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

Status
Not open for further replies.




1.) Outline of ranch
2.) Call came in that body was found by Sagebrush Rd
my mind is blown at the inexpensive price...$1,750,000. Just the house could be worth double that.
 
We don't know if the victims, a party of 8, were in truth aiming an AK at the perpetrator. His account has varied. IMO

The person he allegedly killed was shot in the back.
Idk about his account, but as I said, IF someone were pointing a firearm at me, or I felt my life or my family's lives, were in danger, a warning shot is not only ill-advised, it is usually illegal to even fire a warning shot.
 
I have a lot of sympathy for those living along the border these days. In this case, from the 6-7 articles we have at hand, there is no account of thieving.

Sounds to me (IMO) that since this person lives right by the border in a known human trafficking area, he finally lost it and just fired away in frustration. Possibly he had also shot "above their heads" in the past but 75 year old people are not always that great of shots, imo especially when shooting at people running away, at about 100 meters. They found 9 casings from the place he shot. So one of them dies from getting shot in the back, an historical, humiliating landmark for any shooter claiming to be threatened or claiming self defense.

As far as Border Patrol being unresponsive, that is not the case here.

"Border Patrol agents and Santa Cruz County sheriff's deputies arrived at his ranch minutes later, but they were unable to find any people in the vicinity"


IMO
I was speaking about my experience in general, living in the country, and why one would have a firearm "on hand". I've not had anyone steal from me for a few years. but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop keeping one handy. Walking in on someone, a stranger, in your home, more than once, leaves one very cautious. I'm in a fairly low-crime area too.
 
I have a relative living pretty close to the border. The family has no guns, never had any problems with any immigrant. They do leave out plastic jugs of water , to help if someone is passing through. Yes, they do see people, but never had problems.
 
I, like other posters, have many unanswered questions and would like to know if GK's gun was involved in this fatal shooting but what happens if there is no ballistic evidence. This quote was from 2/17 anyone know if the bullet has been found?

"No bullet has been found in order to do testing to determine which gun fired the fatal shot," the motion reads. "It is entirely possible that the person found on Mr. Kelly's property was a victim of other drug traffickers."
That shot Mr. Kelly heard, that scared his horse, could have been the one that killed the fella. Just a thought.
 
Personally, I just find the idea that the migrants fired a shot to be unlikely. They're just trying to get through there to some destination without getting caught. All the more so if you've got drugs on you because then you'll face US charges instead of just being schlepped back across the border. I think the rancher went out in the woods and shot at them as they were leaving, as the two witnesses have reported. I think he knew he hit somebody. He probably thought it through before he even made the first call and when he did he was already trying to set the stage for a defense: They were shooting and I shot back. Just my opinion.
 
Similar to the "witness' ( other victim) who claimed via LE yesterday, about the distance between Kelly's and the deceased. According to the states' witness, Kelly was within 10 yards of the victim when he shot GC-B. Next to impossible, per the defense, being that the body was 100-150 yards away from the home, and 9 shell casings were all found near the porch area of the ranch. Zero casings were found near the victim in the field. It seems like the witness statements have a bit of firming up to do as well. MOO

Help me out please! Here (above) @shotgun09 says that according to the state’s witness, Kelly was within 10 yards (30 feet) of the victim when he shot GC-B, but defense says the body was found 100-150 yards away from the home.

But @SteveS, in his reply to shotgun which is quoted below, says in his second paragraph that the witness says they came within 10 FEET of the house, and @SteveS then says that based on this distance, they must have been coming at him toward his house, which he rightly says would feel like a threat.

BUT where did Steve’s distance of 10 Feet come from? @SteveS is replying to @shotgun09 who said 10 yards. What am I missing? I’m not a math whiz but 10 yards is three times further than 10 feet, right? Ten feet is the imminent threat @SteveS makes the case it is, whereas 10 yards is not quite the same threat, although not a great distance.

Was this a typo?

There's another issue here in relation to distance -- these are people trying to unlawfully trespass across Kelly's property, but why were they so close to his home? His property is about 1000 yards x 1000 yards, and aerial photos show it's just scrub trees and dirt/grass. His house is in the middle and north of center of that massive area.

Yet here, the witness says they came within 10 feet? And the evidence is that Kelly didn't go to them - he was shooting from his porch -- so that means they must have been coming at him, right towards his house, right? They shouldn't have come anywhere near his home, yet they did.

These are not people on the edge of his property, or on a nearby property, but rather ones who have breached his fences and then come up to his home. There are hundreds of yards in other directions, acres and acres, where they can stay far away AND also be less likely to be seen (if hiding is their goal). Why do they head towards his home?

