James Brady's Death Ruled a Homicide

[easysurfer]

Interesting to say the least, 33 years after the shooting.

Quote:

The ruling could allow prosecutors in Washington, where Reagan and Mr. Brady were shot on March 30, 1981, by John W. Hinckley Jr., to reopen the case and charge Mr. Hinckley with murder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/us...-say.html?_r=0

[mickeyd]

I would be an interesting murder case if it comes to trial.

[easysurfer]

Looking back, to me the verdict was the most shocking verdict of the century (even more than OJ). Then even more bizarre was that Hinkley got the idea from the Taxi Driver movie.

[frayne]

Slow news day and the coroner looking for 15 minutes of fame.

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer Interesting to say the least, 33 years after the shooting.

I'm not sure. Maybe they didn't look far enough back. It could be that complications during his birth resulted in him not being quick enough to get out of the way of the bullet and the medical team should be charged.

I think this is ridiculous. It's not like he's been on life support for the entire time and the bullet would have killed him without it. I have no problems if they want to drop Hinckley into a deep hole somewhere and feed him bread and water, or if he "accidently" slips in the shower and dies, but this would open up another basket of stupid unintended consequences in future cases. I can see it now, "Soccer player found guilty of murder 40 years after game due to illegal contact foul resulting in blood clot that finally broke loose."

[gcgang]

Who is the prosecuting attorney, Rip Van Winkle?

[Texas Proud]

I do not think any smart prosecutor is going to take this case to a jury....


If I were on the jury I would have to find 'not guilty'.... Oh, and BTW, wouldn't the decision that found him mentally incompetent back then still be a good defense

[Tadpole]

Don't you think that if there is any motive it is probably just to try to influence ending his visits outside the mental facility? As I understand it, he can spend up to 17 days/month outside the facility.

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole Don't you think that if there is any motive it is probably just to try to influence ending his visits outside the mental facility? As I understand it, he can spend up to 17 days/month outside the facility.

Very possibly, but if you want to stop that make up some infraction or something. Don't open up a can of litigatory worms by setting such an outlandish precedent. They may be intending to accomplish a single task by doing this, but it will get seized upon, embellished, twisted, and end up with other cases so ridiculous no one can believe it. That's how our legal (and political) systems seem to work. Hopefully it will just go away. I doubt James Brady would want that legacy.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole Don't you think that if there is any motive it is probably just to try to influence ending his visits outside the mental facility? As I understand it, he can spend up to 17 days/month outside the facility.

I do not think that the ruling of homicide should influence the decision the judge has to make on his outside visits... it is just an opinion of the medical director (or whomever he is).... it should not hold any weight unless he is found guilty...

If they do not want him let out, then decide to not let him out... one should not influence the other....

[H2ODude]

The subject raises something I've always had a problem with. Which is, IIRC they mete out significantly heavier penalties for murder than "attempted" murder. Really, why is it that if you're somewhat incompetent in the execution of the crime (or the medical team that treats the victim is really good) you get such a break? I mean, if Hinckley tried to kill Reagan, firing however many shots and hitting Brady (and Reagan) what difference is it that the shots actually produced the intended result or not? I know in his case it was insanity. But then that would get me started another issue! Anyway.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2ODude Which is, IIRC they mete out significantly heavier penalties for murder than "attempted" murder.

I see your point, but I'm okay with the present arrangement. Going into "intent" is dangerous territory, let's stick with what actually happened.
Is a "hate" killing worse than a "I just wanted to kill somebody for fun" killing? Or "I shot the old lady to take her purse" killing? Today the law makes a distinction, and that's something I have trouble with.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I see your point, but I'm okay with the present arrangement. Going into "intent" is dangerous territory, let's stick with what actually happened. Is a "hate" killing worse than a "I just wanted to kill somebody for fun" killing? Or "I shot the old lady to take her purse" killing? Today the law makes a distinction, and that's something I have trouble with.

There definitely is a distinction in the law today as for different degrees.

On the other hand, I find it a bit hard to understand (I know why the law is there, but find it an oxymoron) the law that says someone under 18 is tried as an adult.

Back to the OP about considering charging Hinkley with murder. IMO, that could be a terrible precedent. What's to say then, for example in case of those who are found responsible for hurting someone in a car wreck. The victim might suffer years of disability before dying, and the wreck started the problems. But then, should there be a look back and say, the driver now could be charged with manslaughter? I don't think so.

[LoneAspen]

I have zero sympathy for criminals, especially those who commit the kind of violent crimes Hinckley was found guilty accused of. I would have had no problem at all if Hinckley had been taken out back after he was if he were found guilty, and had a bullet put in the back of his head. To me, that's exactly what murderers, and attempted murderers, deserve.

That being said...I think it's ridiculous that they could wait 30 years and then charge somebody with murder. If Brady had been in a coma or life support this whole time, then MAYBE I could see it. But not the way this played out. I think if they charged him, it opens up many cans of worms for other trials, and will just end up with more useless litigation and trials.

If you're going to execute a criminal, or lock them up for life and throw away the key, do it in a reasonable time frame after their crime and conviction, not 30 years later.

