There is an tragic road road case out of Florida where two middle aged men that led to a shooting. Robert Eric Doyle, 51, was arrested for the murder of Candelario Gonzalez, 44. What is different about this case if two fold. First, both cars were on the telephone with 911 during the chase and shooting — all of which was recorded. Second, the primary witnesses that could contradict both drivers are the respective wives of the drivers.
Doyle called 911 to tell the police that there was “some maniac” chasing him and that he had his gun “cocked and loaded.” Around the same time, the wife of Gonzalez called to say that her husband was following a man in the streets of Beverly Hill, Florida. Both stayed on the line. Both women showed far more judgment than their respective husbands.
Gonzalez’s wife can be heard begging him to go home. However, she said that her husband was following him to get his address (it is not clear why his license plate and make would not be enough). For his part, Doyle made repeated reference to his gun and his willingness to use it: “They’re following me to my house. I’ll be there in 20 seconds; the guns are already out.” When the cars stopped in front of Doyle’s house, the dispatcher could hear Doyle’s wife begging him not to shoot. Doyle shot Gonzalez and then reportedly held the Gonzalez family at gunpoint.
While Doyle has a concealed weapons permit, he has been charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
We previously discussed the impact of Stand Your Ground laws in Florida as well as so called Castle Doctrine or Make My Day laws. The fact that Doyle would wait to confront the other driver outside of his house is an interesting element. It could be viewed as enhancing his defense that he was in fear for his life. Like the Zimmerman case (another second degree murder case), the belief that one’s life is in danger can prove a difficult standard for prosecutors to overcome.
The Castle Doctrine law in Florida presents a couple of tricky elements for both sides. If Doyle was hoping to have the encounter at his home for use of this defense, he would have to argue that the cars were technically within the gambit of law, i.e., part of his domicile. That has been done in other cases where a driveway was treated as part of a home. He would also have to show that he believed Gonzalez was in the process of forcibly entering his home or trying to pull Doyle out of his home. The law also extends to an effort to enter a vehicle. Below is the standard. It is important to remember that Doyle can simple argue self-defense or stand your ground without the use of the Castle Doctrine.
Regardless of the defense, the chief witness for the prosecution will be Doyle’s own wife or at least her recorded voice begging him not to shoot Gonzalez. She appears not to have been in fear of her life but rather in fear of the actions of her own husband. That could be the key to the case since the family of Gonzalez is likely to be heavily in favor of the prosecution’s theory. There is a spousal privilege in Florida though that would not stop the use of the 911 tape. Here is the spousal privilege provision:
90.504 Husband-wife privilege.—
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.
(c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.
Absent the wife’s voice, a stronger defense case could be built on the extraordinary act of Gonzalez following Doyle for so long. That would be viewed as threatening by many and his getting out of his car and approaching Doyle could be used by the defense to support a claim of reasonable fear. But then there is that voice of Doyle’s wife in the background. She is not asking Gonzalez not to harm her husband but asking her husband not to kill Gonzalez.
Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195.
Source: BayNewss
Doyle would appear to have solid ground for a winning defense. Being followed home by a stranger and it seems obvious some road rage was involved, Gonzalez made some poor decisions and bad actions that apparently cost him his life. However, getting the police involved would probably get them both killed including their wives so I wouldn’t ever consider that as an option.
#1 Why was Gonzalez following Doyle to “get his address”? What had Doyle done? If Doyle had engaged in reckless driving or road rage, all Gonzalez had to do was report his license plate to the police.
#2 Why in the world would Doyle drive home? If someone is following you, you call ahead and drive to the police station, where the cops will be waiting.
#3 Gonzalez following Doyle seems to indicate he was hoping for a physical exchange.
#4 What did the 911 operator advise Doyle to do? Did she tell him not to go home and he ignored her?
