|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 23, 2010, 12:34 PM | #76 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
December 23, 2010, 04:29 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
The jury seems to have wanted to answer that question, three times asking the judge to give them the law on the subject. |
|
December 23, 2010, 08:36 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
"Eghad and johnbt, the reason most of us think..."
Did you think I didn't know that? I don't think what he did should be against the law. But it was. "since when is moving your possessions from one place to another not "moving?" When you're not moving between your old legal residence and your new legal residence. His momma testified he wasn't living there and his roomate testified he'd had an apartment for many months. He might have spent a day or three at his momma's, but his legal residence appears to have been an apartment. Therefore, he wasn't moving. Laws tend to be very specific. Words have meanings and the law defines the words they use. |
December 23, 2010, 11:53 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 146
|
So that would mean that, if something happens to your legal residence- fire, flood, remodeling, etc- and you had to place most of your possessions (guns included) in storage while living at a temporary residence such as a motel (where guns might not be permitted), you would not be legally able to do so? I know a few people who have had to do just that for various reasons, though I don't think any of them owned any guns. That seems particularly out there even for NJ... surely that's one of the exceptions that the dishonorable judge refused to let the jury hear?
Learn something new every day I guess... and one more reason to get the *censored* outta NJ just as soon as humanly possible. :barf: I could see where there might be courtroom trouble if you were using a friend or relative's place for storage. Without a paper trail, if your family member or friend didn't back you up (as mommy dear apparently didn't), you'd effectively have no proof of your side of the story. That, and none of the articles so far have been particularly clear on whether or not Aitken was storing his guns at his mom's place or if he just stopped there for a bit with the guns already in the car... which would be a major no-no in NJ; you can't even stop for gas on the way to the range without risking your hide. One thing's for sure... if my family torpedoed me like that, I think I'd have to disown them. Glad I grew up in a gun-friendly house. |
December 24, 2010, 04:19 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 439
|
One could argue that due process has not occurred.
Consider that the 14th amendment's "Due Process Clause" and "Incorporation Doctrine" ensure that states guarantee the protection of the citizens rights listed in the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendments. From McDonald v. Chicago: The Supreme Court of the United States held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. I guess it all comes down to the courts interpretation of the RKBA |
December 24, 2010, 08:54 AM | #81 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
This is another example of why more citizens need to read up on their rights, duties, and responsibilities as jurors. This was a case that cried out for jury nullification. As JohnBT noted, laws use words, and words have meaning. But way back at the start of this republic, the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay, ruled that a jury shall be the triers of the facts and of the law. So regardless of what a law says and what a judge tells the jury they MUST do with a law ... properly speaking, if a jury thinks a law is wrong they have a moral and legal DUTY to reject the law and acquit the defendant. Interestingly, while subsequent Supreme Court decisions have ratified that, they have also ruled (inexplicably) that although juries DO have the right to reject a law they think is a bad law ... judges do NOT have to tell them that. Therefore, it's up to US to know that, and to tell as many other citizens as possible about that. |
|
December 24, 2010, 09:23 AM | #82 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Then, there's this new article: Freed New Jersey Man Wants Gun Conviction Overturned
If the article is to be believed, there were some on the jury that thought some exception applied... only to be stymied by the Judge. |
December 24, 2010, 12:38 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 439
|
Quote:
Perhaps this judge should have recused himself. |
|
December 24, 2010, 10:15 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
The judge's attitude is... puzzling.
Am I going to get tossed out of this place if I talk about the cow thing? |
December 24, 2010, 10:30 PM | #85 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Talk away. I was going to bring it up, as to why this guy is no longer a jurist. But since you beat me to it.....
|
December 25, 2010, 09:08 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 439
|
I just read about the cow thing. Disgusting...:barf:
|
December 25, 2010, 10:03 PM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Aguila makes a valid point. A jury can even find someone not guilty even when they know they are guilty. I am not saying they do this often; I am just saying that they can legally vote anyway they want without being liable and many times jurors do not know this. Many times they focus on what the judge tells them a little too much(in my opinion).
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
December 25, 2010, 10:23 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
"That seems particularly out there even for NJ... "
You can't even pump your own gas in NJ. The law was passed in 1949. There's lots of weird stuff going on in NJ. |
December 26, 2010, 06:50 AM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
For those who do not know, the judge in this case was not returned to the bench due to a controversial case in which a man was getting...ummm.... oral pleasure from cattle. He was charged with animal abuse. The judge pointed out that the cows may not have felt abused, they could have just been puzzled by what was going on. They probably were puzzled, but who cares how the cows felt? Even if they liked it, it's still abuse by any normal, human standard, and I was not aware that we were supposed to interpret our laws in light of how animals may feel about them. Those who are inclined to rely on the judge's determination that the "moving" exception did not apply in this case should consider this other determination that he made. I'm trying not to use profanity here, but it's pretty puzzled, man. |
|
December 26, 2010, 07:13 AM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
The case with the 45 year old teacher's aide and the 16 year old having consentual sex bothered me more. As bad as the cattle thing is, sending your kid off to school(under protection of the state for that daily period) to have 45 year old teachers go after their consent gripes me.
Maybe the judge was slipping a bit in these and the Aitken case. Edit: make that your special needs child which was her field.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by alloy; December 26, 2010 at 07:18 AM. |
|
December 26, 2010, 08:46 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
This article gives the judge's point of view in the case of the teacher's aide who had sex with her 16 year old student and the guy with the cows.
