Submitted by IAmTiborius t3_126gwpf in todayilearned
He's now an aspiring musician with a pretty active YouTube channel
That is WILD to me haha
Yeah that is really hard to believe that a guy that shot Regan is now making music vids on YT.
Just, like, whoa. What a time to be alive.
Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua. Bongbong Marcos is president of the Philippines. Russia is an evil empire run by a dictator and waging pointless war. What were the 80s even for?
cocaine
It's all the same
We learned nothing.
I was bracing myself for Rick Astley
After reading your comment I was bracing myself for Rick Astley even more
My kids recently discovered what a Rick roll was and were so excited to share it. Rick rolling them is at blast. It's pay back for explaining what a meme is to me like I'm ancient just because I am older than Google!
I taught middle school. My students would throw Rick Rolls into their project. I loved it.
Good for him tbh. Hopefully he’s a better musician than assassin.
He's a would-be murderer, though. Would we still he this supportive of him if he shot and nearly killed our family member?
Honestly, yes. The man has done his time (35 years), and seems to be legitimately reformed and stable. I probably wouldn't be a fan of his, but I'd be okay with him making something of the rest of his life.
If my family member had put as much misery in to the world as Ronald Reagan I think I could let it go after ~40 years yea
/r/im14andthisisdeep
Lmfao sure bro
If he's regretful, treated and paid his time? Yeah I think so. It didn't show particular signs of cruelties and he was legit insane at the time. Harboring grudges, even if justified, for decades and making it your lifelong mission to keep following and resenting and attacking a person means your life will also be stuck in that day.
Doesn't mean I'm going to personally embrace him and invite him in my house like some people do.
Reagan ain’t my family member lol
Nope, murderers should never be released from prison and it's just a flaw of the justice system. 35 years isn't nearly enough.
He also sells ugly cat paintings on eBay.
Yeah, Hinckley low-key based af
r/WasNotExpectingThat
He's still a piece of shit and I feel sorry for the men who worked that detail and particularly for Jody Foster, as well.
Look at Charles Whitmans victims. David Gunby was shot in 1966 and died in 2001. Ruled a homicide because, despite living for decades with the injury, it ultimately caused his death.
I remember there being 9/11 victims who didn’t die for a few years after 2001.
They're still dying to this day from cancer and other illnesses caused from all of the dust and debris.
[deleted]
Oh, they’re still dying today. There were so many horrible 70s toxins released by the collapse.
My dad did air monitoring for stuff like asbestos abatement, and we lived in New York right outside NYC when 9/11 happened. He showed up to help, also took some air samples himself. I definitely vividly recall him telling me that basically everyone who was there absolutely was exposed to ALL KINDS of shit in the air. He still has the hardhat signed by Giuliani somewhere.
Major respect to your dad for being there and helping out. I hope he is - and continues to be - in good health.
On a death certificate there is a Part 1 line for immediate cause of death and under that is "Due to as a consequence of" line. There is also a Part 2 section "Significant conditions contributing to death but not related to cause given in Part 1."
Most certainly the shooting did contribute to his untimely death, but I believe the determination by the coroner was made to be sure that maximum benefits could be awarded to the family.
Another example I know of was a war veteran that committed suicide. The conditions that contributed to his actions was his chronic pain and multiple surgeries he endured from injuries he received by serving during war. Without the second line, his widow would not have received monthly benefits.
It makes no sense.
Suppose during a basketball game in high school, I got injured after someone pushed me, which resulted in a problem with my leg or knee, making me walk awkwardly. Twenty-five years later, I tripped and fell face-first on something that killed me, which was caused by my knee problem. Would the person who pushed me during the basketball game be held responsible for my injury and ultimately, my death?
Are you rich, and/or politically important?
It largely depends on the circumstances of the original act. For instance, shooting someone under any circumstance is a very serious crime. Even if wasn't an immediately fatal injury, and it was totally by accident, there are still numerous charges that you would net: assault with a deadly weapon, criminal negligence, and so on. Some states even have laws on the books which allow cases that may not normally be considered murders to be treated as such—for example, the concept of "felony murder," where if you commit a felony that directly results in someone's death, even if you did not intend for it to happen, you could still be charged with murder.
Also, it depends on the circumstances of the death. It wasn't as if Brady had died in an unrelated incident that may have been exacerbated by his condition, he died as a direct result of the condition and the toll it had on its body. A more fitting analogy would be is if someone deliberately pushed you off a high ledge, you broke your spine, and you died 25 years later because of your paralysis.
I like your example, thanks.
No, because the person who pushed you didn't intend to commit murder and the knee injury wasn't the proximate cause of death. The person who tried to assassinate Reagan did have that intent and injuries from the shooting proximately caused Brady's death, so it was a homicide.
