Fully analyze the case below, addressing the elements of the laws, required actus reus and mens rea, causation and harm, regular or affirmative defense, and if there is an affirmative defense, which category, and how the perpetrator's actions and state of mind do or do not meet what is required by the law. Arguing both sides - first that the perpetrator does meet what is required by the law, and then that the perpetrator doesn't, is a good idea to maximize points.

John Hinckley was accused of a shooting wherein he wounded President Reagan in 1981, and also wounded Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, partially paralyzing him. Two secret servicemen were wounded as well. Hinckley claimed that he did the shooting because he was obsessed with a movie that depicted someone trying to kill a president. Psychological evaluations concluded that Mr. Hinckley did not have the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct both at the time of the incident and thereafter.

At the time and in that jurisdiction, a person was considered incompetent if they "lacked substantial capacity to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, or if they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct."

As stated above: Fully analyze this case, addressing the elements of the charge, required actus reus and mens rea, causation and harm, regular or affirmative defense, and if there was an affirmative defense, which category, and how Hinckley's actions and state of mind did or did not meet what was required by the law. Arguing both sides - first that Hinckley did meet what was required by the law, and then that he didn't