Justice System at it's worst(Updated with link)

[cactitle]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/christie-commutes-sentence-man-sent-jail-owning-guns-legally/?test=latestnews

Sentence commuted

Please read the link and comment or call the Governor. It is so appalling that this happened to this man. I pray that he is freed before Christmas

Proving that justice is not only blind, but sometimes quite dumb - and I don't mean mute - the strange and tragic story of the plight of Brian Aitken is the epitome of the insanity going on in America.

http://sanitysentinel.blogspot.com/2010/11/curious-case-of-brian-aitken.html

Brian Aitken is a young man of 27 who moved to Colorado from New Jersey, where he was born and raised, several years ago. There, he met a woman who was also from New Jersey, and the two married. Shortly thereafter, the couple had a son, but the pair broke up when the boy was just an infant, and mother and son moved back to New Jersey.

Wishing to be close to his son, Aitken later decided to move back as well, and began making the preparations. Those preparations included learning how to legally transport the three handguns he purchased in Colorado back to New Jersey, a state with very strict gun laws. Starting in late 2008, Aitken made the first trip back home to New Jersey, the first of several to bring his possessions to his parents' home in Burlington County, until he could find his own apartment.

In December of 2008, Aitken and his friend Michael Torries - who had found an apartment together in Hoboken, NJ - made the final trip out to Colorado to retrieve the last of Aitken's belongings, including the guns. Before they left, Aitken researched and printed out New Jersey and federal gun laws to ensure that he didn't break any laws regarding transporting firearms across state lines. He also called the New Jersey State Police prior to leaving Colorado seeking their advice on how best to proceed. He wanted to make sure he didn't run afoul of the law. He followed all directions to the letter. It didn't help.

Brian Aitken and Son

In January of 2009, Aitken drove to his parents' house to get the rest of his belongings. He had been having difficulties with his ex-wife, who was refusing to let him see his son. He was obviously stressed about it, and his mother, Sue, noticed. A woman who works with children who have mental health problems, Sue Aitken has been trained to call police when someone appears distraught and may pose a threat to themselves, so when her son left, that's what she did.

Concerned about her son after he left, Sue Aitken called 911, but thought better of it and hung up. Too late, the police were at her home a short time later. Sue told the police of her concerns, and the police called Brian, who was driving to his apartment in Hoboken with his possessions in his car. The police told him to return to his mother's home, which he did, willingly complying once again with the instructions of law enforcement.

When he arrived, police determined that Brian was not a threat to himself or anyone else, but searched his car anyway. They found his guns, which were locked, unloaded, and stowed in the trunk, just as he was instructed for transport. Police arrested him for illegal possession of a firearm.

When Brian purchased the weapons in Colorado, he had to pass FBI and CBI background checks. He owned the guns legally, and transported them legally based upon the advice he sought from every law enforcement agency he could imagine he would need to avoid any trouble. Now he was facing trial in Burlington County, New Jersey.

The trouble really began when Brian drew Superior Court Judge James Morley, who was denied re-appointment by Governor Chris Christie after his inauguration. More on that later. A key element in Brian Aitken's defense was his right to transport legally purchased firearms between residences in New Jersey, which is precisely what he was doing.

Superior Court Judge James Morley

Police deposed that their search of Aitken's vehicle revealed many of his other belongings, which he was in the process of bringing to his new apartment in Hoboken. Judge Morley curiously forbade the jury from hearing that testimony in court. The jury expressed a clear level of discomfort in the prospect of convicting Aitken by asking the judge - on three separate occasions - about exceptions to the law regarding the transportation of firearms. The exemptions are primarily for off-duty officers and security personnel, but also extend to hunters and those transferring weapons between residences. Morley ignored all three requests.

[twa]

Sounds like a job for his lawyer on appeal....the courts can be a *****

>insert rude comment on NJ<

[cactitle]

It is such a miscarriage of justice. So many criminals on the streets and this guy get's 7 years. crazy!

[Madison Redskin]

I'm not about to comment on the judge's actions based on an article that was posted on a blog. As us Redskins fans know, media and blog reports frequently omit key facts and present misleading facts. That said, the "human element" of the justice system is indeed flawed. I am not sure that we have better alternatives; should we create robots to administer justice?

[Bliz]

I'm not about to comment on the judge's actions based on an article that was posted on a blog. As us Redskins fans know, media and blog reports frequently omit key facts and present misleading facts. That said, the "human element" of the justice system is indeed flawed. I am not sure that we have better alternatives; should we create robots to administer justice?

ding ding ding

There were also several large-capacity magazines and cartons of hollow-point bullets.

Aitken had legally purchased the guns at a Denver sporting goods store two years earlier, he said.

But transporting a gun without a special permit or in a handful of exempt situations is illegal in New Jersey, giving officers no choice but to arrest Aitken and charge him with a crime. The magazines and bullets are also illegal in the state, experts said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-man-imprisoned-gun-charge-appeals-governor-clemency/story?id=12287484&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

Apparently the judge did not let the jury consider the moving exemption because no EVIDENCE was presented during the trial that he was actually moving at the time the guns were found. In which case the judge may have made the right call and it is the guy's attorney who screwed up. At that point you have a statutorily mandated sentence, regardless of whether or not judge or jury likes it. To disregard such a sentencing requirements because you're uncomfortable with it would not only be clearly reversible and an abuse of discretion, but also (all together now) a clear case of an activist judge legislating from the bench instead of enforcing the law as it's written.