At the very least, there's an incredible hubris here to breached a man's fence, go across his property anywhere you want, without his permission, as if you own the place and have the right to be there. But it seems to me it's even more than that, because if you are so bold as to disrespect my property rights and then you head towards my house, what more might you think you can do? With plenty of ways you could avoid that, but don't, heading at me and mine might feel like a threat, or some sort of looming attack, because why else would you do that?
 
I have a relative living pretty close to the border. The family has no guns, never had any problems with any immigrant. They do leave out plastic jugs of water , to help if someone is passing through. Yes, they do see people, but never had problems.
In which state & county or city? Near a cartel crossing?

It's a large border. Some areas are much more dangerous than others. Some areas used to be safe & now are not (and vice versa).

Living in a state (Texas) with a large border with Mexico & shifting problem areas, awareness that "the border" is not a monolith is critical to understanding who, what, where, when, why & how. Since border crossings have grown exponentially, so have the problems & potential for problems of all kinds.

It's important to remember the humanitarian crisis is only one crisis. Cartels & drug smuggling are another crisis. Criminals entering the US thru Mexico is another problem (unsure if it rises to the level of crisis).

One thing I am noticing in this thread is the treatment of the border as "one thing" - it is not one thing. It differs greatly from state to state, county to county & town to town.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona & California carry large burdens for the rest of the nation due to the wide-ranging impacts they deal with.

This thread is about a specific place, specific people & a specific incident.

I think any analysis or comment here is most helpful when it tries to stay on topic.

It is my wish to do so. I hope others will agree. Individual experiences & perceptions are valuable but the greater contribution is to stay on topic, in my view.

Just my humble opinion
 
Okay, I skimmed GK’s short book, Far Beyond the Border Fence.

The general plot is:

The viewpoint characters are a ranch owner, 60 years old, and his two sons. Since the book was published on Amazon in 2013, and GK is 75, its safe to assume that the ranch owner may be a ‘self insert.’

Two beloved horses are stolen from a border ranch and taken south of the border.

The son and daughter-in-law try to get the horses back, and are kidnapped and held for ransom.

The ranch owner is deputized and joins a small group of US and Mexican LE, to rescue his family. That succeeds, but two Mexican LE sacrifice themselves for the others, and are in turn captured.

Ranch owner, sons, and a larger group of US and Mexican LE go back to rescue those captives. They discover a larger plot, where Middle Eastern forces are planning to explode a dirty bomb in a city at the Mexico/US border.

Plot is thwarted, and good guys all survive. (They get the horses back, too.)
——
So, the author is clearly drawing on his observations, concerns, fantasies, his lived experience on a close-to-the-border ranch. (Being deputized to go on hostage-rescuing missions is pure fantasy, I presume.)

The beginning of the story expresses a lot of anger and frustration over the general situation of having swarms of people crossing the border illegally, bringing drugs and general lawlessness with them, turning the area into a ‘war zone.’ The ranch owner lives in ‘constant watchfulness.’

The good guys have an unfortunate tendency to fire warning shots into the air.

Early on, there’s an exchange of gunfire over trespassing and the stolen horses. The sheriff is sympathetic to the ranch owner: tells him that if he ever does shoot a drug runner—just don’t talk about it.

On the other hand, the Mexican LE are portrayed as heroic, but trying to deal with a situation that’s out of control.
————
Overall, the setting, themes, attitudes in the book have a lot in common with what seems to have played out in real life—starting on the first pages with the concern for the ranch horses. The violence, for what it’s worth, was very low-key.

Edited to add: talk about overlooking the obvious! In the book, the ranch owner is named George, and his wife is named Wanda—same as real life!

all MOO, of course
 
Last edited:
I hope I never have to use lethal force to protect myself. However, it's good to know the rights you have and don't have. I'm not from AZ, so when is Deadly Force Permitted in Arizona?

Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death.
In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

By way of example, if someone were to threaten you with a gun, it would likely be reasonable to kill or seriously injure the other person in an effort to save your own life. Conversely, if someone slapped or punched you, it would be highly unreasonable to kill or cause serious injury to that person. Just because you’re threated or confronted with physical force, doesn’t mean you can retaliate or seek vengeance. You’re only justified in using deadly physical force when a reasonable person would believe that it’s immediately necessary to protect against deadly force. State v. Andersen (App. Div.1 1993) 177 Ariz. 381, 868 P.2d 964.

