If In Jersey

If you happen to be part of my tiny audience in New Jersey, I’d like to ask that you give Governor Christie a call.  He’s got a miscarriage of justice to fix.

Brian Aitkin was in the process of moving from Colorado to New Jersey.  He was moving a couple of handguns which he’d bought in Colorado.  He was doing everything by the book:

According to testimony [his roommate] later gave at Aitken’s trial, before leaving Colorado Aitken researched and printed out New Jersey and federal gun laws to be sure he moved his firearms legally. Richard Gilbert, Aitken’s trial attorney, says Aitken also called the New Jersey State Police to get advice on how to legally transport his guns, although Burlington County Superior Court Judge James Morley didn’t allow testimony about that phone call at Aitken’s trial.

His mother, a social worker, called the police – erroneously – while worried over his son’s mental state during his divorce, which was at the time going badly (his vile pig ex-wife was withholding visitation with his kid).  The cops turned that into an excuse to search his car, which turned out the legally-stored handguns after a two-hour search.  They arrested him – regardless that he’d stored the guns precisely in accordance with New Jersey’s draconian, fascist gun laws, and that Federal law grants lawful gun owners an exception to state gun laws if they are moving from one location to another.

Unfortunately, Aitkin had a judge even more bigoted against gun owners than the ones in Hennepin County.

The jury never heard about the moving exception, virtually guaranteeing Brian’s conviction.

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.

Brian Aitken is currently serving seven years in a state prison. Now a website and Facebook page are asking Governor Chris Christie to pardon Aitken.

Gov. Christie has proven a sensible leader and shown political courage in taking on his state’s debt-ridden “Situation.” Here’s hoping that Christie, a former prosecutor, will see that Aitken’s continued imprisonment does nothing to serve the interests of justice.

So all you folks stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps; give the Gov a call.  This has to be fixed.

16 thoughts on “If In Jersey

  1. I like Christie on most issues, but, he appears to be an East Coast lib as far as gun rights are concerned.

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » If In Jersey -- Topsy.com

  3. Even as an East Coast liberal, can’t he see “justice.”

    And what about “appeals courts”? Aren’t they supposed to rectify this sort of thing? Who’s heading up the efforts to overturn this–and, ahem, remove the judge from the bench who did this?

  4. Two people in a divorce agruing over visitation becomes “vile pig ex-wife”. Nope, no misogyny here.

    Didn’t someone at SITD post something about “keep your prejudices, your narratives, your bigotry off my body. You don’t know me. You have no idea where I’ve been and what I’ve done in my life (and I’m not going to tell you any of it here, anyway). Just as your idiot friends rushed to judge Tom Hackbarth [or the ex Mrs. Aitken] based (as I showed) entirely on narrative, screed and innuendo, so you’re doing with me.”

  5. Nope, no misogyny here

    Withholding vistitation from the other parent is vile and piggish. I was being accurate.

    Nygard the insta-psychic was judging me based on bigoted presumptions nowhere in evidence; nowhere did I say, do, think or believe anything misogynistic (other than “being male”, and that’s a premise I reject).

    On the other hand, the only thing we know about the ex Mrs. Aitken is that she did something that, absent behavior that should have landed Mr. Aitken in a prison or a psych ward, our society needs to start punishing – savagely. There is no circle of hell foul enough for such scum – no matter what their gender. (And no, it’s not sour grapes; I have little to complain about as re my divorce, and that was 10 years ago anyway).

    On this subject, on this blog, there are not two sides, and I’m not interested in your sophistry. So unless you provide such evidence, Rick, this tangent on this thread is over.

    As in “nothing more will be written about it”.

  6. According to the original article the ex-Mrs. Aitken “canceled his visit with their son” which is far different from “withholding visitation with his kid”.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20101130_Family__New_Jersey_man_serving_7_years_for_guns_he_owned_legally.html

    So, even assuming his side of the story is true, all we have is evidence the vile pig canceled one visitation. Maybe the kid had a doctors appointment. Maybe the vile pig couldn’t arrange the hand off. It is not even clear from the story that Mr. Aitken had any legal right to visitation at all.

