<p>Here’s a description of second degree murder in Florida: <a href=“http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html”>http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html</a>
Looks to me like it’s the right charge. Maybe they’ll plea-bargain to manslaughter.</p>
<p>Thanks to Hunt for actually posting (and reading) the statute. </p>
<p>I’ll restate they need to make sure of a conviction here. </p>
<p>Manslaughter would probably be the more appropriate charge against Reeves. Second-degree murder is normally for when the killer knew the victim and has had time to develop ‘hatred’ for victim. Manslaughter is more appropriate where killing was spontaneous and was an overreaction to threat.</p>
<p><a href=“Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine”>Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine;
<p>“an overreaction to threat”</p>
<p>What, the threat of popcorn?</p>
<p>Maybe the video recording that hasn’t been made public yet will shed more light on what exactly happened. Maybe Chad was coming over seats to attack Reeves while Chad’s wife tried to hold back her husband? The hearing that began yesterday will continue tomorrow…probably for most of day.</p>
<p>Second degree looks right to me too. </p>
<p>The shooter’s wife can not be made to testify against her husband. However, others can testify as to her response and the husband’s response to her. His goose is cooked IMO as it should probably be. Seriously, his response was over the top but we see this more and more in our society. It alls goes back to having respect for fellow human beings. The shooter hasn’t issued a statement of remorse from what I’ve heard. It’s hard to feel any sympathy for him. I’m sorry for his family, but not for him. I’m heartbroken for the other family. </p>
<p>As I actually read the various statutes, I think it’s somewhat of a close call between second degree murder and manslaughter–although an aggressive prosecutor could even go for first degree, because the individual got into a conflict, pulled a gun, aimed it, and fired. That may be enough for premeditation, at least in some jurisdictions. My crystal ball foresees a plea bargain to manslaughter. That would entail a maximum sentence of 15 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a groundswell of public pressure on the prosecution to make an example of the defendant, especially considering the severe overreaction and testimony from witnesses present who saw his actions and heard his angry remarks towards the victim and his own wife. </p>
<p>Manslaughter may not be considered severe enough for the defendant by some considering the circumstances…especially considering he himself was breaking the law by bringing a firearm into a theater which had a no weapons sign clearly posted. </p>
<p>" Maybe they’ll plea-bargain to manslaughter."</p>
<p>I can only see him doing this if it’s for very few years, with maybe some house-arrest. At his age, even serving 5 years would get him out when he may be too elderly to have much of a quality of life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And unless interest in this case drops to near-zero quickly, it’s very doubtful the prosecutor would want to face political and public outrage which is likely to result if a plea-bargain results in his being let out so soon or some house-arrest. Judging by reactions I’ve seen in the news/online, a lot of folks would feel this is “letting him off too easily” or worse, that “he’s getting special treatment” due to his retired cop status. </p>
<p>^^
I agree. But I don’t think he’ll agree to a plea bargain. He thinks he’s not guilty of anything wrong. </p>
<p>Put him in jail, lose the key, and magically find it when he has done his time. </p>
<p>Someone upthread indicated that as a witness in this case she might be called to testify, and that spousal immunity applies moreso to “pillow talk”. Too bad we cant use post #s any more :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of other witnesses, including the deputy sheriff who heard the defendant yelling at his wife to “shut up” as another commenter pointed out. </p>
<p>Hence, whether she’s covered by spousal immunity or not is probably moot regarding critical testimony for the prosecution. </p>
<p>I was responding to Shiloh’s post above, re: the wife potentially having to testify.</p>
<p>“There are plenty of other witnesses, including the deputy sheriff who heard the defendant yelling at his wife to “shut up” as another commenter pointed out.”</p>
<p>I agree that that may be as powerful or even more powerful than having the wife herself testify. </p>
<p>Heck with an H like that, she may WANT to testify…lol…she may want a break from him during her Golden Years. </p>
<p>When that deputy sheriff testified about his body language and words to his wife, all I could think of is (well, you know…lol)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he goes in with that attitude, the prosecution is even less likely to be inclined to plea bargain with him and more likely to go for the full penalty. </p>
<p>If he has a decent lawyer who instructs him well and is inclined to follow advice…the best thing to do is to let the lawyer do the talking and if he must take the stand, be open to be coached so he appears more sympathetic than that. </p>
<p>I don’t think Spousal Privacy (not being required to testify) applies in this case:</p>
<p>"The only time the Husband Wife privilege applies is when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy while speaking to each other. "</p>
<p>Yelling at your wife in a public place means that the shooter should have no expectation of privacy (pillow talk)</p>
<p>I would imagine that his actions that took place in a public place would also mean that no expectation of privacy is expected.</p>
<p>The wife may need to “think about herself” a bit. She may need to come up with her own “bargain,” because her testimony can decide a LOT. Her own self-interest may influence her to tell her H, “you either accept some plea deal that won’t bankrupt us, or I’ll testify and you’ll be put away forever.” </p>
<p>She’s in a tight spot and her future economic stability is at stake. She obviously thinks/thought he was wrong for shooting the victim (and probably more so, once he DIED), I can’t imagine that she’s too willing to sacrifice everything to gain unlikely “freedom” for her H which means poverty for her either way if there is a drawn-out process.</p>
<p>She may want to cut her losses (HIM) and go on. </p>