*Sputter* WHAT???? James Brady's Death a HOMICIDE???

[DesertBerean]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...270522411.html I don't agree with this...it's not like he didn't overcome and become an gun control advocate for DECADES.... no sirree....

Unlike the unfortunate mother of three children she lost to a carjacker dying of injuries herself without coming out of the coma... http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/na...270457391.html

[Darth Executor]

Pretty sure charging him again would be unconstitutional.

[Cow Poke]

Some poor ME is trying to get approval from his liberal homies.

[Teallaura]

1) The charge of murder stems from the cause of death so yes, even 30 years later if the gunshot is the ultimate cause of death, the charge is perfectly well founded. These are rare but they do occur. A lot of AIDS cases were of this type (where the infection was deliberate).

2) No, it would not be unconstitutional. Hinkley was never charged with murder. Double jeopardy doesn't come into play unless the charges are substantively the same (murder one and murder two, for example) and stem from the same incident. Attempted murder and murder are not substantively the same so no double jeopardy.

3) No, he really isn't. He's doing his job and it just happens that the CoD stems from something 30 years ago. If someone dies of liver failure resultant from syphilis the death likely trails the infection by 30 years or more - syphilis is still the CoD, however.

Besides, Brady isn't exactly a liberal wunderkind. Supporting gun control of some degree doesn't mean someone is a liberal, let alone a liberal darling.

I'd be surprised if they bother charging Hinkley. He's unlikely to ever be fully free again and is not likely to be a threat. The possibility of charges may work against him, but honestly, charges serve no purpose now in this particular case. The DA has better things to spend money on.

[rogue06]

They still are adding names to the Vietnam War Memorial of those who have just died if their wounds played any role in their passing.

[One Bad Pig]

1) The charge of murder stems from the cause of death so yes, even 30 years later if the gunshot is the ultimate cause of death, the charge is perfectly well founded. These are rare but they do occur. A lot of AIDS cases were of this type (where the infection was deliberate).

2) No, it would not be unconstitutional. Hinkley was never charged with murder. Double jeopardy doesn't come into play unless the charges are substantively the same (murder one and murder two, for example) and stem from the same incident. Attempted murder and murder are not substantively the same so no double jeopardy.

3) No, he really isn't. He's doing his job and it just happens that the CoD stems from something 30 years ago. If someone dies of liver failure resultant from syphilis the death likely trails the infection by 30 years or more - syphilis is still the CoD, however.

Besides, Brady isn't exactly a liberal wunderkind. Supporting gun control of some degree doesn't mean someone is a liberal, let alone a liberal darling.

I'd be surprised if they bother charging Hinkley. He's unlikely to ever be fully free again and is not likely to be a threat. The possibility of charges may work against him, but honestly, charges serve no purpose now in this particular case. The DA has better things to spend money on.

IIRC Hinkley was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't think a murder charge would change that.

[Teallaura]

IIRC Hinkley was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't think a murder charge would change that.

It wouldn't - but it's a different charge from what he was charged with at trial so double jeopardy doesn't come into play. He could in fact be tried on the new charges - but given the original verdict, the likelihood of repeat offense and the chances of him ever being at complete liberty, a DA would be hard pressed to justify the new trial.

[alaskazimm]

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up Teal.

[One Bad Pig]

It wouldn't - but it's a different charge from what he was charged with at trial so double jeopardy doesn't come into play. He could in fact be tried on the new charges - but given the original verdict, the likelihood of repeat offense and the chances of him ever being at complete liberty, a DA would be hard pressed to justify the new trial.

Sure it's a different charge - but given the original verdict, a new charge is highly unlikely to change anything. The guy is still nuts, and fixated on guns, but his family has been pushing for more freedom for him.

[Teallaura]

Sure it's a different charge - but given the original verdict, a new charge is highly unlikely to change anything. The guy is still nuts, and fixated on guns, but his family has been pushing for more freedom for him.

Ah, I get you now. Yeah, about the only purpose would be to counter the family's push for greater freedom - I'm dubious it would actually be necessary for just that.

[Teallaura]

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up Teal.

You're welcome.

[DesertBerean]

1) The charge of murder stems from the cause of death so yes, even 30 years later if the gunshot is the ultimate cause of death, the charge is perfectly well founded. These are rare but they do occur. A lot of AIDS cases were of this type (where the infection was deliberate).

Hmmm....Ok.... (grumble)....does kinda makes sense...

[Teallaura]

It'll be okay...

[DesertBerean]

Hmfh...*snort*.....

[Epoetker]

Seems a pretty big stretch to me in any case, and granting prosecutors this type of leeway on these cases (where zillions of cofactors have to be considered in the intervening period) is wrongheaded. There are legal categories for 'alive but having to spend mucho dinero on treatments due to the complications of inflicted injury' without having to claim that all deaths from such are MURDER. There's way too much legal mischief possible in a judgment of "died from complications of his previous murder."

And adding people to the Vietnam wall for the same reason is asinine, as well, just to be thorough.