Brian Aitken in New Jersey prison for legal firearms

pichon said:
I guess it all comes down to the courts interpretation of the RKBA
Click to expand...
Or the jury's.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like there is a question about whether or not the judge was impartial on that particular issue, an impartial judge being another guarantee of due process.

Perhaps this judge should have recused himself.
 
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..... :cool:
 
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).
 
"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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

OK, you got it.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...

In the absence of a state law on bestiality, prosecutors had only animal cruelty charges to bring against former Moorestown officer Robert Melia....Morley ultimately threw out the four animal-cruelty charges because he said the evidence did not support the charge.
Click to expand...

The evidence was a video. The legal question was whether getting a BJ from a cow is mean to the cow. Not if the cow is merely puzzled by the whole situation, apparently. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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...
 
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."
Click to expand...

I see your point, but it seems to me that in this instance there was a question of fact (whether or not Aitken was "moving") that had to be resolved in order to determine whether the moving exception applied or not. So IMHO the proper procedure that the judge should have followed is to instruct the jury as to the existence of the moving exception. Those instructions should have told the jury that if they determined that Aitken was in the process of moving when the guns were found in his car, then the moving exception would apply and they must then find him not guilty.

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
 
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.
 
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.

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. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that much of a stretch for the jury to conclude that he was moving, and that tells me that the judge should have let them consider the question.

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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top