Bryan Miller of CeasfireNJ on Brian Aitken

[vjf915 456]

based on what we know, he was well within the exemptions of the law. The judge did not allow these exemptions into the trial. Thus he did not receive a fair trail.

Two issues with this. One of them is "Based on what we know". What we know is pretty minimal considering the circumstances of a criminal court case. We have NO details to exactly what happened when his mom called the police, when he was pulled over, where he was headed when he was pulled over.....or any details on the case itself. Secondly, he DID break the law. What we know for sure is that he had magazines that exceed the legal capacity. No matter how unconstitutional the laws are, he broke that law. This does not help his image regarding the other charges. I feel for the guy. It sucks. Firearms laws should be uniform federally for SEVERAL reasons, this being one. But what Vlad said is correct. He broke the law, even if his sentence is too long.

[BRN169 6]

based on what we know, he was well within the exemptions of the law. The judge did not allow these exemptions into the trial. Thus he did not receive a fair trail.

 

Considering everyone is dodging the hi-cap mag issue I'll bet he is guilty on those counts. But WTH that is only worth 90 days...

[Turbofire 2]

Two issues with this. One of them is "Based on what we know". What we know is pretty minimal considering the circumstances of a criminal court case. We have NO details to exactly what happened when his mom called the police, when he was pulled over, where he was headed when he was pulled over.....or any details on the case itself. Secondly, he DID break the law. What we know for sure is that he had magazines that exceed the legal capacity. No matter how unconstitutional the laws are, he broke that law. This does not help his image regarding the other charges. I feel for the guy. It sucks. Firearms laws should be uniform federally for SEVERAL reasons, this being one. But what Vlad said is correct. He broke the law, even if his sentence is too long.

 

The 911 call was a hangup. He was not pulled over. He was headed to hoboken and the police called and asked him to return to his parents house.

 

"What we know for sure is that he had magazines that exceed the legal capacity. "

 

What model was the gun(s)? how many rounds did the magazine hold? I agree with BRN169, but given your statement about minimal facts ( which I agree with to a degree) how could you possibly be sure of this? I've met some LEOs who thought the limit was still 10rd.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Considering everyone is dodging the hi-cap mag issue I'll bet he is guilty on those counts. But WTH that is only worth 90 days...

 

 

He probably is guilty of the Hi Cap mags. But the other charges are BS, he feel into exemption, and the judge wouldn't allow the exemptions to be introduced into the proceedings. That's BS. Especially when people on the witness stand stated under oath he was moving.

 

Like what was mentioned in another thread, when your day comes, maybe the Judge won't feel there's enough evidence that you where coming home from the range, regardless of what you or your witnesses say.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

They had a segment on it today on Fox news. The anchor and the 1 guest Mercedes (lawyer chick and hot) basically slammed NJ and the prosecutor. She said no doubt it will be overturned and they slammed the NJ laws as well as the fact that the laws are different from state to state. I mean they REALLY slammed it.

Nice to see it getting national attention on by far the highest rated news station!

[vladtepes 1,060]

Considering everyone is dodging the hi-cap mag issue I'll bet he is guilty on those counts. But WTH that is only worth 90 days...

 

 

this... to be brutally honest I had a hard time defending him at first because.. well to be blunt.. if I broke the law I would expect to pay the price.. but then when I spoke to a couple people.. they pointed out the grossly heavy sentence based on what the max sentence should be... and at that point I found myself completely on board.. he broke the law.. it was not in the commission of a crime.. cut him a break already.. as pointed out.. any other career "gang banger" would likely be out by now..

[AnthonyG 36]

The whole point of the judicial system is justice but also rehabilitation as far as punishment and jail. Giving 7 years in prison for these stupid slap on the hand crimes cause there was no beyond a reasonable doubt this guy had any intentions to harm anyone. If he was looking to hurt anyone the guns wouldn't have been unloaded and locked up in a bag in his trunk where he couldn't reach them. What happened to common sense and reasonable interpretation of law, just cause something is written on paper doesnt mean it has to be followed to the T. Even if it was followed to the T this guy should have gotten off.If this guy serves his full term odds are hes gonna be more a threat to society after he gets out then he was before just because of the crap he is going to go through and emotional distress.