    Perfectly decent people cancel the occassional child visitation everyday for perfectly legitimate reasons. Some people cancel a visitation for legitimate reasons, even though their ex-spouse may think the reason is illegitimate and get upset. Some of the people who cancel a child visition for an illegitimate reason do so because divorce and custody issues bring out the worst in people, not because they are vile pigs. Some people cancel visitations because the want to screw with their Ex and they are vile pigs. Neither you nor I have any idea into which category the ex-Mrs Aitken falls. Calling her a ‘vile pig’ based on one incident is exactly what you accussed Nygard of.

  7. which is far different

    Or so you assume.

    Perfectly decent people cancel the occassional child visitation everyday for perfectly legitimate reasons

    Which doesn’t normally create a spiral that causes a social worker to call the cops.

    Which was it? We don’t know. The only evidence we have is that she packed up the kid and moved 3/4 of the way across the country, away from the other parent. So while the jury is out, that is certainly evidence that, barring (currently nonexistent) evidence that Mr. Aitken was either impaired or some kind of scumbag, she’s lower than whale shit.

    Some of the people who cancel a child visition for an illegitimate reason do so because divorce and custody issues bring out the worst in people, not because they are vile pigs.

    If you let “the worst” come out of you in a form that harms your child – and depriving a child of access to the other parent without OVERWHELMING evidence of unfitness as a parent, like sustained serious substance addiction or real, serious, sustained physical abuse IS brutally harmful to children – then you should be killed with fire.

    I know, Rick – the DFL uses the term “womynandtheirchildren” as a standalone concept, fully suscribes to Margaret Meade’s doctrine (“fathers are a biological necessity and a social accident” – she’s another vile pig) and the Party will order you ostracized if you break with the party line. Duly noted.

  8. And yes, I know, you’re defending Nygard because that’s your job. But don’t compare the two. Nygard called me a misogynist because I “defended” Hackbarth (where “defended” is “made people aware of what was actually going on, and urged them to restrain their fantasy lives”, which Ms. Nygaard took as “boys will be boys”), which she took, wrongly, as me saying “boys will be boys”; under current rad-fem doctrine, failing to pile onto an accused male is regarded as a form of assault, apparently. She prejudged me based purely on prejudice and labels and no actual evidence.

    I prejudged the ex-Mrs. Aitkin, to be sure – based on evidence. Is my prejudgment wrong? If so, I’ll trample you in my rush to correct myself.

    But I have a pretty strong hunch it’s not.

  9. “Or so you assume”
    I am not assuming anything other than what is in the record. But, regardless of what happened with the Aitkens, the phrases ‘canceled his visit with their son’ and ‘withholding visitation with his kid’ mean two very different things. In the first ‘visit’ only implies a single instance i.e. one canceled appointment. In the second ”withholding visitation’ implies ongoing canelation of multiple applointments. Changing ‘visit’ to ‘visitation’ also adds the implication that Mr. Aitken had a legal right to the visit. For all we know, the vile pig was actually allowing Aitken more time with the kid than he was entitled to under the law. Notice also how you change “their kid” to “his kid”.

    Basically you re-wrote the description to make the woman seem worse.

    “Which doesn’t normally create a spiral that causes a social worker to call the cops.” Agreed, but all that proves is that either, Aitken, his ex, or his mom did not react “normally”. You leap to the assumption that it was the ex. The mom herself admits she overreacted. Maybe Aitken reacted so badly because he is an unstable person who ought not to be around children.

    “The only evidence we have is that she packed up the kid and moved 3/4 of the way across the country, away from the other parent. . . that is certainly evidence that, . . ., she’s lower than whale shit.” Baloney. Perfectly decent parents move after a divorce for all kinds of perfectly decent reasons. Maybe her parents and friends were all from NJ. Maybe she only moved to CO because of the ex-husband. Maybe she could only find a job in NJ. There are any number of reasons why a divorced parent would move, other than intentionally trying to hurt their ex. I doubt that parents who move after a divorce are any better or any worse than parent who do not move. You leap to the assumption that she has a bad motive.

