The Ronald Reagan shooting?

[James Richards]

There has been some chat over the years that Hinckley didn't fire all the shots during the attack. I was checking this photo out below which was snapped moments before the gunfire.

Have a look up at that first floor balcony where a person is crouched behind the railing. Even if this individual is perfectly innocent, why did the SS allow such an obvious breach?

The burning question is could a shot have emanated from this position?

James

[Shanet Clark]

There has been some chat over the years that Hinckley didn't fire all the shots during the attack. I was checking this photo out below which was snapped moments before the gunfire.

Have a look up at that first floor balcony where a person is crouched behind the railing. Even if this individual is perfectly innocent, why did the SS allow such an obvious breach?

The burning question is could a shot have emanated from this position?

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reagan took a bullet to the side near the heart, left ribs, is that correct?

Great Photo.

[James Richards]

Reagan took a bullet to the side near the heart, left ribs, is that correct?

Great Photo. (Shanet Clark)

Hi Shanet.

From what I can gather, the bullet ricocheted off the vehicle and struck Reagan under his left arm hitting his lung.

Police Officer Tom Delahanty, Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy and Press Secretary James Brady were also struck in the hail of bullets.

FWIW.

James

Edited March 6, 2005 by James Richards

[Tim Gratz]

This is addressed to Forum members who believe there was "security stripping" in Dallas.

So was there "security stripping" in Washington in 1981, or isn't (as is usually the case) the simplest answer the best: human error, negligence, incompetence.

The question raised by James is certainly thought-provoking. My response would be, however, that the assassination attempt on Reagan failed and so perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on solving the JFK case.

[Pat Speer]

This is addressed to Forum members who believe there was "security stripping" in Dallas.

So was there "security stripping" in Washington in 1981, or isn't (as is usually the case) the simplest answer the best: human error, negligence, incompetence.

The question raised by James is certainly thought-provoking.  My response would be, however, that the assassination attempt on Reagan failed and so perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on solving the JFK case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While the JFK case may seem more important, the reality is that if there is a good reason to doubt the official story regarding the attempt on Reagan, then this attempt would be more important, since any conspiracy involving Hinckley would have been by design an attempt to place George HW Bush in the Presidency. Which could very well involve men still active in Washington.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy, but it is mighty suspicious that the media immediately seized on the lone-nut angle, even though Hinckley knew Neil Bush and may well have been under the impression that he could help his own father (who was under government investigation) by making Neil's father President.

One element of the Hinckley case that was undoubtedly covered-up was his motive. While the media seized upon the idea that Hinckley was trying to impress Jodie Foster, that's only half the story. In Hinckley's letters, re-printed in his parent's account of the shooting, it is clear that he wanted to impress Jodie Foster not so much by killing Reagan, as by bringing about changes in American law, specifically, gun control. (Hinckley was adamantly pro-gun control. Hence, his fixation on Jodie Foster and Taxi Driver.) One can only assume that the White House and members of the media downplayed Hinckley's motives in hopes of avoiding a backlash, whereby the Brady Bill would be rejected despite its merit, in order to send a message to anyone else who would use violence to bring about legislation. By not discussing Hinckley's real motives they avoided the public getting the impression that Hinckley had been successful.