This is a good reminder to never follow a stranger. You have no idea what kind of person he is. Gonzalez endangered himself and his wife, and Doyle killed someone apparently as a result of testosterone poisoning. Unless other facts emerge, I do not buy Doyle’s defense that he was in fear of his life. Being followed is creepy. If he was trapped somewhere, like at a dead end street, he could have had his gun out, in his car with the doors locked. If the man approached him with a weapon, then he was in fear for his life. If the man approached him, yelled obscenities and made a rude gesture, then he would not be in physical danger. I suspect that Gonzalez may have been following him to get into a fight, which was a tragic mistake. But I don’t know yet. Doyle could have easily avoided the physical confrontation by going to a police station.
That said, I have been followed by someone in a road rage incident who apparently was trying to harm me. I left Staples Center, I believe it was, having met my friends there and drove separately. There was the ubiquitous construction in LA, and traffic was terrible. At a place where lanes merged via cones, I let the car ahead of me go, waited interminably for traffic to inch forward, and then I went. I noticed the driver next to me seemed upset, but didn’t think too much about it. He must have wanted to go and hadn’t realized I’d just let someone in. He was driving a convertible with a boy who looked to be less than 10. I didn’t think of him again until I finally made it to the freeway. There was this onramp that climbed an overpass that looped around quite high up. All of a sudden, that convertible roared around me, got in front of me, and locked up his brakes until they smoked. I barely stopped in time before I plummeted over the edge. He did that at least 20 times, chasing me and trying to get me to crash with what might have been his own son in the car, who looked upset. I finally just stopped on the freeway, with cars honking at me. He stopped in front of me for at least a minute, so close I couldn’t even see his license plate. I started making plans about what to if he was going to get out. Eventually, he left, and I got off at the next offramp and went to some parking lot. That’s when I realized that, stupidly, I was so focused on trying to survive that I forgot to note his license plate. I definitely was in fear of my life.
That’s why, from the description, I wondered if Gonzalez was just following him, or trying to get him to crash.
If Gonzalez wanted the guys address all he needed was to get the license plate number and call someone like me or a cop. As I said previously, following people is dangerous.
Regarding the issue of safety. if you are being followed call the cops and tell them you are driving to their police station. Give them the color/make/model of the vehicle following you as well as your vehicle info. If you can read the plate of the car following, even better. If possible, get a cop on the phone in the station, not a dispatcher. Be assertive w/ the cop and tell him when you arrive @ the station. Beep your horn or run into the station. Being assertive but not an a-hole on the phone, and being scared but not crazy when you get to the station, is the best way to get some action from cops.
I follow people professionally. To do so w/o getting detected is DIFFCULT. I always have to suspend disbelief when watching cop/PI movies or TV shows when they make it look easy. The most likely situation where a PI/cop has their cover blown is when following a person. As you might imagine, many of the insurance fraud people I do surveillance on have other legal/personal issues as well. So, if I get the slightest inkling a person I’m following is hinky, I break it off and use another vehicle next time I watch them. The main reason is to not blow my cover. But, another reason is people get VERY angry or anxious when they’re being followed. Angry or anxious people w/ guns are a problem.
stevegroen/paul
The situation is of a scenario within a scenario. The scenario of the two alpha males crossing paths exists in every country all over the world. In all of the countries that compare to the US or its peer nations the bracketing scenario rarely includes a gun. It rarely includes violence. This is not to say that violence does not exist in other countries but statistics prove that in the US the level is proportionately much higher.
Just inside of this set of brackets is the almost religious perversion to the 2nd Amendment that one may and indeed for many must carry a gun and blow away anyone that threatens or, more remarkably, is perceived to threaten. This mindset is the crux of the problem. If Zimmerman, a person that in no sane society would have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon, had not have been armed he would have stayed in his car, on the phone to 911 and continued to be the nuisance for which he had already acquired a reputation.
This scenario is no different. The killer went straight to the gun, during the altercation, on the phone, and then he used it. If this idiot, who should not be driving around with a gun, did not have a gun he would have avoided the altercation with or without the creativity of leading the other car to the police station or organizing to cross the path of a cruiser.
