Coroner Is Said to Rule James Brady’s Death a Homicide, 33 Years After a Shooting

Lmao. No. This is just an example of the State holding a grudge. You don't **** with the State. If you do, and you seemingly get away with it, even 33 years later, they'll remember. Sort of silly if you ask me.

 

Huh??

 

How would a statute of limitations apply here? It may have truly been the cause of death but does that mean that Hinckley can be charged? That would just be a waste of money to try him...

 

Brady was shot in the head.... in the first place. Reagan lived to age 93.

 

NO, as your article pointed up, the chief Medical Examiner for Northern Virginia is though. I can understand the thinking because Mr. Brady had a catastrophic injury which affected bodily function which could have led to a slow demise. They haven't been very detailed, have they?

 

I thought the victim has to die within one year for the charge to be upgraded to murder? But my source is cop shows and CSI.

 

The problem with that is that in most jurisdictions, there is no statute of limitations for murder so technically he could be charged, but I HIGHLY doubt the state would win that case and it would be a huge waste of money to try to win it like you said.

 

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

I'm not sure why this really matters to us. It may have a bearing on his family's insurance/pension type claims. Hinkley will never be tried for this, as he will never leave prison as it is.

 

Sadly, I don't think the US is short on gun murders/crimes/situations that could be used for whatever political purpose. Not sure why they need this one.

I just don't see the big deal.

 

I don't know enough about the medical findings behind Brady's death or the law here to feel confident saying either way but I agree trying Hinckley now is a waste of time.

 

If the autopsy shows that Brady died from something caused by the gunshot wound, then I don't see why it couldn't be ruled a murder. Some people die at the moment the get shot, others die days or weeks later. Maybe some people die many years later from a gunshot wound.

If he developed a blood clot because of the old gunshot wound and then died from that blood clot, I can see where it could be considered a murder. Why not?

Whether he dies hours, days, or years after being shot. If he died because of the gunshot, then I would say it's murder.

 

If the bullet he took directly led to his eventual death, then yes, it is a homicide. If the coroner can make a judgement that based on all other medical evidence, that Brady would still be alive had he not been shot, then yes, it is a homicide.

 

Since I am not a coroner, I am not qualified to answer that question, but I'll trust the coroner's judgement. Why bother voting in the poll? I have made my opinion known.