    “in a form that harms your child” Grow up. A lot of kids would be happy if the worst thing that happened during a break up is one missed visitation. It is probably almost impossible to get divorced without some occassional damage to a child. That makes people human, not worthy of being “killed with fire”. Would you say Aitkin should be killed with fire if he canceled a visitation because he was having a really bad time and just could not deal with facing his ex?

  10. Perfectly decent parents move after a divorce for all kinds of perfectly decent reasons.

    No. Parents split the kids from their other parent for all sorts of reasons – none of them (except chemical or legal impairment) are decent.

    Zero.

    Every other reason there is is narcissistic and self-absorbed. Every one of them.

    Maybe her parents and friends were all from NJ.

    Oh, that’s so sweet. None of it is important as the child’s relation to the other parent.

    Maybe she only moved to CO because of the ex-husband.

    Tough. It’s not all about her (or him, if it’s a guy taking the kid and leaving) anymore.

    Maybe she could only find a job in NJ.

    Tough. Broaden her horizons or go back to school or suck it up; the kid is more important than her (or his) career.

    There are any number of reasons why a divorced parent would move, other than intentionally trying to hurt their ex.

    None of them (but addiction or criminal abuse) are good enough.

  11. Compare, “every other reason there is is narcissistic and self-absorbed” and contrast; “Maybe, maybe not. Different people react different ways. It varies. Not that “indivicual variations” matter to the typical leftist [or rightist, in this case]”. So carry a gun while emotionally distressed, answers varry. But how to sort out family life after a divorce, Mitch has the one size fits all rule.

  12. Um, Rick, when estranged spouse flies 2000 miles to visit their child, and the other ex-spouse cancels the visit, yes, that is vile. When someone makes that kind of commitment, there is basic decency not to schedule a doctor’s appointment or whatever at the same time. Sorry.

    I’m still waiting for an explanation on why this man doesn’t get a freaking appeal. Isn’t that basic in due process?

  13. What Bubbasan said.

    I am making a statement based on evidence that is available, about something that did happen.

    Nygaard was jumping to conclusions based on no evidence available, about something that didn’t happen (and defaming me in the process).

  14. Bubbasan
    “when estranged spouse flies 2000 miles to visit their child, and the other ex-spouse cancels the visit, yes, that is vile.”

    It is easy to just make up facts, but that is not what happened. In fact, Aitkin’s whole case depends on that not being true. There is no exception to the NJ gun law for visitors. The exception is for people moving between residences. Aitkin had not come to NJ for a one-off or short term visit, he had moved their permanently. If you had bothered to read the linked article “Aitken eventually decided to move back [to NJ] as well in order to be closer to his son” Once again the boys at SITD just make up stuff about a woman to call her vile. Nope no misogyny here.

    “I’m still waiting for an explanation on why this man doesn’t get a freaking appeal.”
    Try googling ‘Brian Aitken appeal’. First hit. Second page
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-man-imprisoned-gun-charge-appeals-governor-clemency/story?id=12287484&page=2
    “Napper [Aitken’s lawyer] has filed a legal appeal in state courts, which, he said, could take six to nine months.” It is like you folks actually work at not knowing the facts.

  15. It is like you folks actually work at not knowing the facts.

    Whereas it’s part of your very worldview.

    It is easy to just make up facts, but that is not what happened. In fact, Aitkin’s whole case depends on that not being true. There is no exception to the NJ gun law for visitors.

    But as the original article pointed out, there is a federal law that does in fact apply to moving.

    The exception is for people moving between residences. Aitkin had not come to NJ for a one-off or short term visit, he had moved their permanently.

    No. He was in the process of moving permanently. He had his roommate-to-be had just arrived with the car-full of stuff (which is why it took the goons so long to search it).

    If you had bothered to read the linked article “Aitken eventually decided to move back [to NJ] as well in order to be closer to his son” Once again the boys at SITD just make up stuff about a woman to call her vile.

    Wrong, again, Rick. As usual. You’re the one inferring grounds for the ex-wife’s behavior; we’re the ones basing our conclusions on available facts. The gun law is really not at issue.

    Nope no misogyny here.

    I urge you to say that to my face, or drop it.

    Seriously. No joking or smack talk here. Drop it.

  16. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Justice. Almost.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.