James Brady Death Ruled a Homicide

[AthenaAwakened]

33 years after the shot was fired

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/08/james-brady-homicide_n_5663247.html

 

[untermensche]

His memory will be good and raped by the party of Reagan.

They will work to ensure it is easier for another president to get shot at.

 

[Nexus]

From a legal and medical standpoint this is ridiculous. Some states have time limits on bringing murder charges after the initial crime. That makes sense because everyone will die eventually and its silly to attribute death to an event that was medically stabilized decades ago.

 

[untermensche]

From a legal and medical standpoint this is ridiculous. Some states have time limits on bringing murder charges after the initial crime. That makes sense because everyone will die eventually and its silly to attribute death to an event that was medically stabilized decades ago.

It's probably ruled a premature death due to the long-term effects of his wounds.

Life was taken from him. Thus homicide.

 

[Rhea]

I don't like it. Assuming that nothing would have changed this guy's life-span in 33 years is assuming waaaay too much IMHO. That bullet may have saved him from having a tension-induced heart attack in 10 years. 33 years? Sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From a legal and medical standpoint this is ridiculous. Some states have time limits on bringing murder charges after the initial crime. That makes sense because everyone will die eventually and its silly to attribute death to an event that was medically stabilized decades ago.

There are good reasons for the statute of limitations but I don't think that's relevant here.

The facts were long since established. There's no question he did it.

Some states put a time limit between injury and death, some have no limits. The victim dies of their injuries, the charge gets upgraded. I have no idea how it's handled when the guy has already been convicted. (It's not double jeopardy, it's a different charge.)

Just because the injuries were stabilized doesn't mean they were healed.

 

[Valjean]

Rambling, uninformative article. I'm assuming the ruling was based on a finding that he would have lived longer had he not been shot, but life is a long series of bumps and injuries. No-one gets out alive. Who can say which straw finally broke the camel's back?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why was there even an autopsy?

 

[dismal]

Hinckley was already tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity so this seems a rather pointless gesture.

 

[Nexus]

Hinkley has been getting furloughed every month for 17 days this year, my guess is this is politically motivated to keep him locked up permanently.

 

[NobleSavage]

Hinckley was already tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity so this seems a rather pointless gesture.

Yes. And in reaction Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act

It was criticized by psychologist Lawrence Z. Freedman for being ineffective: "If the attacker is rational mentally, stable emotionally, and fanatic politically, he will not be deterred. Nor will an irrational, affectively disturbed individual be deterred."

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. And in reaction Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act

It was criticized by psychologist Lawrence Z. Freedman for being ineffective: "If the attacker is rational mentally, stable emotionally, and fanatic politically, he will not be deterred. Nor will an irrational, affectively disturbed individual be deterred."

So if there is a new trial, presumably the old insanity defense won't cut it anymore?

 

[dismal]

Yes. And in reaction Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act

So if there is a new trial, presumably the old insanity defense won't cut it anymore?

No, you can't try people based on laws that did not exist at the time.

 

[Jayjay]

So if there is a new trial, presumably the old insanity defense won't cut it anymore?

No, you can't try people based on laws that did not exist at the time.

But the law change applies not to the crime that he is beign tried for, but how the trial is conducted. And the trial would happen now, not 30 years ago.

 

[dismal]

No, you can't try people based on laws that did not exist at the time.

But the law change applies not to the crime that he is beign tried for, but how the trial is conducted. And the trial would happen now, not 30 years ago.

Repeat previous post.

You can't use a law that did not exist at the time to convict someone period.

Hinckley would have to be tried based on whatever standards existed at the time. Which he was.