(Edited to acknowledge new facts posted by TP)

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneAspen I have zero sympathy for criminals, especially those who commit the kind of violent crimes Hinckley was found guilty of. I would have had no problem at all if Hinckley had been taken out back after he was found guilty, and had a bullet put in the back of his head. To me, that's exactly what murderers, and attempted murderers, deserve. That being said...I think it's ridiculous that they could wait 30 years and then charge somebody with murder. If Brady had been in a coma or life support this whole time, then MAYBE I could see it. But not the way this played out. I think if they charged him, it opens up many cans of worms for other trials, and will just end up with more useless litigation and trials. If you're going to execute a criminal, or lock them up for life and throw away the key, do it in a reasonable time frame after their crime and conviction, not 30 years later.

Just to be clear.... he was found "NOT GUILTY".... from wiki...

"At the trial in 1982, charged with 13 offenses, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity on June 21. "

[LoneAspen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Just to be clear.... he was found "NOT GUILTY".... from wiki... "At the trial in 1982, charged with 13 offenses, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity on June 21. "

That's where the law and my opinions differ. I just don't believe in an insanity defense. I never have, and never will.

I believe that if you're sane, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve punishment. If you're mentally ill, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve the same punishment. To me, just because somebody is, or claims to be, mentally ill doesn't excuse them from the same punishment for violent crimes.

I have zero sympathy or compassion for violent criminals. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who murders, attempts to murder, rapes, violently assaults, etc, another person deserves to be hauled out back and have a bullet fired into their brain pan. Doesn't matter to me if they're as sane as Solomon, or as mad as a hatter.

Of course, I'm not king, so I don't get to make the laws. But I can still disagree with them. Just my .02

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneAspen That's where the law and my opinions differ. I just don't believe in an insanity defense. I never have, and never will. I believe that if you're sane, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve punishment. If you're mentally ill, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve the same punishment. To me, just because somebody is, or claims to be, mentally ill doesn't excuse them from the same punishment for violent crimes. I have zero sympathy or compassion for violent criminals. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who murders, attempts to murder, rapes, violently assaults, etc, another person deserves to be hauled out back and have a bullet fired into their brain pan. Doesn't matter to me if they're as sane as Solomon, or as mad as a hatter. Of course, I'm not king, so I don't get to make the laws. But I can still disagree with them. Just my .02

As I mentioned in a prior post, the verdict to me was the most shocking of the century. Perhaps not because of the insanity plea, but this was an assassination attempt on the President.

IMO, I do believe there are varying degrees of crimes. Yet at the same time feel that if I am against the death penalty now, if something terrible violent happens to one I care about, I may be all for it. That is something I'm aware of.

[veremchuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley I'm not sure. Maybe they didn't look far enough back. It could be that complications during his birth resulted in him not being quick enough to get out of the way of the bullet and the medical team should be charged. I think this is ridiculous. It's not like he's been on life support for the entire time and the bullet would have killed him without it. I have no problems if they want to drop Hinckley into a deep hole somewhere and feed him bread and water, or if he "accidently" slips in the shower and dies, but this would open up another basket of stupid unintended consequences in future cases. I can see it now, "Soccer player found guilty of murder 40 years after game due to illegal contact foul resulting in blood clot that finally broke loose."

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneAspen I have zero sympathy for criminals, especially those who commit the kind of violent crimes Hinckley was found guilty of. I would have had no problem at all if Hinckley had been taken out back after he was found guilty, and had a bullet put in the back of his head. To me, that's exactly what murderers, and attempted murderers, deserve. That being said...I think it's ridiculous that they could wait 30 years and then charge somebody with murder. If Brady had been in a coma or life support this whole time, then MAYBE I could see it. But not the way this played out. I think if they charged him, it opens up many cans of worms for other trials, and will just end up with more useless litigation and trials. If you're going to execute a criminal, or lock them up for life and throw away the key, do it in a reasonable time frame after their crime and conviction, not 30 years later.

DING DING DING we have 2 winners. You both have won the internet today.

[Brat]

I wonder if Brady's widow will receive more $ from OWCP as a result of James Brady's death being attributed to a work injury. She certainty disserves it as she has been at his side, providing care that if not for the injury would not have been necessary.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneAspen That's where the law and my opinions differ. I just don't believe in an insanity defense. I never have, and never will. I believe that if you're sane, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve punishment. If you're mentally ill, and pull the trigger and murder somebody (or attempt to), you deserve the same punishment. To me, just because somebody is, or claims to be, mentally ill doesn't excuse them from the same punishment for violent crimes. I have zero sympathy or compassion for violent criminals. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who murders, attempts to murder, rapes, violently assaults, etc, another person deserves to be hauled out back and have a bullet fired into their brain pan. Doesn't matter to me if they're as sane as Solomon, or as mad as a hatter. Of course, I'm not king, so I don't get to make the laws. But I can still disagree with them. Just my .02

As people say, you can have your opinion, but you cannot change the facts.... you can believe that he IS guilty and that he deserves the same punishment... but the facts say that did not happen...

He was found not guilty... OJ was found not guilty... that lady from Florida who probably killed her baby was found not guilty... all are legal decisions which means that they cannot be punished as a criminal...

I agree with some of what you say... not all, but some... it does not matter... and it does not change the facts...

Just as an FYI... how you say something can be a big difference if someone sues you... if you said 'he was found guilty of the crime' instead of "I believe he is guilty of the crime'... if that person sued I think they would win on the first... because the first is provable false... the second is not... just sayin....