Arizona “Stand Your Ground” Laws

While Arizona doesn’t have an explicitly titled “stand your ground” law, Arizona laws effectively allow people to stand their ground—there’s no duty to retreat before defending oneself. Thus, if you’re not engaged in an unlawful act, and you’re in a place you have a right to be, you don’t have retreat when someone threatens or assaults you. Nevertheless, you can only use proportional and reasonable force when immediately necessary.

By way of example, if someone were to push you in a parking lot, you couldn’t retrieve a baseball bat from your car and swing at the aggressor. A baseball bat, in that scenario, is a dangerous instrument that can cause serious injury or death. That’s not a proportional or reasonable use of force when standing your ground against a push; however, you could certainly push back since there’s no duty to retreat. In another example, if someone pointed a gun at you, and you reasonably feared for your life, you would be justified in threatening or using deadly force against that aggressor.



 
I hope I never have to use lethal force to protect myself. However, it's good to know the rights you have and don't have. I'm not from AZ, so when is Deadly Force Permitted in Arizona?

Under ARS 13-405, the use of deadly force is sometimes permitted in Arizona. However, it’s limited to narrow circumstances. You can only use deadly force if you’re in reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death.
In order to lawfully use deadly force against someone, a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would need to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against potentially deadly force. That’s because self-defense must always be reasonable, proportional, and immediately necessary. Unless you’re faced with the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, you cannot use deadly force.

By way of example, if someone were to threaten you with a gun, it would likely be reasonable to kill or seriously injure the other person in an effort to save your own life. Conversely, if someone slapped or punched you, it would be highly unreasonable to kill or cause serious injury to that person. Just because you’re threated or confronted with physical force, doesn’t mean you can retaliate or seek vengeance. You’re only justified in using deadly physical force when a reasonable person would believe that it’s immediately necessary to protect against deadly force. State v. Andersen (App. Div.1 1993) 177 Ariz. 381, 868 P.2d 964.


Arizona “Stand Your Ground” Laws

While Arizona doesn’t have an explicitly titled “stand your ground” law, Arizona laws effectively allow people to stand their ground—there’s no duty to retreat before defending oneself. Thus, if you’re not engaged in an unlawful act, and you’re in a place you have a right to be, you don’t have retreat when someone threatens or assaults you. Nevertheless, you can only use proportional and reasonable force when immediately necessary.

By way of example, if someone were to push you in a parking lot, you couldn’t retrieve a baseball bat from your car and swing at the aggressor. A baseball bat, in that scenario, is a dangerous instrument that can cause serious injury or death. That’s not a proportional or reasonable use of force when standing your ground against a push; however, you could certainly push back since there’s no duty to retreat. In another example, if someone pointed a gun at you, and you reasonably feared for your life, you would be justified in threatening or using deadly force against that aggressor.



Excellent research. It will be interesting if and how these laws come into play in this case.

Has GK's attorney already invoked any defense on the basis of a general stand your ground type of scenario? If so, I've missed it & need to catch up.

MOO
 
Could a good medical examiner tell the difference—perhaps from the path the bullet took through the body—between a fairly close shot or a shot made from the house?
I do believe so.

Firearm examiners at the BCA can evaluate items to determine the distance between the muzzle of a firearm and an object when it was shot. Although almost any object can be the target of gunfire, the BCA most frequently receives requests for proximity determination examinations on victim’s clothing.

Examiners test fire the firearm used in the crime and same or similar ammunition at a variety of muzzle to target distances. This allows the examiner to reproduce the pattern of nitrites and the presence of lead residues. Comparison of the test targets to the evidence allows the examiner to determine a distance range.

 
Excellent research. It will be interesting if and how these laws come into play in this case.

Has GK's attorney already invoked any defense on the basis of a general stand your ground type of scenario? If so, I've missed it & need to catch up.

MOO
So far, this appears to be Mr. K's defense as of 2/22;
It states that he saw an AK47 pointed at him. I have not seen, exactly, what kind of rifle Mr. K had. Maybe I've missed it. If Mr. K had an AK47 himself, then the shot range would be around 900 or so feet. I've tried to narrow this down but the links are at the bottom if needed.


Mr. K, had completed chores on his ranch near Kino Springs earlier that day and came to his house to have lunch with his wife when he heard a single gunshot as they ate, Kelly’s court-appointed attorney, Brenna Larkin, wrote in a recent court filing obtained by Fox News Digital. In the filing earlier this month, Larkin detailed how Kelly contacted Border Patrol’s Ranch Liaison several times on Jan. 30, including when the rancher's dogs brought Kelly’s attention to the deceased man on his property later that evening.

The defense says Kelly does not believe any of the warning shots fired from his rifle "could have possibly hit the person or caused the death".