The problem is the simple minded and perverted perspective of too many Americans who read something somewhere and design the world around it, not going beyond sacred words and other legal stuff and using their head, thinking just a little bit longer, pulling their head out of the myths of a society beyond which we are supposed to have evolved. The US is woefully lacking is some areas, well advanced in most but not here.
Steve, your reference to the Queen and bobbies illustrates the xenophobic aspect of Americans which denies them of the taking advantage of better societal models. It is not an accomplishment for which one is admired.
Paul, my point exactly, there was little if any communication between the killer and the 911 operator except the preparation of a defense for something that the killer was almost set on doing; gun out, driving home, etc.
issac – do you know the United States is the only country not to have ‘football hooligans.’
If you’re really in fear you’d never drive home, the guy could leave and come back another time
Exactly. If some crazy person is following me I would most certainly not show them where I lived.
However, there is no mention in the articles [that I could see] as to why Gonzalez was following/stalking in a threatening way other than he was going to get the other guy’s address. Perhaps a car accident? Road rage? Either way, just get the license plate. Take picture with your freaking cell phone, estupidos. You both had them. USE them.
The better solution would have been for Gonzalez to just take down the license plate, call it in and go on his way instead of trying to be a cop himself. Following someone who you don’t know is NOT a good idea……because, as it turns out, you don’t know how crazy or paranoid that person might be.
Shannon’s solution would be good one and sensible for those who live in a city environment, which I assume this area in the article is. Drive to a public place, preferably a police station. They WERE on line with 911…..why was this not presented as an option by the 911 operator??? Hmmm?
That is not an option where I live. We don’t have police stations……or police. And at night, there are not public places that are open. I would run out of gas before I reached the nearest station [over 80 miles away]
DBQ – you might have noticed that all the poster who advocated going to the police department are female. Women drive more defensively than men. Men don’t worry about where they park or they do not stop back of the car in the other lane. We are less paranoid than women. So if the guy calls 911 to report a ‘maniac’ following him, he is clearly worried.
I prefer the word “intelligent” vice “paranoid”…seems there are some intelligent men on here as well 🙂
I have to agree with Shannon; if he were really in fear for his life, why would he show the assailant where he lives? And I think the spousal privilege has been waived because the wife was talking to her husband and the police dispatcher at the same time; she certainly knew that the police were listening to her communications with her husband.
TinEar – it would be the communications that occurred before and after the call to 911. Even there I think there may be a claim since the police are hearing what she is saying to her husband (spousal privilege) not intended for them.
Shannon
I hope this idiot is charged and convicted. Was he being followed? Yes, however I was being followed by a psycho and drove DIRECTLY to the police department, NOT MY HOME! This idiot wanted to shoot That man because he was pissed off not in danger and it makes me sick! People need to use their brains!
100% correct. If you’re really in fear you’d never drive home, the guy could leave and come back another time. This guy needs to go to jail, there’s no evidence he could reasonably have believed his life was in danger.
@Paul C. Schulte – He’s on the phone with the police. “I’m on my way to the police department right now. Have an officer in the parking lot.” Then no one gets shot. Or he simply tells them where he is and asks them where he can be met by an officer.
Spousal priveledge is not going to be an issue. It applies to “communications which were intended to be made in confidence,” and when the wife is screaming at her husband in the presence of others she is most certainly not intending that communication to be “made in confidence.”
Bill H – I would make the case that she was under duress and spousal privilege still applies. Besides, either partner can use it.
Issac, You’re presuming you know the actual facts. I don’t know how the victim presented a firearm, but if he was waving it around with his family in the car and following the defendant for miles on end, it seems to me that your conclusion that there were other options may not be so foregone. And the wacko may very well have been the victim. It seems to me that we’re at least at the threshold of why Stand Your Ground laws are enacted – we don’t need the Queen’s bobbies or the Queen to protect us. I am not saying the defense is appropriate in this case or ever if avoiding the conflict is an option. What I am saying is that facts aren’t always as they seem in the media and having no guns, nebulous calls for “appropriate gun safety laws,” (which sounds a bit like Joycelyn Elders’ “We need safer guns and safer bullets!”) as Tony Sidaway suggests (Tony’s got his hands full enough with a Queen telling him what’s good for him and whose rents he’s taxed for) aren’t the answer either.