[vjf915 456]

Like what was mentioned in another thread, when your day comes, maybe the Judge won't feel there's enough evidence that you where coming home from the range, regardless of what you or your witnesses say.

And here lies the beauty of being innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state, I do not have to prove that I was coming home from the range, the state must prove that I was NOT coming home from the range. Personally, I feel like it would take a pretty stupid defense attorney to fail that case as long as I was in fact obeying the law. The state would have to find solid proof that I was not traveling between the range and home.. Not that stupid lawyers dont exist.....

 

And like I have said before. Its not like I think he deserves 7 years....but the guy is not totally innocent. On top of that, we do NOT know all the details.

[Malsua 1,422]

And here lies the beauty of being innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state, I do not have to prove that I was coming home from the range, the state must prove that I was NOT coming home from the range.

 

In NJ, all guns are illegal. You ARE guilty. The statutes carve out exemptions, you must prove which apply to you.

 

In this particular case, the judge had no interest in listening and actively suppressed the statutes that enumerate the exemptions.

 

Brian Aitken's mistake was that he probably didn't understand the nature of police. It's in their nature to find something you did wrong, that's what they do specially when it's something domestic.

[Turbofire 2]

vf915, I don't completely disagree with you... but you really seem to be missing the main point of whats wrong in Brian's case, besides the jail time. You and your attorney may be very well versed in NJ firearms law but you have to assume the jury knows nothing and it's quite an uphill battle when the prosecution is literally rewriting the law on the spot. Look how many news articles on this story misquoted NJ law, thats your jury right there. Ex: One of the prosecutions statements to the press stated that Brian did not have the required pistol purchase permits for each pistol when we know that if you move to NJ with preowned handguns there is a VOLUNTARY registration form.

 

 

 

I posted this in the other thread, please at least listen from 7:30 on:

 

You can't say, "that would never happen", because it just did.

[vjf915 456]

The 911 call was a hangup. He was not pulled over. He was headed to hoboken and the police called and asked him to return to his parents house.

Did he live at his parents house?

[Turbofire 2]

He had lived at his parents house and kept stuff there during the process of moving to the apartment in Hoboken, all while selling his place in Colorado. In an interview the judge stated the length of time and number of trips in this process was not within the "moving window" (though none is stated in the law).

 

The only other "damning" evidence I've seen is a statement that wasn't clearly attributed (something like an officer's report on an interview with his roomate) was that Brian already had the guns at the apartment but took them back to his parents house when they had a big party as he didn't want the guns around drunk people.

 

So the defense had evidence and the prosecution had evidence, the judge decided not the jury.

 

 

Trying to think of any more details for you...

Edited December 5, 2010 by Turbofire

[vjf915 456]

Okay....Like I said before, I am not supporting him being in jail for 7 years. I remember a gang member jumped onto a public bus and opened fire at an opposing gang member. He hit the gang member several times, and also hit a 12 year old girl in the chest, collapsing her lung. He got 6 years. I think its absolutely absurd that he only got 6 years when his intention was to kill someone, and Aitken had no such intentions....in fact showed that he was willing to go up and out of the way to obey the law....yet he gets more. I am not denying that he was given the shaft without KY. But it is hard to me to strongly support something without being sure I know at least most of the details.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

...The only other "damning" evidence I've seen is a statement that wasn't clearly attributed (something like an officer's report on an interview with his roomate) was that Brian already had the guns at the apartment but took them back to his parents house when they had a big party as he didn't want the guns around drunk people...

 

From the Fox news coverage linked earlier:

 

In an email to FoxNews.com, Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, said "no evidence" was presented during the trial to support Aitken's claim that he was moving at the time of his arrest. And despite an appearance on FoxNews.com's "Strategy Room" in August 2009 to discuss his case, Aitken did not testify at his trial.

 

"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."