Kelly called the U.S. Border Patrol ranch liaison, specifically assigned to aid people living on borderlands, to report what he had seen and "to summon immediate help," Larkin wrote. Kelly reported that he heard a single shot and that the men he had seen were armed

Kelly went onto his porch with his rifle. "The leader of the armed group of men saw Mr. Kelly and pointed an AK-47 right at him," Larkin wrote. Mr. K, fearing for his life and safety, fired several shots from his rifle, hoping to scare the group away.

The filing notes Kelly had a second conversation with the Border Patrol ranch liaison that ended at approximately 2:36 p.m. Even though Kelly reported that he heard a single shot and that the men he had seen were armed, the liaison "incorrectly reported" that Kelly stated he could not tell whether the men were armed or not, Larkin wrote. The radio dispatch to the Border Patrol agents en route to the property at approximately 2:40 p.m. "correctly reported that armed men had been seen in the area."

Mr. K’s wife indicated that she had seen armed men carrying large backpacks near the house, Larkin wrote.

Border Patrol agents and sheriff's deputies walked "all over" Kelly’s property but found no one, the filing says. They also used various cameras to try to locate the men but were unsuccessful. Law enforcement then left.

Mr. K walked out near sundown to check on his horse and property. Noticing that the dogs he took with him were focused on something on the ground near a mesquite tree, Kelly approached the area and "observed a body lying face down in the grass," Larkin wrote.

Mr. K called the Border Patrol ranch liaison a third time to report the discovery of the body, and request assistance from law enforcement. When law enforcement arrived, Kelly helped them find the body and cooperated with their investigation, according to Larkin.

The investigation found that the body was that of a male "foreign national" who did not have any firearms or backpack on him. The cause of death appeared to be a single gunshot wound, and it appeared the body was fresh, according to the filing. "The person [had] a radio with him, and he was wearing tactical boots, indicating he was possibly involved in illegal activity," Larkin wrote.

The defense attorney added that it remains unknown what kind of bullet caused the fatal wound, what was the time of death, how long the body had been there or where and what position the person was in prior to receiving the fatal wounds.


AK47:
The AK-47 is the deadliest weapon ever built, on the whole. Today's AKs are actually AKMs (modernized) and variations on the AKM. Everyone will still refer to it as an AK-47 or simply "AK" -- because it sounds cool. The weapon uses a 7.62mm, high-velocity round that can "destroy whole areas of a body," according to New York City trauma surgeons. They shatter bones, tear through organs and liquefy other materials as the round tumbles through the body -- often in ways that cannot be repaired.

The weapon uses a 7.62mm, high-velocity round that can "destroy whole areas of a body," according to New York City trauma surgeons. They shatter bones, tear through organs and liquefy other materials as the round tumbles through the body -- often in ways that cannot be repaired.

 
According to the suspect the victim wore a large backpack, correct?

Well, I doubt a bullet shot from a distance of 100 yards can not only pass through a large backpack but also the body, exiting it completely.

ETA: I mean something does not add up in that story.
 
According to the suspect the victim wore a large backpack, correct?

Well, I doubt a bullet shot from a distance of 100 yards can not only pass through a large backpack but also the body, exiting it completely.

ETA: I mean something does not add up in that story.
Good point.

And, "near the house" seems to be a pretty loosely defined concept, 100 yards is not "near" imo.

He's going to get a lot of sympathy drummed up for him, but there remains the fact the victim was shot in the back, a football field away from his house.
 
The more I look at this case, the less simple it looks. And if it devolves into some sort of "whose fault is it" issue, it's hard to defend people who are disrespecting a person's property rights, and invading his homestead. Aren't you deliberately putting yourself in harm's way, when you do something like that?
I need to watch that hearing ,but I have questions that make me wonder what kinds of corruption could play into this.Or if any does.
 
According to the suspect the victim wore a large backpack, correct?

Well, I doubt a bullet shot from a distance of 100 yards can not only pass through a large backpack but also the body, exiting it completely.

ETA: I mean something does not add up in that story.
Why would a backpack stop a high velocity rifle bullet? Some ballistic vests cannot stop rifle rounds.
It’s critical to note that Level II, Level IIA and Level IIIA ballistic protection isn’t effective against rifle ammunition.

While Level III and Level IV body armor does provide rifle-rated protection, there are differences in their protection level. Level III can stop lead-core 5.56mm rounds, but ammunition with a steel or partial steel core needs a ceramic or metallic component—making a Level IV plate the best option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,990
Total visitors
4,186

Forum statistics

Threads
591,819
Messages
17,959,585
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top