Murder charges only require intent to hurt, not intent to kill.
Also, homicide doesn't require any intent at all
That's not entirely accurate. People can be charged with murder when they didn't intend to kill someone under the felony murder rule if the death occurs when they're in the process of committing another felony. In this hypothetical, there's no criminal intent if someone is fouled in a basketball game. Even if the player intended to injure the other player, at most it would likely be a misdemeanor assault, so the felony murder rule wouldn't apply (plus the basketball injury wasn't the proximate cause of the death). Even if the basketball injury did cause the death, if there's insufficient criminal intent to charge the player with murder, then it would be manslaughter and the statute of limitations for manslaughter would have already lapsed by that point.
It would be if your name was put on a bill to end gun violence.
Not even close to the same thing. Brady was one step above a vegetable the rest of his life after being shot. It was a long, slow death and not hard to say the death was ultimately connected to his being shot. Are we really dumbed down to the point people compare being shot and suffering the rest of your life to being pushed in basketball and rolling an ankle?
Also a way to let his family get maximum death benefits
I don't know, but it made me think of a case from torts class.
In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney.[10] In that case, a boy kicked another from across the aisle in the classroom. It turned out that the victim had an unknown microbial condition that was irritated, and resulted in him entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury. Nevertheless, the court found that the kicking was unlawful because it violated the "order and decorum of the classroom", and the perpetrator was therefore fully liable for the injury.
here, the death is labeled a homicide, the source being two newspapers that are behind adwalls. but homicide here is not the same as chargeable as homicide, because the death was not within a year and a day. i don't remember why the common law rule adds that extra day.
>Would the person who pushed me during the basketball game be held responsible for my injury and ultimately, my death?
Probably not, since that would be an accident and the player wasn't attempting to commit a crime. (They were committing a foul.)
This is why you're not a lawyer, luckily.
I think in this case it's more of a distinction of the type of death, not assigning blame. OP posted some details that the shooter wasn't charged because at the time of the original shooting he successfully pleaded insanity to all charges, including the homicide death that resulted years later.
Still odd, never heard of something like this before.
I've seen it ruled as homicide as well, when the victim of shaken baby syndrome dies of their injuries after a consider length of time. Sometimes years/decades later.
They died from their injuries caused by the act- it just was really slow at killing them.
Did they push you with the intent to kill you? No. If you trip and fall and break your neck, is your bad knee the primary cause of death? No, accidenfal falling is. You can fall without a bad knee. The bad knee is at most a contributing factor.
Your hypothetical shares none of the key factors here
The difference is the action taken against you. Pushing is not the same thing as shooting at someone with bodyguards. It would all be part of a larger picture of course, but in the scenario of a baseball game, it could very well be argued that the foreseeable consequences for the pusher did not realistically include death, while that could almost never be assumed about a gun. The Baldwin case being a good example of when that argument could be made, as we assume he honestly believed he was holding a sophisticated and professional prop.
Legally, it's a year and a day before you're unable to be charged. So, yeah.
This is pretty common when a medical examiner is making a determination on the manner of death. The main question is if the person returned to the same quality of life afterwards or if the incident caused lifelong effects.
Most commonly if a person is severely injured in a car accident and has lingering complications. They may die 20 years later naturally in their sleep but it could be ruled "accidental" rather than "natural" and a line on cause may include "complications due to motor vehicle accident".
I had one where a guy was shot in the head in the 90s and lived with lingering headaches. That was enough that it required an autopsy to determine if it was the bullet still in his head that contributed to his death.
Listing the cause of death for a death certificate and criminal culpability for causing the death are two entirely distinct things.
Then it's probably good that OP covered exactly that in a top level comment.
The Hillsborough disaster in the UK had something similar. The 97th fatality occurred 31 years after the event.
That's some of the worst lag I've ever heard of
[deleted]
[deleted]
All executions that happen on death row have 'homicide' listed as the causse for their death certificate.
Someone looked at the Wikipedia front page today
My grandpa was shot multiple times in the Korean War and whe he passed, it was a result of one of his stitches coming undone after all those years and he asphyxiated on his blood. Ruled homicide, my grandma got more benefits
[deleted]
I remember the assassination attempt. Tv news played it over and over again, "if you are just tuning in, Buckwheat has been shot"
This story is what the Pokémon moves Future Sight and Doom Desire are based on.
IAmTiborius OP t1_je91u4r wrote
The gunman, John Hinckley Jr., did not face charges for Brady's death because he had been found not guilty of the shooting by reason of insanity. In addition, since Brady's death occured more than 33 years after the shooting, the prosecution of Hinckley was barred under the year and a day law in effect in the District of Columbia at the time of the shooting. Hinckley was released from institutional psychiatric care on September 10, 2016