The teacher's aide got 5 years (the minimum) from him, but he refused to call her a sexual predator. I guess that would have meant a longer sentence and probably appearing on those predator lists, maybe monitoring? In the cow case... Quote:
|
|
December 26, 2010, 09:00 AM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Hadn't read that but I had seen mention of the aide and child being part of the special needs program. No idea, and none of my business what the particular educational needs of the student were. Age of consent being 16, is what it is, and I have no children, but my thoughts are, that when you put your kid on that big yellow state bus in the morning...a nearly zero tolerance for this sort of thing should be expected from any parent until he/she gets back off that bus in the afternoon. Irregardless of consentual age. It's just not why kids are in public school.
Getting off in the weeds on it all I guess but I question the judges capacity, and with his sudden career turn...I would say I'm not alone.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
December 26, 2010, 09:22 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Alloy, the judge would point out that since the age of consent is 16, what happened would not be a crime but for the school situation, but the school relationship made it a crime, exactly as you say it should. That's why she got 5 years.
He was not willing to say she was a sexual predator under the law. Without knowing more about what happened and what the law there says, I can imagine that the judge's decision on that might be reasonable and valid. The facts may not have met the definition of "sexual predator" whatever that is. I think an argument can be made in both cases that this guy was resisting legislating from the bench. If New Jersey wants to make bestiality illegal, let the legislature do it, don't ask a judge to redefine abuse. If they want to make extremely age-inappropriate romances that would be legal in the state, but are a crime in the school system, part of the definition of "sexual predator" then the politicians, not some judge, should make that choice. Continuing the devil's advocate theme back to the subject at hand, the judge basically said "this guy was not moving, he was just carrying around guns illegally." If he's right, then the law needs to change. But since the scapegoat judge has been sacked, I guess everything is all better and there's no need for all that... |
December 26, 2010, 09:36 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
If you say so.
I would hope for both a changed law and a sacked judge. But not over the gun case.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
December 26, 2010, 10:58 AM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
It appears the judge himself made a finding of fact that Aitken was not moving, and therefore the moving exception did not apply. That seems to be a reversible error to me. DD |
|
December 27, 2010, 08:16 AM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
There was no question of fact about whether or not he was moving. He had an apartment. He had a roommate. He was storing stuff at his parents' home. That was the testimony. The law might have applied if he had driven the guns from Colorado directly to his apartment. But he didn't. John
An article, picked at random using google... Beginning in late 2008, he took the first of several trips between the two states, a back-and-forth process that involved selling his house in Colorado, moving his possessions across the country, and finding a job and a new place to live back east. Until he could find a new apartment, he stored his belongings at his parents' home in Burlington County. In December 2008 Aitken made a final trip back to Colorado to collect the last of his possessions, including the three handguns Aitken and his friend Michael Torries had found an apartment in Hoboken, and Torries accompanied Aitken to Colorado to help with the last leg of the move. Aitken's legal troubles began in January 2009, when he drove to his parents' house to pick up some of his belongings. He had grown distraught over tensions with his ex-wife, who according to Aitken had been refusing to let him see his son. When Aitken visited his parents' house, his mother, Sue Aitken, grew worried about his mental state. He should have left the guns at his apartment after the December trip to Colorado. |
December 27, 2010, 09:02 AM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
The defense put on testimony from Brian's roommate and his mother that he was moving, and the police report noted that the guns were buried in a locked trunk with stuff consistent with a guy moving.
This article brings up a new one on me: a police report said that the guns had been removed from the apartment because there was going to be a party with drinking, and Brian did not want the guns there during that event. The article says this is not true, but does not say why. It does point out that this explanation is really the least flattering, most criminal explanation for what happened, at least under NJ gun transport laws. Quote:
He's willing to make stretches when he wants to. Forcing a cow to give you a BJ (and no one is going to convince me this was the cow's idea) is not abuse? Transporting your stuff from storage at your mother's house to your house is not moving? Even if you do not believe that story and buy the story that he was keeping his guns away from drunks, the New Jersey law treats that action the same as committing a violent crime with a gun. If we're going to get into what should have happened, maybe New Jersey politicians should have passed less idiotic gun laws. |
|
December 27, 2010, 10:22 AM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 371
|
The judge should be charged with obstruction of justice & serve prison time. Just imagine how his prison experience would be. A jury asks several times about the law & he refuses to answer? This is the height of arrogance. Citizens need to fight these abuses of power while they still can. If we let such things go on too much longer, everyone will be too afraid to speak out.
__________________
Remember the American heroes of Flight 93. |
December 27, 2010, 11:13 AM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
"Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate."
That's the testimony that hung him, not exonerated him. His mother said he was moving belongings, not changing residences. He had his own place. He had a roommate and they weren't living at the mother's house, they had their own residence and appear to have been there since the previous year. Mr. Aitken was not in the direct act of moving from his old residence to his new residence. The law requires a direct drive it seems, no extra stops allowed. Dumb law, but it's the law. |
December 27, 2010, 12:24 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Where does the law say the move must be done in one load? As long as each load does not stop to take in the sights, then each load hauled should fall under the same exemption.
He was moving a load from a storage site to a residence. It should have been covered. |
|
|