Skip to comments.
Brian Aitken’s Mistake - An outrageous gun prosecution in New Jersey
Reason ^
| March 2011
| Radley Balko
Posted on 03/28/2011 4:46:25 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: buccaneer81
Prosecutors only care about one thing: obtaining a conviction. They would sell their own children down the river if it put another notch in the win column. This is the reason I'm against the death penalty.
21
posted on
03/28/2011 6:40:01 PM PDT
by
Hardastarboard
(Bringing children to America without immigration documents is child abuse. Let's end it.)
To: neverdem
If it werent for a commutation Commutation,not a pardon from the closet gun grabber.
22
posted on
03/28/2011 6:50:05 PM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
To: dsc
I wonder if it would be possible to set up a system to educate potential jurors in jury nullification.Of course, but there would be new legislation shortly.
23
posted on
03/28/2011 6:52:57 PM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
To: OneWingedShark
their greatest advantage is that [most] people do not know about it.Even after the O. J. trial?
24
posted on
03/28/2011 6:55:05 PM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
To: Jonty30
The mother? What about Chris Christie who should have pardoned him?
25
posted on
03/28/2011 6:56:16 PM PDT
by
Red in Blue PA
(For the first time in my adult life, I'm scared of my government.)
To: itsahoot
>>their greatest advantage is that [most] people do not know about it.
>
>Even after the O. J. trial?
Yes.
26
posted on
03/28/2011 6:59:59 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: Red in Blue PA
He probably doesn’t want to talk to Christie either. As a governor, all he can do is look at the evidence from the trial.
If the evidence, based on the trial, shows guilt, he’d be hard pressed to free the man, especially in a blue state like New Jersey.
27
posted on
03/28/2011 7:48:36 PM PDT
by
Jonty30
To: rmlew
He also should get compensation for losing two years of his life, property, and aspirations.
28
posted on
03/28/2011 7:50:33 PM PDT
by
Jonty30
To: Jewbacca
Even the jurors who convicted him seem to have been looking for a reason to acquit Aitken. But the judge gave them little choice. The jurors had the power and the choice, they just did not know it, and were lied to by the judge. Jury nullification used to be taught in every civics class.
To: neverdem
Every American should be a fully informed juror:
http://fija.org/
The Fully Informed Jury Association is an asset to American freedom.
To: marktwain
31
posted on
03/28/2011 9:00:37 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: marktwain
The sad thing is, is that in NJ, a culture of fear and ignorance exists when it comes to firearms. You have generations of people believing that only law enforcement should have guns, that there is no reason for citizens to own firearms outside of hunting, and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean you can go around “strapping on a six shooter.” Retired law enforcement are the only “citizens” that can carry 24/7, save for a few people that are connected, and those that work in armed security. The lawsuit that the SAF has filed against the state, addresses the whole unconstitutionality of the “justifiable need” requirement, as it pertains to obtaining a permit to carry a handgun, and if you google the case, the motions to dismiss that were filed on behalf of the state are quite laughable. Pray that it rules in our favor, and that the rest of NJ’s infantile gun laws are thrown out post haste.
To: dsc
33
posted on
03/28/2011 10:35:36 PM PDT
by
TXnMA
(Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! REPEAT San Jacinto!!!)
To: marktwain
That's a site worth spreading around.
"the highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical prosecutions and bad laws imposed by a power-hungry government."
34
posted on
03/28/2011 10:45:20 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(*** Jesus ***)
To: rmlew
35
posted on
03/28/2011 10:46:45 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(*** Jesus ***)
To: dsc
And Im guessing that responses during voir dire are given under oath, so that anyone claiming no knowledge could be prosecuted for perjury. Perhaps, though anyone who is bound by oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. would also be duty-bound to oppose efforts by prosecutors to violate it; I don't think a later oath would negate the first.
36
posted on
03/29/2011 12:03:39 AM PDT
by
supercat
(Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
To: neverdem
Once you're a felon somewhere in the USA, you're a felon everywhere in the USA. In most cases, that's good, but the slippery slope has been sliding in recent years.
'Felon' used to mean 'bad person who needs to be locked away from society', but now it includes people who kill a seagull with a rolled up newspaper that tried to eat their ice cream at the beach, a dirt biker that runs over a desert tortoise, or some slob who pours his used motor oil down a storm drain. I'm sure that in some states, they'd make Dick Cheney or Michael Moore a felon just for being alive.
It's not necessary that you actually serve the sentence of a felon, only that the government 'felonizes' you through a plea deal.
What this poor bastard did in New Jersey is in no way illegal in my state.
Point is, until this is settled someday, stay out of nanny states. They're usually crime holes anyway.
To: itsahoot
Even after the O. J. trial? Between Marcia Clark et al. mishandling the case, and Judge Ito's failure to maintain control of the courtroom, there was room for reasonable doubt. Don't blame the jury for their decision.
38
posted on
03/29/2011 12:05:46 AM PDT
by
supercat
(Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
To: neverdem
It might even make some New Jersey gun owners wonder if they have more to fear from the states ridiculous laws and overly aggressive cops and prosecutors than they do from criminals. Why does the author seem to think the two groups (officials and criminals) are disjoint? A citizen's biggest fear should be of criminals (like the judge in this case) who are on the state's payroll.
39
posted on
03/29/2011 12:08:03 AM PDT
by
supercat
(Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
To: neverdem
I’ve read this story numerous times. The part I don’t get is why the limpwristed jury decided to convict him when they knew it was wrong. Those people are just as much to blame as the police, prosecutor and judge. The citizens of this country are lost. This country is lost.
40
posted on
03/29/2011 2:54:25 AM PDT
by
caver
(Obama: Home of the Whopper)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson