DCPD: James Brady death ruled homicide

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Even that much can't be reasonably concluded. Brady was 73. For men born in 1941 (his year of birth), life expectancy is 63 so he was already 'overdue'. Who's to say he didn't just die of old age, instead of a physical insult from 33 years ago? That's why there's the "year and a day" law.

Ronald Reagan was shot also. Did he die of Homicide ? How about all those WW2 soldiers dies now that had horrific wounds. Will it change to KIA ?

Edited August 10, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[UncleBeer 244]

Ronald Reagan was shot also. Did he die of Homicide ?

Excellent point.

[lostinblue 1,989]

If he is ever cleared of the mental disease that he has then many more charges could be levied ... But now as he gets out of where ever he is at and gets to do some visiting a few times a month,,, things are better for him than if he was sane....

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Personally, I'd rather trust a medical professional on whether a shooting had hastened someone's death than pure conjecture. Some injuries hasten death, and some do not. 73 is not that old these days (plenty on VJ who will tell you that), particularly for someone like Brady, who had the benefit of some of the best care in the world, and would have had such care even if he had not been wounded. If Brady had abused his body over the years, there is an argument that it was more likely than not that such abuse was the reason for death and not the shooting.

What you're looking for is a link between the act and the death that is not broken by a supervening reason. Without the benefit of actually being to see the report, I will participate in a little conjecture of my own. I might suggest that the reason why Brady's death was ruled a homicide and, say, Reagan's was not, is that Reagan had some supervening illness that was a greater cause of his death than the injuries he sustained in the shooting. Compared to Brady, Reagan's recovery was relatively quick and uncomplicated (I stress the word "relatively" -- I'm sure it wasn't particularly enjoyable). Brady never really recovered from his injuries, which is not a controversial statement. Reagan died of pneumonia after a decade of suffering from Alzheimer's, and died at 93. But for the injuries, it is arguable that Brady would have approached a similar age.

Shootings in the line of military duty are not considered to be crimes, therefore dying of injuries years later cannot be construed to have been murder, unless the shooting itself was a war crime, as far as I understand it. So unless the WWII veteran was a victim of a war crime during which he was severely injured, so much so that it hastened his death, then it is unlikely that his death would be ruled a homicide.

However none of this is particularly sexy, so go ahead and ignore it.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

If he is ever cleared of the mental disease that he has then many more charges could be levied ... But now as he gets out of where ever he is at and gets to do some visiting a few times a month,,, things are better for him than if he was sane....

I agree with you that he's better off being insane. But I think it's unlikely that the homicide ruling (if it sticks after what I assume will be challenges) will lead to any criminal charges, and definitely not a charge of murder due to DC law that was in force at the time of the assassination attempt.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Go fish, troll.

Take a look in the mirror Uncle Willard.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I agree with you that he's better off being insane. But I think it's unlikely that the homicide ruling (if it sticks after what I assume will be challenges) will lead to any criminal charges, and definitely not a charge of murder due to DC law that was in force at the time of the assassination attempt.

Just for trying to kill the president years ago would be enough to keep him locked up for a long time and I suspect if cleared of his illness then the full force of that crime would come into play. As for now he is just locked away because of the illness and those charges cannot be levied against him . Perhaps I am wrong.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Personally, I'd rather trust a medical professional on whether a shooting had hastened someone's death than pure conjecture. Some injuries hasten death, and some do not. 73 is not that old these days (plenty on VJ who will tell you that), particularly for someone like Brady, who had the benefit of some of the best care in the world, and would have had such care even if he had not been wounded. If Brady had abused his body over the years, there is an argument that it was more likely than not that such abuse was the reason for death and not the shooting.

What you're looking for is a link between the act and the death that is not broken by a supervening reason. Without the benefit of actually being to see the report, I will participate in a little conjecture of my own. I might suggest that the reason why Brady's death was ruled a homicide and, say, Reagan's was not, is that Reagan had some supervening illness that was a greater cause of his death than the injuries he sustained in the shooting. Compared to Brady, Reagan's recovery was relatively quick and uncomplicated (I stress the word "relatively" -- I'm sure it wasn't particularly enjoyable). Brady never really recovered from his injuries, which is not a controversial statement. Reagan died of pneumonia after a decade of suffering from Alzheimer's, and died at 93. But for the injuries, it is arguable that Brady would have approached a similar age.

Shootings in the line of military duty are not considered to be crimes, therefore dying of injuries years later cannot be construed to have been murder, unless the shooting itself was a war crime, as far as I understand it. So unless the WWII veteran was a victim of a war crime during which he was severely injured, so much so that it hastened his death, then it is unlikely that his death would be ruled a homicide.

However none of this is particularly sexy, so go ahead and ignore it.

Did not say it would be murder, I said would it be changed to KIA

[Dakine10 5,452]

If he is ever cleared of the mental disease that he has then many more charges could be levied ... But now as he gets out of where ever he is at and gets to do some visiting a few times a month,,, things are better for him than if he was sane....

They could charge him, but unlikely they could prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if they did, he was already ruled to be insane at the time of the acts so I'm not sure how they could come to any other verdict given that they can't change the facts of his insanity.

It's not unprecedented to be charged with murder many years after the fact if the death can be directly attributed, or even linked. In those cases, the defendant has always been found guilty of the lesser crime first (ie assault then murder). It's strange here since Hinkley was already found to be not guilty (by reason of insanity) of attempted murder. If you're not guilty of attempted murder, it's unlikely you can legally be found guilty of murder.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Did not say it would be murder, I said would it be changed to KIA

Nor did I say it would be murder. KIA is different from homicide as well. Many gradations here.