I love S.Fla! Mobley v. State Stand Your Ground Appeal

[Sebastian the Ibis]

A great opinion came out of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal today (Miami-Dade County).

Mr. Mobley was at a Chili's with friends and they were harassed by two gentlemen. After waiting for the gentlemen to leave the area, Mr. Mobley went to his car and retrieved his gun as his friends left and he had a smoke. One of the gentleman ran up and punched Mr. Mobley's friend breaking his eye socket, the other gentleman ran up to Mr. Mobley and reached under his shirt as though he was reaching for a weapon. Mr. Mobley dispatched the two gentlemen.

Mr. Mobley provided multiple statements to the police and was released only to be later charged with murder when a new prosecutor was assigned. The Judge denied Mr. Mobley's Stand Your Ground Immunity claim.

The Appellate Court reversed (the initial ruling / granted Mr. Mobley's Immunity Claim) finding that:

the court discounted the totality of the circumstances facing Mobley and concluded that the use of deadly force was not reasonable, first, because Mobley “never saw a weapon and did not know anything about the possibility of a weapon,” with him only seeing “the second attacker appear to be reaching for something under his shirt,” and second, because Mobley should have brandished his gun, fired a warning shot or told the attackers to stop because he had a gun.

This is a interesting opinion, because the dissent and trial court show all the little details which a court can pick apart to create issues of fact requiring a trial.

The opinion is available here:

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/Opinions2014-01-02.shtml

It is also being discussed over at Volokh:

http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/02/new-florida-self-defense-law-case/#disqus_thread

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think the first mistake was made by Mobley for talking to the police "downtown" without a lawyer present - not once, but twice!

"I was in fear for my life." Beyond that, lawyer up. IMHO.

 

[brickeyee]

<Deleted>

It supposes brandishing (a crime in and of itself in just about every jurisdiction if you do not have the standing to use deadly force already) and the firing of "warning shots," a crime in just about any city or town.

Who the hell wrote such a horrid opinion?

The judge himself?

A rather stupid clerk?

 

[Deltaboy1984]

The court says breaking the law by brandishing and discharging a firearm in Town is better than following the Law and dispatching the problem. WOW!!!!!

 

[dogmush]

It supposes brandishing (a crime in and of itself in just about every jurisdiction if you do not have the standing to use deadly force already) and the firing of "warning shots," a crime in just about any city or town.

Who the hell wrote such a horrid opinion?

The court says breaking the law by brandishing and discharging a firearm in Town is better than following the Law and dispatching the problem. WOW!!!!!

The court that said he should have brandished is the one that got overturned. THIS ruling said that the shooting was legal.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

...and second, because Mobley should have brandished his gun, fired a warning shot or told the attackers to stop because he had a gun.

Wait... there's an idiot judge somewhere that actually went with that? Dear Florida Bar Association, you know where to look for your next removal from the bench. Of course this got overturned. That's ridiculous.

 

[km101]

Wait... there's an idiot judge somewhere that actually went with that? Dear Florida Bar Association, you know where to look for your next removal from the bench. Of course this got overturned. That's ridiculous.

A criminal court judge that doesn't know and understand the law? Now there is a new situation. *sarcasm font*

 

[smogmage]

It would seem Joe Biden himself wrote the original opinion! Glad it worked out in the end.

 

[Frank Ettin]

An interesting case and an interesting subject.

But it looks like too many folks aren't bothering to read and think about the decision and discuss it substantively.

Rant-fests aren't needed.

 

[ugaarguy]

I've edited the OP for clarity, because, like several others here, the original wording made it seem that the appeal was denied / the original court's ruling was upheld.