Paul,
No one had to tell me to do those things. It seems God blessed me with a functioning brain.
It’s the Zimmerman doctrine:
I feel threatenedbangbangbang!
Those that defend the present perverted interpretation of the 2nd amendment are to blame here. This appears to be a combination of road rage, testosterone, and “anybody comes near me and I’ll blow their *u#kin head off”. In an more enlightened and mature society, other options would have presented themselves: driving to a police station, calling for help and guiding a cruiser to the situation, signaling by one driver to slow things down, etc.
That the killer was packing is wrong. That the killer’s first reaction was to kill the other was wrong. The whole thing is wrong. However, that’s the way Americans apparently want it. So, let the games continue.
issac – you raise an interesting point. At any point did the 911 operator suggest he go to Police Station? And for Gonzalez, at any point did the 911 operator suggest he break off the chase? Did the 911 operators realize the people were involved in the same chase? Does the Police Department have any liability in this matter?
Amen, Issac! I’m pro second amendment but this was easily avoidable for both men!
I hope this idiot is charged and convicted. Was he being followed? Yes, however I was being followed by a psycho and drove DIRECTLY to the police department, NOT MY HOME! This idiot wanted to shoot That man because he was pissed off not in danger and it makes me sick! People need to use their brains!
Shannon – in my town the Police Department shares a parking lot with 4 other agencies. After you park your car you have at least a 1/4 hike to the doors of the Police Department. Besides, he has his wife in the car with him. I think the fact that he went to his home acts in his favor.
Paul, I wasn’t stupid enough to get out of my car…I had the police on the phone and outside waiting. The guy following me didn’t pull into the police station (scared I guess) but the officers jumped in their cars and quickly pulled him over. Apparently the kid (kid to me anyway) was mad at his mom and went I accidentally turned in front of him…it pissed him off. No need to die over something so silly and no need to kill another.
From the comfort and safety of London, I can only observe that appropriate gun safety laws would have prevented people acting like Wyatt Earp in the first place.
Tony Sidaway – I usually do not comment on the idiot laws of the UK, so this is really not your argument.
From personal experience I can tell that I find the reactions of both men and both women reasonable. I had a situation waaaaaaaay back in another life when I lived at home, where my mother thought she heard a noise outside. She wake me up and told me to get the only rifle we had in the house at the time, a .22. But she didn’t want me to load it. She wanted me to go outside in the dark with an unloaded rifle and get shot by the intruder. I might as well used the broom from the kitchen.
What I don’t understand is Gonzalez following him for so long. I think you could make the case that both wifes are witnesses, but Mrs. Gonzalez no longer has spousal privilege.
Bet that in retrospect Mr. Doyle wishes that he had thought a little more before acting.
No matter what the outcome, the minimum cost to Doyle will be $50,000 in legal fees, a badly damaged career (he is in his prime retirement saving years), and an irreparably damaged reputation/life. That is the best outcome and it goes downhill from there.
To say nothing of his relationship with his wife – they both have ample grounds for recriminations.
When you decide to carry a gun, you better think through beforehand how you will react to life’s frequent aggravations. Mr. Doyle made a foolish choice; now the cost will become apparent.
The last statute cited includes being threatened by one who is attempting to enter one’s vehicle. Forget the house part.
Stand your ground does not always mean that you have to be on the grounds of your home. I dont know the FL law per se.
The relevant testimony will come from the defendant. “The schmuck approached me and I feared for my life. I pulled the gun, he did not back off and proceeded to attack me so I fired. Nuff said judge.”