Does it make sense to call James Brady's death a homicide 33 years after he was shot?
You may remember that in 1981, then-President Reagan was shot, along with James Brady, by Charles Hinckley. Reagan recovered, while Brady had all sorts of injuries, never recovered his full mental faculties, and was unable to walk the rest of his life.
Brady died earlier this week.
The police in Alexandria VA are calling this a homicide because (they say) his death was related to the gunshot wound. Does that make sense? It seems to me that an interval of 33 years stretches the cause / effect necessary to consider this homicide. Brady died, presumably of old age, after having lived a generation after the incident.
(not that I have any sympathy for Hinckley – he can rot in jail for all I care. But this just seems like a stretch to me.)
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.