Former Reagan Administration press secretary's death this week was ruled a homicide. The presumption seems to be that his death was the result of injuries sustained when he was shot in '81, but the prosecutor's office isn't saying anything.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Especially given that in recent years there has been talk about releasing Hinkley.
"I", said the sparrow "with my little bow and arrow, I killed James Brady". That's right, Mother Goose in the house, bitches.
How the fuck? I mean, fuck. Okay, I'll try to be more clear, but shit, are we now going to consider every death of a person who was once stabbed or shot a homicide?
Honestly, I'm not sure. But, I can see how it would be classified as a homicide, especially if the death was the result of the injuries he sustained from being shot. If someone is shot and becomes a vegetable as a result of the injury then dies later, it is sometimes classified as a homicide isn't it?
Yes. There's a rather famous case of a guy getting mugged, resisting, getting injured on a rusty nail during the mugging, refusing medical treatment afterwards, then dying of tetanus, and his muggers being charged with murder.
There is also no statue of limitation for murder. Wouldn't this be a new and separate charge as well so double jeopardy wouldn't apply?
No strong opinion one way or the other, but just some random thoughts... 1. Brady was 73 and the shooting was 33 years ago. I suppose it's not impossible that his wounding had SOMETHING to do with his death, but this seems like a bit of a reach. 2. Although there is no statute of limitations on murder, there really should be for cases where the victim's death doesn't have a strong causal link to the act. 3. If A and B got in a fight, and A broke B's leg, and decades later B's old leg injury bothered him such that he became sedentary and developed heart disease and died, is A *really* guilty of murder? 4. Hinckley was unquestionably deranged when he tried to assassinate Reagan and was found not guilty by that reason; why expect that a murder trial now would reach a different outcome? 5. Hinckley seems to be largely rehabilitated as he is now allowed unsupervised visits to his mother for a good portion of the year.
Can't try a man for an incident that he was already found not guilty of 33 years ago. A lawsuit against gun manufacturers is more likely.
He wasn't tried for murder, which is a separate charge. Hinckley could be tried again. On the grounds that they made a gun shootable, I suppose...
So, am I the only one thinking that Mrs. Brady might have gotten tired of having an invalid around for 30+ years and decided to off him? Or that perhaps one of his nurses decided to off him? Remember, all we know is that his death has been ruled a homicide. We don't know why it was a homicide. Was it something to do with his shooting 33 years ago? Or was it something else? I don't know.
I was in my 8th hour Algebra class in my freshman year of high school when they announced over the intercom that Reagan was shot.
81, I would have been six, so...wow, the same year I was punched in the face by the spring-loaded fist of Mattel Godzilla. Two great careers almost cut down in their prime.
He was however tried for the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan and James Brady. It was two separate charges and on both charges he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. (he faced a total of 13 charges) How does one say a defendant is not guilty of attempted murder of a man and yet is guilty of murder of the man when the man dies thirty years later? If the reason John W. Hinckley was not guilty was that he was insane the day he tried to kill Brady then it would hold that Brady died 30 years later due to the actions of a man who was found to be insane the day he started shooting.
Oh and Brady's family won't win over the gun. The police officer who was wounded in the assassination attempt sued the gun manufacturer and lost the case. The case is used as case law in other product liability cases.
Indeed. From wikipedia: Collateral estoppel, a.k.a. issue preclusion, means that when a specific issue was necessarily determined at one trial, the party on the losing end of that decision doesn't get to relitigate the matter in another trial.
I'm confused at how he would still have health issues from a shooting that took place over 30 years ago, unless he had a limp or restricted arm movement from the shot (I don't know where he was shot).
