Would-be Reagan assassin released from psychiatric hospital

[alp227]

Source: Reuters

Would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley Jr. was scheduled to be freed from a psychiatric hospital on Saturday, 35 years after he shot U.S. President Ronald Reagan in an attack prompted by a deranged obsession with the actress Jodie Foster.

Hinckley, 61, will move in with his elderly mother in a gated community in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he has been making increasingly long furlough visits in recent years under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Secret Service.

A federal judge in July ordered Hinckley's release from St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, finding that he no longer posed a danger to himself or to others. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity at a 1982 trial and was diagnosed with depression and psychosis, both of which are now in remission, according to his doctors.

Residents of the town have seemed largely unfazed by the prospect of Hinckley's release, though some have expressed wariness.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-hinckley-idUSKCN11G0S3

[Chemisse]

1. I wish him well.

And I hope people leave him alone.

It was a long time ago.

[YOHABLO]

2. He suffers from schizophrenia like millions of other U.S. citizens who need help.

We have had a mental health crisis in this country for decades. We need better care for those suffering from mental health issues that have been stigmatized in this country for way too long.

[oberliner]

3. Has Jodie Foster issued a statement?

I wonder how she feels about this.

[7962]

4. Sorry, but Attempting to kill a President should get you life,

regardless of what mental condition you're in.
And what happens when his 90 yr old mother passes away?

[24601]

8. I've got no great love for the guy, but what good is a criminal justice system if you are found

not guilty and sentenced to life anyway? Isn't that why he was committed for medical reasons rather than imprisoned at hard labor?

The standard when not guilty is that confinement ends when your condition is no longer judged to make you a danger to yourself or others.

[christx30]

10. Because even though he is not legally guilty,

he tried to do something terrible because of messed up wiring in his brain. And until it's fixed, he's still a danger to other people. So as much as it might suck, you have to keep people like that contained against their will so they can't hurt other people. Hinkley is a success story, believe it or not. While he did harm people, he didn't kill anyone (what happened to Brady is debatable, considering he died 33 years after the shooting, but from a condition he wouldn't have had without it).
It could have been an Adam Lanza situation, which was far worse.
Hopefully the people that released Hinkley know what they're doing, and he lives the rest of his life in peace and quiet.

[24601]

11. I also want him to fade away and do nothing the rest of his life to harm others or himself. My

intuition is that he will never be cured of his mental illness and that the best doctors can do is keep it sufficiently controlled. This isn't unique to Hinckley and who knows the true number within our population of those with some type and varying severity of mental illness. It must be exceptionally challenging to find the right place along the spectrum that includes all the options from, do nothing, treat and release on one end to denying rights such as weapons & voting and involuntary commitment on the other.

One of the legal low-water marks was a 1927 USSC decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In Buck v. Bell, the court ruled 8-1 that the government could deny the mentally challenged the right to reproduce by imposing involuntary sterilization. I believe the precedent hasn't been overturned by amendment, statute or another decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

[burfman]

5. No body seems to remember what he did to James Brady

I saw James Brady in a restaurant more than 20 years ago (The Old Ebbitt Grill - next to the White House) eating with his friends and wife Sarah one evening. He was in a wheel chair and quite disabled. From what I read every day of his life after he got shot in the head was a struggle filled with pain. And now this creep who ruined his life is back out - where is the justice?

Burfman......

[Skittles]

9. agreed

[lindysalsagal]

6. The NRA will no doubt be meeting him with his new rifle and ammo.

Because there should be no litmus test for owning gunz.

[branford]

7. Or, more likely, the NRA will offer no statement at all

or oppose the release of a psychologically-compromised violent criminal (along with probably a clear majority of the nation, including a great many Democrats).

Also, you do realize that the NRA was instrumental in passing the background check legislation that prohibits people who are adjudicated as dangerous from possessing weapons?

It's really sad when the ignorance about gun laws is so pervasive that I'm forced to defend the NRA.

The hyperbolic and unjustified statements concerning the NRA, its members and the tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners from across the political spectrum that the NRA seeks to support, is the very reason why the organization is so politically powerful.

However, by all means keep up the with the ridiculous comments, goofy spelling and other insults, for it will no doubt lead to comprise and passage of policies to reduce firearm-related crime...

[JTFrog]

12. Yea, the NRA is a great organization.

No one is forcing you to defend the deplorable NRA.

Just sayin...

[branford]

13. It has nothing to do with whether the NRA is good, bad or otherwise.

Mischaracterizing their positions, ignoring their history, insulting the millions of Americans, many of them Democrats, who tacitly or passively support their advocacy concerning gun rights, and then engaging in juvenile behavior like the idiot misspelling of "gunz," accomplishes nothing but make the proponent look like a uninformed fool.

At this point in time, the NRA, and gun control generally, has little to nothing to do with the Hinckley story. The issue is mental illness and rehabilitation, and the public mood in a era of heightened security is decidedly illiberal. More importantly, way back the, shortly after the shooting happened, the NRA was instrumental in passing the background check laws that many here now support. You cannot deny reality.

The NRA is not some omnipresent, omnipotent boogeyman. Blaming them for everything and constantly and unnecessarily referencing them is what makes them powerful.

[LanternWaste]

14. More accurately, choose, rather than forced, to defend the right wing PAC.

"I'm forced to defend the NRA..."

More accurately, choose, rather than forced, to defend the right wing PAC. Which will as well, "no doubt lead to comprise and passage of policies to reduce firearm-related crime."

[branford]

15. I will happily point out willful ignorance and hyperbole

when it's contrary to broader Democratic interests, particularly when espoused in many purple battleground states where the issue of guns is politically significant during a national election.

Moreover, while I don't own or possess any firearms, and am not a member of the NRA (along with the rest of the 95% of American gun owners and firearm rights supporters, a great many of whom are loyal Democrats), I do indeed generally support second amendment rights and current firearm jurisprudence which permits certain limited restrictions.

[yurbud]

16. I hope the Bush family doesn't have anyone else in their way...

that he could help them with.