Attorney Louis Bonham writes:
After the hash made by the Florida judiciary in the Zimmerman case, you could be forgiven if you’re a bit cynical about Florida courts and self defense cases. On paper, Florida law – especially its commonly misunderstood “Stand Your Ground” law – is very favorable to self defense. As the Zimmerman case starkly demonstrated, however, judges and prosecutors will not always follow the law, especially if there are political points to be scored. Today yields one of those decisions that show how the law is supposed to work, albeit somewhat belatedly: Mobley v. State of Florida. Here are the facts as presented . . .
Gabriel Mobley had joined a friend for drinks and food after work. Before going into the restaurant, he secured his legally carried handgun in the glovebox of his car, believing it was illegal to bring a firearm into an establishment that served alcohol. During the evening, Mobley’s friend had an altercation in the restaurant with two other men, during and after which Mobley attempted to act as peacemaker. Subsequently, after they thought the other men had left, Mobley and his friend left the restaurant.
The court’s opinion described what happened:
The events that transpired next were captured on a security camera recording made outside the restaurant, and, for the most part, are beyond dispute. The recording shows that at 23:52:15, Mobley, wearing only a sleeveless tee shirt, exited the Chili’s front door and went to his vehicle parked only feet away, but mostly outside the security camera’s viewing range. There, Mobley, as subsequent footage confirms, donned a sweat shirt, because, according to Mobley, it was chilly that night. He also retrieved his gun and put it in a holster that he wore around his waist.
Less than a minute after Mobley left the restaurant, Chico and the third man in their party exited the front door. Chico was joined by Mobley who walked with Chico to his nearby car. There the two remained for approximately thirty seconds until, at 23:53:38, Mobley stepped onto the sidewalk near the front fender of Chico’s car. Approximately twenty seconds later, Chico joined him on the sidewalk where the two smoked a cigarette.
Four seconds after Chico joined Mobley on the sidewalk, Jason Gonzalez can be seen rapidly approaching from Mobley’s and Chico’s right. Four seconds after that, Jason delivered a vicious punch to Chico’s face which fractured Chico’s eye socket. Jason then can be seen to dance backward, hands raised in a fighter’s pose, and within four seconds of landing the punch on Chico advance forward toward Mobley.
Mobley reacted by raising his arm and hand to ward Jason off. Two seconds later, as Jason steps back from Mobley, Roly can be seen rushing up from the rear of the restaurant to join Jason in what Mobley testified he believed to be a renewed attack on both himself and Chico. At this juncture, as Roly neared Jason, who was only feet from both Mobley and Chico, Mobley testified that he saw Roly reach under his long, baggy shirt. Believing that Roly was reaching for a weapon to use in an attack, Mobley drew his gun and shot at Roly hitting both Roly and Jason.
This entire series of events, from the time Jason first comes into view on the sidewalk until the first shot was fired, took only twelve seconds. After being shot, Jason turned and fled toward his (or Roly’s) car to collapse with a gunshot wound to the chest and die. Roly, hit four times, fell to the ground near the restaurant’s door where he was assisted by the third man in their party who had been sitting at the bar. Roly later died at a local hospital. Although no weapons were found on Roly’s body, two knives were found on the ground near where he fell.
Mobley cooperated with police, and after being held for a number of hours and giving a statement was released without being charged. Subsequently, a different investigator was assigned the case, and Mobley was arrested and charged with two counts of murder.
Unlike George Zimmerman, Mobley actually asserted the “stand your ground” defense permitted by Florida law. Under this defense, the trial court conducts a “mini trial” before the actual trial to determine whether, in using deadly force, the defendant reasonably believed that such force was necessary “to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” If the court finds, based on the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time, that a reasonable and prudent person would have acted similarly, then the charges must be dismissed.
After holding a hearing, the trial court determined that it did not believe Mobley reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary, because Mobley never actually saw a weapon and because it believed Mobley should have brandished his gun, fired a warning shot, or warned the attackers to stop because he had a gun. It thus refused to dismiss the charges. Mobley appealed this refusal, and a Florida appeals court stayed his trial until it could address the issue.
In deciding that Mobley was, indeed, within his rights, the court’s opinion is a full-throated recognition of self defense law. It flatly rejected the suggestion that Mobley was required to warn, brandish his weapon, or fire warning shots, noting that Florida law requires none of these but specifically allows the use of deadly force if the other legal circumstances are met. It further held that under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence showed that a reasonably prudent person would reasonably have believed that deadly force was necessary, concluding:
It may have been more prudent for Mobley and Chico to skitter to their cars and hightail it out of there when they had the chance; however, as even the State concedes and the court below recognized, Mobley and Chico had every right to be where they were, doing what they were doing and they did nothing to precipitate this violent attack.
The only relevant inquiry was whether, given the totality of the circumstances leading up to the attack, the appearance of danger was so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of deadly force.
Because the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that had the proper standard been applied, Mobley’s use of deadly force was justified, the motion to dismiss should have been granted.
From a legal standpoint, such a decision was more than a bit unusual. Typically, factual decisions of a district court on a preliminary matter like this are afforded quite a bit of deference by the appellate courts, especially where the issue can be revisited at trial. Kudos to the court for not taking the easy way out.
Looks a lot like an FNH FNX rip off. Come on CZ you can do better than Tarus right?
This is why wee need laws that remove the duty to retreat.
Because even some idiotic members of the Judiciary think that somehow people are supposed to magically be perfect, and wait util a firearm or other weapon is actually shown before defending themselves.
