The account I heard was three men, dressed in tactical gear, carrying AK47s were spotted. They fired on the rancher and his wife.  The rancher fired back in their direction. He saw them flee.

He checked the area later and found the dead man and then called the sheriff.

Seems like self defense to me.

Seems like it.  Depends on the details, including rancher's statement.  But imagine that, someone twisting or excluding details to push a narrative.  Shows lack of discipline and independent thought to evaluate and get to the facts before spewing judgement. . .

Never,  ever,  call the cops.
 

Good advice. The only time I would call police is if I needed a police report to file an insurance claim.  If I......never mind, too much information.

The account I heard was three men, dressed in tactical gear, carrying AK47s were spotted. They fired on the rancher and his wife.  The rancher fired back in their direction. He saw them flee.

He checked the area later and found the dead man and then called the sheriff.

Seems like self defense to me.

Yep.  Seems like it to me also.  After all the investigations the truth will be revealed, instead of just assuming guilty just because he was arrested by the sheriff.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Some people are quick to jump to conclusions.  Maybe because of their perceived agendas.  Critical thinking is lacking nowadays.

Or maybe the OP has a sensitive heart for illegals crossing illegally through properties that clearly states no trespassing.  Which is illegal.

Yep.  Seems like it to me also.  After all the investigations the truth will be revealed, instead of just assuming guilty just because he was arrested by the sheriff.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Some people are quick to jump to conclusions.  Maybe because of their perceived agendas.  Critical thinking is lacking nowadays.

Or maybe the OP has a sensitive heart for illegals crossing illegally through properties that clearly states no trespassing.  Which is illegal.

According to the "news", the reason this rancher was arrested is because there was a witness.

So, one illegal alien gets shot, and somehow another illegal in the group (assumption there were no other people living on the rancher's land) who witnessed the shooting winds up in the Sheriff's office giving a statement?

Nothing fishy there.  And if the dead man happened to be armed, could the "witness" who was close enough to hear the dying man's last words not have picked up the weapon and run with it?

At least 894 migrants died along the entire southern border in the last federal fiscal year —
a 58% increase from the previous fiscal year, according to the U.S. Border Patrol Missing Migrant Program.

So, when is Biden's arraignment for negligent homicide?

So, in a statute that says you can protect your property, you think the subsections that say you can only do so if your life is in danger negate that subsection?  Then why have the part about criminal trespass and protecting your premises at all if the same rules apply regardless of the location?

Imagine you're in a wheelchair and a guy runs up to take your backpack (let's call this your property).  The guy doesn't display a gun or other weapon, but he likely picked you because you looked like an easy target.  You draw your weapon and shoot him.  Is that justified?  He wasn't threatening your life.  He just wanted to take your property.

Is that not justifiable defense of one's property?

Not AZ, but I'm sure similar in statute:

The first subsection of the statute says:

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

Arizona law says “physical force” and “deadly physical force” are two different things.  (“‘Physical force’ means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person… but does not include deadly physical force.;” see section 13-105.)
 
So subsection A of the statute says that, if you believe it is necessary to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass, you may:
 
Threaten deadly physical force, or
 
Threaten or use physical force.
 
That subsection does not say you can use deadly physical force to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass, only that you can threaten it.
 
The second paragraph of the statute says:

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

So, in order to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass, you may threaten deadly physical force, but to be justified in using deadly physical force in defense of premises, you have to have satisfied the conditions in section 13-405 (self-defense) or section 13-406 (defense of a third person).
 
The video you linked has nothing to do with this situation; Texas law is very different than Arizona law with respect to use of force to protect property.

You didn't post an link to the article and what little you posted doesn't contain much in the way of information so its hard for anyone here to determine whether the shooting was justified self defense or not.

It may have been self defense and maybe it wasn't. But yes, this could be avoided by not going on other people's land.

Even if xhe posted the article, xhe doesnt read past the headline. Cause often what xhe post as links to help xis argument, doesnt help at all due to not reading what is posted.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

KINO SPRINGS, Ariz. — Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea was slipping across a rancher’s land near the border with Mexico when the shooting started. “I’m hit,” he said, before his eyes rolled back and he crumpled face down by a mesquite tree.

To the sheriff in rural Santa Cruz County, Ariz., this account, relayed by a witness, and other pieces of the investigation into the shooting death of Mr. Cuen-Buitimea seemed to make the next steps clear. The sheriff’s office arrested George Alan Kelly, the rancher suspected of firing the fatal shot, and charged him with murder.

Then the angry calls started pouring in.

“This is garbage.”

“It’s a travesty of justice.”

“Since when do illegals have rights?”

The rancher should get a citizens award! Good use of ammo!

The rancher should get a citizens award! Good use of ammo!

