Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

James Brady’s death ruled a homicide


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Monday’s death of President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary James S. Brady has been ruled a homicide resulting from the gunshot wound he suffered in the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, more than three decades ago.

The ruling was made by the medical examiner’s office in Virginia, where Brady, 73, died in an Alexandria retirement community, and was announced Friday by Gwendolyn Crump, the D.C. police department’s chief spokeswoman.

There was no immediate word on whether the shooter, John W. Hinckley Jr., who has been treated at St. Elizabeths psychiatric hospital since his trial, could face new criminal charges. Hinckley, 59, was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he shot Reagan and three others on March 30, 1981.

Read more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shouldn't they blame Brady's mother? He would not have died if he had not been born.

Political nonsense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the even Reagan and Brady were shot. I think I remember Reagon getting shot under the arm, which I think was a coincidental shot, since he was wearing a bullet proof vest. So Reagan recovered quickly, and Brady had a long road of recovery ahead of him. I also remember thinking how fortunate Brady survived and hoped he recovered quickly. So he passes away, and I'm thinking he lived a good long life, yeah an eventful one. I never thought his death would be ruled a homicide. I thought it was due to natural causes. I find it interesting that they originally posted his death as unexplained causes.

I don't know, is this really a good thing to do? Will the same thing happen when Gabrielle Giffords passes away years from now? I am just wondering why?

I don't know, there is a part of me that confused and surprised that they are pursuing this. Brady lived many years after he was shot, and lived to an elderly age. Wouldn't there be a certain time limit to when something that happened at a certain time, expire after certain many years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the even Reagan and Brady were shot. I think I remember Reagon getting shot under the arm, which I think was a coincidental shot, since he was wearing a bullet proof vest. So Reagan recovered quickly, and Brady had a long road of recovery ahead of him. I also remember thinking how fortunate Brady survived and hoped he recovered quickly. So he passes away, and I'm thinking he lived a good long life, yeah an eventful one. I never thought his death would be ruled a homicide. I thought it was due to natural causes. I find it interesting that they originally posted his death as unexplained causes.

I don't know, is this really a good thing to do? Will the same thing happen when Gabrielle Giffords passes away years from now? I am just wondering why?

I don't know, there is a part of me that confused and surprised that they are pursuing this. Brady lived many years after he was shot, and lived to an elderly age. Wouldn't there be a certain time limit to when something that happened at a certain time, expire after certain many years?

Problem is that there is no statute of limitations for homicide. If it is just suspected that the death was caused by a previous attack (no matter how long ago) then the law has no recurse but to investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So he passes away, and I'm thinking he lived a good long life, yeah an eventful one. I never thought his death would be ruled a homicide. I thought it was due to natural causes. I find it interesting that they originally posted his death as unexplained causes.

I also initially assumed Brady had died of natural causes, but it seems the autopsy indicated otherwise.

I don't know, is this really a good thing to do? Will the same thing happen when Gabrielle Giffords passes away years from now?

Well, as with Brady, it will depend on what causes her death. If she was to be run over by the proverbial bus, then presumably nothing further would be pursued.

I am just wondering why? I don't know, there is a part of me that confused and surprised that they are pursuing this. Brady lived many years after he was shot, and lived to an elderly age.

Nevertheless, it now appears Brady's death occurred when it did because of Hinkley's actions. Who knows how much longer he might have lived if he hadn't been shot?

Wouldn't there be a certain time limit to when something that happened at a certain time, expire after certain many years?

There used to be a Year-And-A-Day rule in some Common Law jurisdictions: if you survived for longer than that after a murder attempt, then the person who attacked you couldn't be charged with murder, as you were assumed by that time to have died of something else. However it seems that concept has been replaced by laws allowing murder charges to be laid after longer periods of survival.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a 74-year-old man, William Barnes, was acquitted of murder charges on May 24, 2010. He was on trial for murder for the death of Philadelphia police officer Walter Barkley. Barnes shot Barkley on November 27, 1966, and served 16 years in prison for attempted murder. Barkley died on August 19, 2007, allegedly from complications of the wounds suffered nearly 41 years earlier.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Year-and-a-day_rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also initially assumed Brady had died of natural causes, but it seems the autopsy indicated otherwise.

Was the autopsy published in the news? Or is it what I read, they just announced that the autopsy indicates a possible link to the shooting?
Well, as with Brady, it will depend on what causes her death. If she was to be run over by the proverbial bus, then presumably nothing further would be pursued.
That is what I am wondering.
Nevertheless, it now appears Brady's death occurred when it did because of Hinkley's actions. Who knows how much longer he might have lived if he hadn't been shot?
Good point.
There used to be a Year-And-A-Day rule in some Common Law jurisdictions: if you survived for longer than that after a murder attempt, then the person who attacked you couldn't be charged with murder, as you were assumed by that time to have died of something else. However it seems that concept has been replaced by laws allowing murder charges to be laid after longer periods of survival.

From: http://en.wikipedia....-and-a-day_rule

Pretty much what I think questionmark was saying. Yeah, I am not too up to date on various laws, so I find this interesting. Thanks for the link. I can't tell the reason of the change of laws, was there something that caused the change?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell the reason of the change of laws, was there something that caused the change?

If I remember correctly, there was a case of a woman who was severely beaten and remained in a coma for many years. When she finally died the courts revisited the statute of limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, there was a case of a woman who was severely beaten and remained in a coma for many years. When she finally died the courts revisited the statute of limitations.

I'm trying to google this and hope to read more, but I can't seem to find anything. Do you know where this happened? I find this fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm having trouble providing a link for some reason. I found a case with George Lopez being attacked by Quincy Greenwood. It may be what I was thinking of.

I wasn't wrong, I just wasn't completely right. :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was tried and found to be clinically insane...just because Brady died after the fact does not mean he can be tried again...it's unfortunate that Brady passed away all these years later, but the doctor that made this statement is clearly trying to make a political statement...

and yes...there needs to be a limit on how far back you can be tried for things...and yes...even murder.

What if I was involved in a car accident thirty years ago because I was a drunk teenager....and the person dies decades later...can I be tried for vehicular homicide now?...stupid...ridiculous and designed to feed the prison for profit system since they are about to legalize drugs

Edited by Jeremiah65
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and yes...there needs to be a limit on how far back you can be tried for things...and yes...even murder.

I think it should be on a case by case basis. As in the Lopez case, he was in a coma for eleven years until he died after he was beaten. If the family had decided to pull the plug years earlier, because there was no hope of recovery, I believe Greenwood should have been tried for murder at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pressing charges and taking it to trial would be a frivolous waste of time and money meant to do one thing, bring attention to the anti-gun lobby (like they need more attention) Hinkley was found incompetent by reason of insanity. Do we really need to waste money for them to announce that he was insane at the time? More puppet show theater brought to you by your government paid for by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.