[twa]

Incompetent counsel....yet another avenue to tie up the courts with and help with employment:2drunks:

added

Were the bullets/magazines forbidden simply for sale or possession?...just curious

another add

"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another," Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, told ABC News. "Those points do not establish that the defendant was moving."

Sounds chicken**** to me.>insert rude comment about NJ<

[Fergasun]

I have more of an issue with the prosecutor. However, if this guy wanted to know as much about gun laws in NJ as possible... fail... or else he would've realized he should take the guns out of the car and put them in the house. Maybe he could've said he was transporting them to his parents house because he didn't want them in the party house... but that would raise the question, he didn't have a gun-safe in his house?

[Destino]

It's beginning to sound like a broken record: District attorneys don't understand the meaning of justice anymore.

[aREDSKIN]

It's beginning to sound like a broken record: District attorneys don't understand the meaning of justice anymore.

Yep, just peruse the tailgate to find threads that demonstrate the incompetence and criminality of prosecutors, judges, LEOs etc. It' almost a daily occurrence.

[Predicto]

I'd like to hear both sides of a story before I make a judgment. I don't know how many times I have read blog entries and forwarded emails that turned out, in further investigation, to be completely misleading.

As some of you know, I do appellate legal work for the court sustem. Every petition for review claims that a judge "ignored" something or did something evil just to be a jerk, and 99 percent of the time, the record shows something completely different than what the guy is claiming.

Just saying.

[Teller]

As some of you know, I do appellate legal work for the court sustem. Every petition for review claims that a judge "ignored" something or did something evil just to be a jerk, and 99 percent of the time, the record shows something completely different than what the guy is claiming.

Just saying.

I hear you, P. My initial reaction when I heard about this story was complete outrage. But I actually stopped and thought (no, seriously) about it a little more, and decided there MUST be something more to this. If not, then this is a colossal **** up with ridiculous consequences. But I'm inclined to believe you're correct in this case.....and ONLY in this case.

[Burgold]

In a positive mood temporarily so I'll say this. For all we ***** about America and everything about her it is a damn fine country. The legal system by and large works and is one of the best and most fair in the world if not outright the best. When I started reporting I realized something pretty early on and that was... I generally collected about an hour's worth of tape for every 5 minutes of airtime. In that five minutes of airtime, I'm filling in with exposition and transition or ambient sounds for at least a minute. That means that you are getting a fifteenth of the information I've collected and generally, though I try to be comprehensive it's impossible to speak to all the important players in a story or cover every perspective or nuance... esp. within that five minutes.

Now, when you go to the blog level... often a blogger has even less opportunity to look at first hand documents or conduct first person interviews. That means that the information they're basing stuff on is even more watered down. The blogger might be excellent and insightful. They might have a background which provides them a perspective and knowledge which is unique. Often though, it's a person reacting to secondary source info. If you are blogging based on that 1/15th you get then the reader of your blog is probably getting 1/100th of the actual story.

So, what I'm saying is that I don't know the truth here, but I'd like to apply the innocent before proven guilty to the courts as well as the defendants. The courts, after all, have served us really, really well and helped to make America the safe, free, and beautiful country she is.

[Predicto]

I hear you, P. My initial reaction when I heard about this story was complete outrage. But I actually stopped and thought (no, seriously) about it a little more, and decided there MUST be something more to this. If not, then this is a colossal **** up with ridiculous consequences. But I'm inclined to believe you're correct in this case.....and ONLY in this case.

I actually don't have any idea if the government was "right" or "wrong" because I don't think I know all the story when I have only heard one side of it. The government certainly makes mistakes all the time. Most of those mistakes get corrected on appeal (but not always). We do the best we can but errors happen.

I just don't trust that anyone who is advocating for one side will tell me all the facts, especially when it comes from a blog or email. Sometimes I think that 3/4th of the "facts" on the Internet are wrong (and the other 1/4th is pornography).

[Larry]

I actually don't have any idea if the government was "right" or "wrong" because I don't think I know all the story when I have only heard one side of it. The government certainly makes mistakes all the time. Most of those mistakes get corrected on appeal (but not always). We do the best we can but errors happen.

I just don't trust that anyone who is advocating for one side will tell me all the facts, especially when it comes from a blog or email. Sometimes I think that 3/4th of the "facts" on the Internet are wrong (and the other 1/4th is pornography).

1) I wouldn't necessarily distrust blogs. but let's face it, we've all seen stories that boil down to "somebody's attorney claims his client was screwed".

2) And it you think that only 1/4 of the internet is pornography, then your surfing habits are different from mine.

[Cept One]

I am little curious why the officers searched this guys car? and if he consented to the search? Glad i live in a state where i can own & carry a firearm.

[cactitle]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/christie-commutes-sentence-man-sent-jail-owning-guns-legally/?test=latestnews

Sentence was commuted by the Governor.

[Teller]

Guess I'll take it. I'd have preferred a pardon, but it is what it is.

[CrabR]

our criminal justice system is broken

[Koolblue13]

Not being allowed to have guns in Hoboken is the real crime here.

The peoples republic of New Jersey is a joke.