Republican bill would let AZ ranchers shoot and kill border-crossers on their property
By: Sofia Resnick (Arizona Mirror)
Open Season?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Doing so now is considered murder, but the proposed expansion of the 'Castle Doctrine' would make it legal
By: Leah Britton/UA Don Bolles fellow- February 23, 2024 2:12 pm
Photo via Getty Images
Arizona Republicans want to let ranchers in southern Arizona legally shoot and kill undocumented immigrants who cross their land.
A bill moving through the state House of Representatives would make changes to the state's existing "Castle Doctrine" law, which permits Arizonans to use deadly force against people who are trespassing or breaking into their home.
Rep. Justin Heap, a Mesa Republican, told the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 14 that his House Bill 2843 is designed to close a loophole that he claims has led to "increasingly larger numbers of migrants or human traffickers moving across farm and ranch land."
The bill comes as an Arizona rancher awaits trial after he was arrested and charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault for killing 48-year-old Gabriel Cuen-Butimea after he shot at a group of unarmed migrants walking through his 170-acre ranch outside of Nogales. Under its provisions, 73-year-old George Alan Kelly would have been justified for allegedly killing any of the migrants.
The bill expands the Castle Doctrine law by changing the law to allow deadly force to be used if the intruder is either in the shooter's residence or on his land. The law currently requires the intruder to be both on the land and in the residence or other structure designed for habitation.
"Language like 'and' 'or' 'either'…that one word can completely change the meaning of how this law is then applied," Heap said. "If a farmer owns 10,000 acres of farmland, his home may be a half a mile away from where he is, and if he sees someone on his land, can he approach them and (remove) them from his property? This is an amendment to fix that."
Heap did not respond to requests for comment on his bill.
If passed, the change of "and" to "or" in state law would give a much broader defense to people who use deadly force, as property would only have to satisfy some of the requirements instead of all of them, said criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak.
"The idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home," he said."This seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone that's just on your actual property."
Litwak said that he believes that Heap's legislation would extend self-defense laws to justify the use of violent force similar to the events that led to Cuen-Buitimea's murder.
I do not think there is any sense in giving a green light to more extrajudicial killings.
- Rep. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix
Arizona is one of about 30 states with laws that remove the duty to retreat first before taking violent action, setting Arizona apart from states like Florida and Louisiana that are among the 10 states that do have explicit "Stand Your Ground" laws permitting violent force if one feels that they are being threatened.
Such laws sparked national debate in 2012, after Florida neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder charges after claiming self defense in fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was visiting his father.
The conversation was reignited last April, when 16-year-old Ralph Yarl was shot in the head and arm by an 84-year-old homeowner for ringing his doorbell. Many worried that the shooter would be protected by Missouri's "Stand Your Ground" law.
Just days later, 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis was shot and killed by a homeowner in upstate New York after she and her friends pulled into the wrong driveway while looking for a party.
Still, these incidents are not anomalies. A 2022 JAMA Network study showed that "Stand Your Ground" laws were linked to an 8-11% increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide, leading researchers to conclude that the enactment of similar legislation across the country was directly related to an increase in violent and avoidable deaths.
In committee, Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, praised the bill for protecting people who could be accused of using excessive force in these situations.
"This is a great Second Amendment bill, that is also protecting the rights of the accused to make sure we are taking ambiguity out of our law," Kolodin said.
It passed through committee with a 5-3-1, with every Democrat on the panel voting against it.
On the floor, Maryvale Democrat Rep. Analise Ortiz was a "strong no" on the measure.
"HB2843 expands the (Castle Doctrine) law in a way that I think is very dangerous, as guns continue to wreak havoc upon our communities. I do not think there is any sense in giving a green light to more extrajudicial killings," Ortiz said.
The bill was approved by the state House on Feb. 22 by a 31-28 vote, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. It now heads to the Senate for further consideration.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No Trump, Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
523 visitors
Won't pass muster but it sure sends a message...........
Also hopefully what it will do is make people check the castle doctrine in their own state. It might not be what they assume it is. I know I was a bit surprised when I bought my first gun and found out my states law was not what I thought it was.
Same with me when I got my CCP in Arizona. I always thought I was allowed to defend myself, my family, and my property. I am not allowed to defend my property. I can come by use deadly force if a assailant is directly threatening and facing me. If a perp raped my wife and was walking away with my valuables I could not shoot him as he walked away. In doing so I would be charged with murder. I could only shoot them in the act. And when questioned by police I was told I had to specifically state I feared for my life. Now those were eye openers.
“I am not allowed to defend my property.”
That is a bunch of bs right there. I value my property more than the life of a thug trying to steal or damage it.
They need to add the proviso that if the intruder poses a genuine threat to the property owner when they are approached i.e. the intruder is armed and/or acting in a threatening manner with intent to harm. If the intruder meets those criteria then yes the property owner should be allowed use of deadly force.
Agreed
"I do not think there is any sense in giving a green light to more extrajudicial killings."
Turn the border light from green to red and this becomes a non issue.
If the border was secured Citizens would not have illegal border crossers causing problems.
Any suggestions on how to "secure" the Southern border?
Yes, elect someone who cares about it even when it isn't an election year.
Could always erect a suitable barrier fence and electrify it, the trend nowadays is to make everything electric anyway.
Been seeing t shirts advertised stating this all over the place.
Might have to get one.
Start by getting rid of Joe
If you wanted to get passed an electrified fence, are you stating that you would not be able to do so?
How would your electrified fence stop the tunnels from being built?
Way to completely dodge the question. Afraid to answer?
He did answer but it appears as if you didn't approve of the answer.
My answer is valid. Nothing can get done if joe is still there. He could help right now if he chose to.
Afraid to respond to the actual comment?
Looking for a way to play semantic games with the word "secure" without admitting joe is part of the problem is not easy.
Oh........someone had this idea of a WALL!
Well then there would always be the "Katrina" solution,
Dig a trench of suitable depth and width, take the removed dirt and truck it to NOLA getting them above sea level, fill the trench with water, sewerage and alligators and some old fashioned underwater sea mines, this solves surrounding areas septic problems as well as some unwanted gator problems some places have , and deturs the use of boats that attempt to cross.
Did I fail to mention setting up both civilian and military gunnery and shooting ranges on the US side of the trench? That would be outstanding really. And if they miss the target, they get to say they were literally shooting the shit, and the shit does splatter.
Tunnels? Israel has shown they can be flooded at will.
Not for my question. So once again, how would you secure the Southern border? Unless you are proposing that replacing Biden, and taking no other steps, would magically secure it.
A great start is getting rid of the idiots in charge of the border now.
Are you claiming that after that was done you would guarantee that the border was completely secure? Is that really what you are claiming?
Did you read where he made such a claim? Please point out which post has that claim.
Oh, that's simple. Allow the military to use it for training. There is potential for a lot of training along the border - Ranges (small arms, mortars, artillery), dive teams can use the sections of the Rio Grande for training.
I'm pretty sure we'd see the democrat streams of illegals crossing the border real quick.
I never claimed it would , it sure as hell would be fun to watch.
Might be why countries south of the border can't win any gold medals in track and field, anyone who can run, jump or swim , already made it north
Since Biden and Harris are refusing to do their jobs, how about just taking a step back and let Texas take the lead and show you how to do it?
There's that too. To make it better is the Democrats crying about it.
2000 miles for training? And what would the military do when they saw immigrants crossing the border? Answer is nothing, it is illegal for the military to take police actions.
Can you rephrase that in non-MAGA speak?
“How would your electrified fence stop the tunnels from being built?.
it is utterly stupid to think tunnels would allow the massive number of illegals to cross that an open border does. Smdh.
Physical security backed up by guards and deal very harshly with those who get by.
Good physical security is more cost effective than supporting then and putting up with the problems they cause.
I like that
Their only answer seems to be to shoot and kill immigrants. I mean they call them feral cats so what do you expect?
No one is talking about completely secure except you. Bringing it back to Trump era would be a good start.
What do you suggest could be done to make the border MORE secure than it is now?
See 3.1.8
I rest my case
Fun with words.
Kamala wants to increase voter registration so she is planning to try and register illegals as they cross the border.
If they stayed where they were none of this would be a problem and they would not be called feral cats
Who would be stupid enough to approach a range from the impact area perspective? Wait!!! Don't answer that. IT"S NOT A CHALLENGE.
Sorry, don't have enough alcohol to break it down to leftist speak.
It was already being done prior to Biden's first day in office. Build and complete the wall and reinstate remain in Mexico policy that Biden trashed.
It's nothing you want to hear. And that is not my problem. And yes, 2000+ miles for training. You apparently have no idea how much training can be done in that much space.
I never said a damn thing about the military taking police action. You need to pay attention. I said they should use it for training.
Sounds like a workable plan to me.
If illegals act like feral cats, and many of them do on my neck of the border, then they deserve to be treated as such.
Yep, military training on the border in no way would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
That won't stop these open border idiots from making the claim.
Amen to that!
George Allen Kelly, the 73 year old rancher in Santa Cruz County, should never have been arrested to begin with. Unfortunately, Santa Cruz County and the city mayor of Nogales and sheriff are hard core leftist liberal Democrat who consider their county as a "sanctuary" county. CBP and other LEO's from adjoining counties are not allowed to chase illegals across the county line under threat of arrest.
George Allen Kelly, the 73 year old rancher in Santa Cruz County, should have been given a medal
You got that right.
That's not surprising. What I find funny is the prosecutors "star witness" in the trial had pleaded guilty to smuggling cannabis across the Arizona-Mexico border in 2015.
Yep. Fine reliable upstanding non citizen employed by a drug cartel. What could be wrong with that witness? 😕
Apparently it's good for a liberal Democrat.
Especially when they are a anti gun leftist liberal Democrat mayor and county sheriff.
[DELETED]