Here, you have a case of two people smoking and minding their own business, and getting attacked. Defensive lethal force is still not used, until a second attacker arrives and acts in a manner that any reasonable person would conclude is a threat, a threat verified by the finding of weapons, and the trial court wanted more before self defense could be legally justified.
Some people want criminals to be able to rule the streets, rather than being stopped by armed citizens.
The only reason these two are dead is because they chose to attack an armed person. Had they attacked someone who couldn’t defend, they would have at a minimum beaten up both people. You don’t have to allow yourself to be beaten up. But there are people who want to make it so you can’t legally defend yourself.
I agree. If Chico had been smoking alone or Mobley hadn’t retrieved his gun before joining Chico they’d likely be cut or dead.
This reads like a case study.
So, at least one victim was Hispanic, is this guy a racist? Was the other desedant white? Inquiring minds want to know if Al Sharpton is going to protest this hunting license for Hispanics and whites.
“Mobley testified he saw Roly reach under his shirt”. If this happened with a police officer he would have shot as well. All police officers will say the subject reaching under clothing is a THREAT TO LIFE. Rhetorical question but why is it one procedure for police and another for civilians?
Apparently, someone hasn’t heard the 21 foot rule.
It’s basically a Makarov, only in a slightly hotter caliber. Pass. Especially considering those Soviet workhorses can still be found for about the same price and are tough as hell, break down to less than 20 parts and use ammo you can still find on the shelves (in most places). And even the Warsaw Pact at the height of the Cold War could churn out firearms with better quality control than anything made by Freedom Group these days.
This time on GI Joe, watch Snake Eyes infiltrate the Cobra base alone.
I think you want to use the word “invoke” not “evoke”
The privacy aspects of the law have very large exemptions for law enforcement already. Anyone trusting HIPAA to safeguard their health information from the government is naive.
“Your form is terrible! Get back to the minivan and start over!”
After much frustration the N. Korean army resorts to Ninjas to motivate the troops.
After an embarrassing loss to an injured Daniel LaRuso at the All Valley Under 18 Karate Tournament, Johnny embarks on a mission to redeem himself and Cobra Kai as a close-quarters instructor for Al Qaeda.
“I knew that allowing gays in the military was a bad idea!”
Chinese military officials played a ton of metal gear solid 2 and has begun testing the cyborg ninja concept and realized that the only way it will work in an open desert environment is when the enemy soldiers are all looking in the opposite direction. Chinese Military officials claim that this new soldier concept is unstoppable with the ability to take on fictional metal gears and mech warriors simultaneously.
I have a NFA trust and I have a class 7 FFL license. If I purchase a suppressor can the manufacture ship it to me and I place it in my A&D book as received and transferred to my personal collection>
Thanks.
Dan Thomson
Is that a finger on the lens? It needs to move further to the left. There, that’s better…
Looks cool.
The safety dance!
Speaking from personal experience… both with the M16 and the M60 — Get a bigger helicopter!!!
This. Rolling hot in a Prius with a rotor just looks silly.
I don’t know who the hell this person is. Is he an extra from Hebrew Hammer?
The only problem I see here is that Liberal Tears stink a whole lot!
Besides, they are like a hotdog….nobody really knows what’s in them!
That’s funny. And we already know what the federales use to grease the treads of their APCs, so this is fair.
“Suffice it to say, home carry people. Home carry.”
yep – all you have to do is research a few home invasions to know this simple truth.
if wearing your jammies while you watch the boob tube is more important than substituting a comfortable pair of jeans or shorts to keep your weapon usefully at hand, you’re failing yourself (and your family).
I love the original 51, and I think that this is a move that Remington should have made years ago.
I WWWAAAANNNNTTTT a 22lr conversion kit for the p07.
I guess none of you live here.
In the next few weeks there will be a vote in the state legislature to allow the use of a warning shot(dumb) and or a display of your weapon in just such a situation as described in this story.
Currently firing a warning shot isn’t allowed. I feel that’s also reasonable. You are responsible for that bullet where ever it might go.
So who ever said that in the story is wrong.
If you display your gun and don’t use it.
You will be arrested for at the least menacing or brandishing,
Two ways to look at the new proposed law.
More good news for the armed citizen.
More crap for the uninformed general public to scream about.
I guess we will see what happens in the next few weeks or months.
I think and hope they do pass this.
Hell ya. Looks like CT is just trying to organize a meet and greet. Conversation for days.
This lawless administration is unreal. They seem to have a real problem with the “rule of law” that the left trots out at their every convenience.
HIPPA laws exist Obama. You need to abide by them. They are there to protect the privacy of those seeking medical care. You can’t abrogate them for your convenience even though you do that for every other law you don’t like. Why isn’t this guy impeached yet? He is a greater danger to us than anything coming out of the mideast.
Liar of the Year . . . yeah, we should believe everything he & his fawning state-run media says.
And the devil is always in the details.
Junkies got what junkies deserved, in the junk no less.
I love my little S&W Bodyguard .380..
Fits damn nice in my front pocket and even better in my coat pocket with it in my hand.
So, any bets that the GLOCK 43 will be the same frame in 9mm?
It appears as if they skipped over numbers 40 and 41. I think it’s possible that the 40 will be the same thing in 9mm, and the 41 will be in 40. The numbering would then parallel their subcompact line.
Dick doesn’t understand the first rule of holes.
When the New York Times is your only defender, you’re not on solid ground.