The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 24, 2010, 05:00 PM   #26
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
I'm more inclined to read the article than watch the video, but did anyone else try to watch the video of Judge Napolitano linked in the topic post?

"This video is no longer available because the account was terminated due to repeated copyright violations."

Hmmm.
publius42 is offline  
Old October 25, 2010, 08:23 PM   #27
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
Why the hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting that Judge Napolitano's opinion in this matter is somehow more or less valid simply because someone posted a video on Youtube without getting the copyright owner's (more than likely Fox News) permission? How does that reflect on anything he might have said?
csmsss is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 04:52 AM   #28
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
I'm not so much suspicious of the Judge or what he said as I am of the person who posted it without authorization. Another example in my view of the fact that there is no such thing as a complete story here yet. I'm not ready to call Brian Aitken a whining criminal like WildAlaska has yet, but I'm not completely buying this story since it's pretty obvious we only have part of his side, almost none of the other side.
publius42 is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 02:28 PM   #29
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Quote:
I'm not ready to call Brian Aitken a whining criminal like WildAlaska has yet, but I'm not completely buying this story since it's pretty obvious we only have part of his side, almost none of the other side.
I try not to be prejudiced....I call them all whining criminals until their convictions get reversed

WildexceptinthemostblatentlyobviouscaseswhichthisoneseemsnotyetAlaska ™©2002-2010
Wildalaska is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 07:04 PM   #30
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Fair enough, but it seems a policy unlikely to lead to reversals of wrongful convictions. Some of us have to turn over the pile a few times for that to happen.
publius42 is offline  
Old October 29, 2010, 11:57 PM   #31
misfitqueen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2010
Posts: 1
Brian Aitken and the BS from New Jersey.

I am very greatful that I left New Jersey and I really feel sorry for Brian and his family. He was perfectly leagal but New Jersey has to interfer with everything and now this mans life is destroyed just like they do everyone else's. I didn't get out of that gargage state in time. Brian I will be praying for you and your family.
misfitqueen is offline  
Old November 30, 2010, 09:59 AM   #32
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Another tidbit of information in this new thread:

Quote:
The Burlington County Prosecutor's Office and former Superior Court Judge James Morley said Aitken and his legal team tried during closing arguments to raise an issue related to Aitken's moving that wasn't presented during the trial, but Morley wouldn't consider it. Aitken remains in prison pending his appeal.
Why was this issue not considered during trial, I wonder?
publius42 is offline  
Old November 30, 2010, 01:40 PM   #33
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
I found it difficult to get an un-biased article about this case. Most are pro-gun and right wing. It does seem that there was some sort of run in with his ex-wife before his arrest. He was moving from Colorado to New Jersey and had his pistols stored as per Ney Jersey law. Too bad he forgot to get rid of his ammo and he had high cap mags (illegal in New Jersey) in the truck with his guns.
I don't agree with New Jersey's laws; but I don't live there.
Many east coast states have very restrictive gun laws.
Did New Jersey have the right to convict him? Yes
Is this a miscarriage of justice? Probably
1. The police could have just warned him that he was not in compliance with New Jersey law. They could have also just taken his ammo and magazines. They choose to arrest.
2. The district attorney could have choosen not prosecute. He went for it.
3. The judge could have been lenient. He was not.
I think the whole case comes down to the 911 call and the possibility domestic violence. There is a lot here we just don't know.
dlb435 is offline  
Old December 1, 2010, 03:50 AM   #34
imthegrumpyone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2007
Location: spring tx
Posts: 1,037
Get use to it, your living in a country that has been taking "your rights" away a little bit at a time and you never new it. Why ? How ? cause we're to dam lazy to demand the federal and state governments to uphold "our constitutional" rights, and as long as a right is lost and doesn't personally effect someone, they don't care about the next person, on till it's to late. My .02
__________________
chambered and unlocked
imthegrumpyone is offline  
Old December 1, 2010, 10:15 AM   #35
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlb435
It does seem that there was some sort of run in with his ex-wife before his arrest....I think the whole case comes down to the 911 call and the possibility domestic violence.
His wife canceled planned visitation with his son. Is that a "run in" that suggests domestic violence? Is there any credible suggestion of domestic violence, anywhere? I have not seen it.

This article has new information.

Quote:
The only way to lawfully possess firearms in New Jersey is through exemptions to the law like driving to and from a shooting range or moving residences. However, as they are exemptions from the law they must be raised during trial therefore removing the presumption of innocence for the charge of possession.
Hmmm... bit of a Catch 22 there.

Quote:
Several witnesses, including the arresting officer, testified that not only did Brian have multiple residences but that his car was packed with his personal belongings–so much so that it took the police 2 hours and 39 minutes before they found Brian’s guns locked and unloaded in the trunk of his car, exactly as NJ law dictates. Brian knew this because only days earlier he had found out through the NJ state police how to legally transport his firearms in NJ. The officers, believing Brian had done nothing wrong, then offered to leave the firearms at his parents’ house, but when they wouldn’t fit in his father’s safe the supervising officer decided to arrest him instead.
That makes no sense, and makes me wonder if it really happened that way. If it did, I'm speechless.
publius42 is offline  
Old December 4, 2010, 05:27 AM   #36
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Is there any credible suggestion of domestic violence, anywhere? I have not seen it.
I ask because this is the second forum discussion I have had about this case in which someone has alleged domestic violence, but I have yet to see any evidence of it.
publius42 is offline  
Old December 4, 2010, 09:04 AM   #37
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Some details are beginning to emerge.