If the man was killed with an AK, it's Russia's fault.   

The account I heard was three men, dressed in tactical gear, carrying AK47s were spotted. They fired on the rancher and his wife.  The rancher fired back in their direction. He saw them flee.

He checked the area later and found the dead man and then called the sheriff.

Seems like self defense to me.

With as many instances as there are of people crossing over private land it is entirely possible that's a different incident.

But of course, that would be a pretty good defense story... whose to say there wasn't someone with a rifle shooting at you?

A soldier in Afghanistan would be charged with murder for shooting someone in the back. This is true even if the person shot was armed. There are some warped concepts of justice displayed here. What ever happened to standing up for law and order?

Our resident war/military expert is back.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

MEXICO CITY (AP) — A Mexican official said Friday that her government thinks Arizona rancher George Alan Kelly should have faced first-degree murder charges for allegedly killing a Mexican migrant who was crossing his property.

An Arizona Justice of the Peace ruled last week that Kelly should face trial on charges of second-degree murder and aggravated assault in the death of Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea at the ranch outside Nogales, Arizona on Jan. 30.

That decision came after prosecutors lowered Kelly’s charge from a single count of first-degree murder, which would have required a finding of premeditated intent to kill, and could have led to a death sentence.

Mexico’s head of consular protection, Vanessa Calva, said Mexico had told U.S. prosecutors that her country believes first-degree charges more accurately describe the circumstances of Cuen-Buitimea’s death.

She said Cuen-Buitimea was unarmed, fleeing and was shot in the back.

Notice how theres no description of the ranchers story or the "witnesses" story.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

cool story, bro...

That is to be handled in court. The state will have to prove 2nd degree murder and they feel they have sufficient evidence to win.

Nowadays I don't believe anything off the internet because people just make sh---t up for clickbait.
Most of what pops up as "news" on my browser comes from unknown sources written by unknown people, or worse, written by A.I.
 

That is to be handled in court. The state will have to prove 2nd degree murder and they feel they have sufficient evidence to win.

SWWOOOOOOOSSHhhhhh

A soldier in Afghanistan would be charged with murder for shooting someone in the back. This is true even if the person shot was armed. There are some warped concepts of justice displayed here. What ever happened to standing up for law and order?

Really? You sure about that?
I mean I am not in the military but I was under the assumption that you can shoot at a retreating enemy. 

Really? You sure about that?
I mean I am not in the military but I was under the assumption that you can shoot at a retreating enemy.

Depends on the ROE and rules for the use of force (RUF).  Given the fact that you could shoot a missile from a helicopter at somebody if it looked like they were burying an IED, I think it was probably OK to shoot an armed insurgent in the back.

A soldier in Afghanistan would be charged with murder for shooting someone in the back. This is true even if the person shot was armed. There are some warped concepts of justice displayed here. What ever happened to standing up for law and order?

Really? You sure about that?
I mean I am not in the military but I was under the assumption that you can shoot at a retreating enemy. 

Out in the field there are no f**kn rules in war, even if there were such a thing.  Only morality guides us in combat.

But if your brothers in arms are in danger, and you are the enemy, guess who holds the short end of the shit stick.....

Out in the field there are no f**kn rules in war, even if there were such a thing.  Only morality guides us in combat.

But if your brothers in arms are in danger, and you are the enemy, guess who holds the short end of the shit stick.....

To add to that ...

There are 2 kinds of people in an armed conflict:  combatants and non-combatants.

if you see someone with an AK-47 driving or running toward you, and you're a uniformed military person, you have to assume that someone is a combatant unless and until they demonstrate otherwise -- throw down their arms, stop where they are, shows they aren't wired with explosives, etc....

The hardest part of today's conflicts is identifying the enemy.  Insurgents and rebels don't wear uniforms normally.  Also, today's non-combatant could become tomorrow's suicide bomber due to money promised to their families or threats to end their families.

Please, don't explain Rules of Engagement unless you've been there - done that.

To add to that ...

There are 2 kinds of people in an armed conflict:  combatants and non-combatants.

if you see someone with an AK-47 driving or running toward you, and you're a uniformed military person, you have to assume that someone is a combatant unless and until they demonstrate otherwise -- throw down their arms, stop where they are, shows they aren't wired with explosives, etc....

The hardest part of today's conflicts is identifying the enemy.  Insurgents and rebels don't wear uniforms normally.  Also, today's non-combatant could become tomorrow's suicide bomber due to money promised to their families or threats to end their families.

Please, don't explain Rules of Engagement unless you've been there - done that.

I wasn't a ground pounder.
but I was issued an M16. though it was locked up in the armory
or bugout Cabana,
My instructions were simple, complete your mission!
It was at my discretion how to do it
and not violate the UCMJ rules.