Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 (edited) Really? How? Was he in the process of moving? No, he was driving around with guns in his trunk in New Jersey. Well, you don't like the laws, and call them total crap, and are supporting someone who broke those laws. On January 2, 2009 Brian was arrested for illegal possession of firearms while moving from one residence from another. All of the firearms were legally owned—Brian passed three different FBI background checks to purchase and had even cleared an FBI screening for employment as a data researcher handling confidential information for a banking security software firm. His integrity, character, and right to own was not in question…so what was? ..... 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. ....... During the trial it became clear to everyone in the courtroom that Brian fit the exemptions of the law for moving between residences. However, the judge withheld the law from the jury, thereby ensuring a guilty verdict. Regardless, the jury returned from deliberation three times specifically requesting to be read the exemptions of the law. One can only assume that this was so they could find Brian not guilty. Link Based on the above I say he was in the process of moving as well as the comments made by his parents and the guy he was moving in with. How does thinking a state's law is stupid equate into me hating The Constitution? If anything I've slammed the state for infringing on the rights granted by the second amendment. Why do you hate The Constitution? Edited November 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 hypothetical Prosecution: Were you moving? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Where you moving from MT. Laurel to Hoboken? Aitken yes Prosecution: DId you put the guns in your car in Mt. Laurel to take them to Hoboken? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did you go to Hoboken once the guns were in the trunk of the car? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did the police search your car in Mt. Laurel? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Was this after you returned from your trip to Hoboken? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did the police find guns in your car? Aitken: yes Prosecution: So you were transporting the guns illegally then Aitken: ummm well Perch says NJ laws suck and are to restrictive so NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Link Based on the above I say he was in the process of moving as well as the comments made by his parents and the guy he was moving in with. How does thinking a state's law is stupid equate into me hating The Constitution? If anything I've slammed the state for infringing on the rights granted by the second amendment. Why do you hate The Constitution? You're linking to his website, lofl. I tried to spell it out for you as best as I could. Unless he was literally driving from moving point 1 to moving point 2 it doesn't matter how many flipping residences he has, how much crap he had in his car, etc, he doesn't meet the exemption, regardless of how you or his website want to believe he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Link Based on the above I say he was in the process of moving as well as the comments made by his parents and the guy he was moving in with. How does thinking a state's law is stupid equate into me hating The Constitution? If anything I've slammed the state for infringing on the rights granted by the second amendment. Why do you hate The Constitution? So he packs his car goes and drives around with guns in it...returns to the place that he was moving from and still has all his stuff packed in his car...he wasn't in the process of moving....he had packed and went and did other business...if he was in the process of moving the car would have been empty on the return visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 hypothetical Prosecution: Were you moving? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Where you moving from MT. Laurel to Hoboken? Aitken yes Prosecution: DId you put the guns in your car in Mt. Laurel to take them to Hoboken? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did you go to Hoboken once the guns were in the trunk of the car? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did the police search your car in Mt. Laurel? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Was this after you returned from your trip to Hoboken? Aitken: yes Prosecution: Did the police find guns in your car? Aitken: yes Prosecution: So you were transporting the guns illegally then Aitken: ummm well Perch says NJ laws suck and are to restrictive so NO Your reading comprehension on this leaves a lot to be desired. He didn't get to Hoboken, he was turned around by police and asked to return to his parents house. You did read that right? Or are you just getting your kicks by arguing with me without actually reading all that has been posted and linked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I didn't even have to read the rest of the thread to agree with the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 You're linking to his website, lofl. I tried to spell it out for you as best as I could. Unless he was literally driving from moving point 1 to moving point 2 it doesn't matter how many flipping residences he has, how much crap he had in his car, etc, he doesn't meet the exemption, regardless of how you or his website want to believe he does. So he packs his car goes and drives around with guns in it...returns to the place that he was moving from and still has all his stuff packed in his car...he wasn't in the process of moving....he had packed and went and did other business...if he was in the process of moving the car would have been empty on the return visit. See post #30 as it applies to both of these posts. He was asked by the police to return to his parents house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 The laws suck I think that's the real point here. perch is right that he owned them legally, he just apparently wasn't transporting them legally because new jersey is still a ridiculous nanny state with moronic laws and apparently judges and prosecutors who will prosecute those moronic laws to the absurd extreme. yay for gun control laws keeping everyone safe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 he was turned around by police and asked to return to his parents house. Going from where to where? If he was already in New Jersey at the residence where he was moving to, he can't leave that residence with the guns. You're really not this dense, are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I think that's the real point here. perch is right that he owned them legally, he just apparently wasn't transporting them legally because new jersey is still a ridiculous nanny state with moronic laws and apparently judges and prosecutors who will prosecute those moronic laws to the absurd extreme. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 Going from where to where? If he was already in New Jersey at the residence where he was moving to, he can't leave that residence with the guns. You're really not this dense, are you? He was traveling from his parents house in Mr. Laurel to his house in Hoboken. He was moving the guns along with a trunk full of other crap which it took the police 2 hours and 39 minutes to go through before finding the guns which were unloaded and locked. Why don't you actually try reading the articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 I think that's the real point here. perch is right that he owned them legally, he just apparently wasn't transporting them legally because new jersey is still a ridiculous nanny state with moronic laws and apparently judges and prosecutors who will prosecute those moronic laws to the absurd extreme. yay for gun control laws keeping everyone safe! I'm not sure that he wasn't transporting them legally, as he was moving his belongings from his parents house to his house. The jury requested the statute for the moving exemption three different times during their deliberations and the judge denied them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 It's my understanding that an attorney cannot bring up new evidence in closing, only during the trial. (of course, I could be wrong). Did the judge prevent laws/evidence from being presented during the trial or during closing argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 It's my understanding that an attorney cannot bring up new evidence in closing, only during the trial. (of course, I could be wrong). Did the judge prevent laws/evidence from being presented during the trial or during closing argument? I'm not sure? It appears as though it was brought up during closing arguments, but still why not allow the statute to be known the to jury? What harm could come of it, other than a needless conviction going by the wayside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I'm not sure? It appears as though it was brought up during closing arguments, but still why not allow the statute to be known the to jury? What harm could come of it, other than a needless conviction going by the wayside. Sounds like the defense attorney did a poor job. Why not bring up all of this evidence and the statutes during the trial? It makes absolutely no sense not to bring up evidence/statutes that demonstrates the client is innocent during the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I'm not sure that he wasn't transporting them legally, as he was moving his belongings from his parents house to his house. The jury requested the statute for the moving exemption three different times during their deliberations and the judge denied them. you may be right perch, but if so, I imagine his attorney would have brought it up in court. and if he tried and it wasn't allowed, it seems like a pretty solid basis for appeal. my presumption here is that, one way or another, he violated the letter of the new jersey law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 What a schitty place NJ sounds like, glad I've only had to visit the airport there, and it even sucked. Sounds like the spirit of the law was schit on. Like going one mile per hour over the speed limit and getting cited for wreck-less driving. Complete and utter crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Your reading comprehension on this leaves a lot to be desired. He didn't get to Hoboken, he was turned around by police and asked to return to his parents house. You did read that right? Or are you just getting your kicks by arguing with me without actually reading all that has been posted and linked? In between jobs, his well-oiled life was running ragged, and on Jan. 2, 2009, when his ex canceled his visit with their son, he became distraught, muttered something to his mother, and left his parents' home in Mount Laurel, N.J. "He said something that scared her, things that a guy will only say to his mom, like . . . 'Life's not worth living anymore,' " said Larry Aitken, Brian's father. Sue Aitken, a trained social worker, decided to play it safe and called police, but she hung up before the 9-1-1 dispatcher could answer. Police traced the call and showed up anyway, and found two handguns in the trunk of Brian's car. And now Brian, her middle child, a graduate student with no prior criminal record, is serving a seven-year prison sentence for weapons charges. I missed this part as I must have skimmed over it. When Mount Laurel police arrived at the Aitkens' home on Jan. 2, 2009, they called Brian - who was driving to Hoboken - and asked him to return to his parents' home because they were worried. still if they thought it was an important part of the case why not bring it up at trial? try to sneak something in during closing arguments I can see why a judge might not allow that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Sounds like the defense attorney did a poor job. Why not bring up all of this evidence and the statutes during the trial? It makes absolutely no sense not to bring up evidence/statutes that demonstrates the client is innocent during the trial. this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I think that's the real point here. perch is right that he owned them legally, he just apparently wasn't transporting them legally because new jersey is still a ridiculous nanny state with moronic laws and apparently judges and prosecutors who will prosecute those moronic laws to the absurd extreme. yay for gun control laws keeping everyone safe! This, I agree with. Perch is trying to make more out of it than what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Sounds like the defense attorney did a poor job. Why not bring up all of this evidence and the statutes during the trial? It makes absolutely no sense not to bring up evidence/statutes that demonstrates the client is innocent during the trial. the law itself isn't "evidence", so it doesn't have to be brought up during the evidentiary part of the trial (although the actual evidence as to where he started, where he was going, etc. would have to be established). if anything, the moving exemption thing should have been part of a jury instruction. if the guy had an actual attorney, it's hard to imagine he would have neglected to bring this up at all. I imagine at some point there had to be a ruling from the judge that the exemption didn't apply for whatever reason. if it clearly should have, it seems like a no-brainer appeal. but again, I would presume that he DID violate the letter of the law in some fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2010 Author Share Posted November 30, 2010 This, I agree with. Perch is trying to make more out of it than what it is. And what exactly am I trying to make of this old wise one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 And what exactly am I trying to make of this old wise one? Focus on the statements you made that were flat out wrong, yet again, and you maybe able to answer this question yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I am shocked that bushwacked's contribution upon joining this discussion is to immediately begin humping perch's leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I am shocked that bushwacked's contribution upon joining this discussion is to immediately begin humping perch's leg. bushwacked : Perch = Az : bpwallace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.