ago

    I’d be curious what the migrant was doing on his property and how the castle doctrine laws in Arizona come into play.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      302·
      9 months ago

      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?

      • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        21·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          41·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            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.

      • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        21·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • desconectado@lemm.ee
      131·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      143·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        41·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          2·
          9 months ago

          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?”.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        21·
        9 months ago

        What’s the word for believing things about others based on the color of their skin?

          • capital@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 months ago

            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.