Quote:
"However, his roommate testified that they had been sharing the Hoboken apartment since June 2008, and that he had seen the guns at the apartment in September 2008," Bewley wrote. "[Aitken's] mother testified that he had been living in Hoboken and working in New York City since June 2008. This incident occurred in January 2009."
The person quoted, above, is a spokesman for the Prosecutors office. Assuming this is a true statement, then Aitkins had moved to New Jersey 7 months prior to the arrest.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 02:09 AM   #38
ethan95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 169
heres the NRA's story http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6087

I heard on the news today "Brian Aitken's case is currently under review by the Governor of new jersey Chris Christie" (not sure if that's true,it was on the news.) Being a resident of NJ, this case deeply concerns me. It's been the talk of the NJ firearm community lately, hopefully something is done about it.
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ
ethan95 is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 09:12 AM   #39
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Al, that may well be true, but it takes some of us longer to move than others. As long as you're in a kind of temporary situation and a lot of your stuff, possibly including guns, is still packed up, you're still moving in the sense that you have not yet moved to your eventual residence.

In my case, I moved here from Miami over a period of about 6 months, carrying more and more stuff each time I came over for a week, and carrying little or nothing on the return trips.
publius42 is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 09:14 AM   #40
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
It was tasteful of them to avoid mentioning the judge's subsequent departure from the bench over "puzzled" cows, but I'm not as tasteful.
publius42 is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 11:15 AM   #41
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Publius, I'm not denying that point. What I am saying is that there may well have been some justification in concluding that Aitkins was not moving. Regardless, if Aitkins was in fact still moving, Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception.

There's an awful lot to this case that we just don't know. Take the initial search, for example. Was it performed with Aitkins voluntary consent? If not, what was the basis for probable cause?
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 01:36 PM   #42
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Not saying he was ok in either not knowing the law or pushing the limit of what he did know.....but 7 years for a non-violent offense when the guns were in the trunk, and the offender doesn't have some history of criminality....seems excessive.

How bout 2 years probation w/mental evaluation, a big fine, loss of firearm rights in the state, 200 hours community service and 30 days in jail?

7 years? It just seems too much, just an observation....bordering on Draconian.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 02:04 PM   #43
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Alloy, yet that remedy would still make him prohibited person (for life), according to Fed law - We have to assume 2 years probation is in lieu of 2 years incarceration.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 02:10 PM   #44
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Yes, I'm sure I didn't state the best alternatives...all or in part.
I just feel the judge should have had alternatives, or combinations of alternatives...be they right or wrong....to 7 years.
Saw it on the news last night, and it strikes me as a sentence reserved for a multiple or perhaps violent offender worthy of throwing the book at.
Maybe some facts are missing, maybe it just makes me feel sick to think the country has pockets acting this way....with me being from the great state of Virginia....I'll count my blessings.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 02:33 PM   #45
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Why was this issue not considered during trial, I wonder?
+1
Good question. Sounds like the guy had a sorry lawyer. The ball got rolling when Aitken's mom called the cops: Then it went faster, faster and faster until Aitken landed up in prison.

Last edited by thallub; December 5, 2010 at 02:41 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old December 6, 2010, 10:53 AM   #46
SpaceMallard
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4
I mean as much as I hate to see this guy imprisoned for this you should never live in a state like New Jersey. Really the difference between living in a normal state in regards to gun laws and the Northeast is just incredible. People in the North fear firearms more than anyone I have ever met and as far as I am concerned are a lost cause in regards to firearm education. As long as we can prevent them from imposing their will on the rest of us at the Federal level they can have their absurd laws and we can have our freedom to choose and live as we please.
SpaceMallard is offline  
Old December 6, 2010, 01:48 PM   #47
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
His lawyer wrote the book on NJ gun laws. Really. Buy one here...

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperbac...-guide/5505852
johnbt is offline  
Old December 6, 2010, 06:10 PM   #48
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
From Al Norris
"Publius, I'm not denying that point. What I am saying is that there may well have been some justification in concluding that Aitkins was not moving. Regardless, if Aitkins was in fact still moving, Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception."
Sorry, but you're wrong here. Any point of law that is to be given to the jury must come from the judge. Neither prosecution nor defense are allowed to instruct the jury in the law. If the judge gave bad or false information to the jury then there is a good chance the conviction will be overturned on appeal. Too bad most appeals take a year or more to work their way through the courts.
dlb435 is offline  
Old December 6, 2010, 08:45 PM   #49
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
I think you misunderstood, dlb435. When I wrote, "Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception." - As in, present evidence at the trial, not at the closing arguments. No one presents "evidence" in opening or closing arguments.

Because Aitkins attorney says that they did this, then it was most likely rebutted by the prosecution. If this is so, then the Judge, by failing to include the exception to the law in his jury instructions, committed a reversible error.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 7, 2010, 06:22 AM   #50
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
Because Aitkins attorney says that they did this, then it was most likely rebutted by the prosecution. If this is so, then the Judge, by failing to include the exception to the law in his jury instructions, committed a reversible error.
(Sorry, I like your old name!)

If the judge bought the prosecution's rebuttal, then not including that part of the law was not an error. If the appeals court finds the rebuttal similarly convincing, Aitken is going to lose.

While I have some personal experience with taking months to move and some sympathy for a guy locked up for something that should not be a crime, I am having a bit of trouble completely buying his "I was moving" defense.
publius42 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11869 seconds with 8 queries