7 year prison sentence commuted by christie of n.j.

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by JayJay, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. JayJay

    JayJay Well-Known Member

    3,104
    98
    Aitken 7 Year Prison Sentence Commuted By NJ Governor

    We can only speculate about Governor Christie’s motivations in this particular instance. Did he commute Mr. Aitken’s sentence because he believed in compassion and justice? Or, is this a political move designed to increase his popularity among gun owners for a possible 2012 Presidential bid?

    (FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND READ ABOUT CHRISTIE, WE NEED MORE LIKE HIM IN OFFICE, AND YEAH, WHY NOT PRESIDENT?? I BET HE HAS LIVED HERE 14 YEARS, HAS A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HIS FATHER IS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, AND HE'S 35 YEARS OF AGE!!! WANNA GUESS WHICH ONE MAKES BARRY INELIGIBLE??!!)
     
  2. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    tinfoil hat time (for me) :rolleyes:

    Not knowing the particulars, he seems to be the perfect candidate (target?)for Privatized Prison abuses; an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding, non-boat-rocking citizen who thinks that "the system works" & he couldn't possibly be convicted of such a 'crime'... :gaah:

    I am actually for Prison Privatization, in many cases it has shown to be more effective in rehabilitation, with a lower recidivism rate, while maintaining a lower per diem, sometimes significantly. As all ya'all know, I'm NO fan of Big Brother, but there does need to be some form of oversight (and transparency) to prevent abuses...

    perhaps people who have been affected by crime would care to get the training and make the commitment to the public good? :dunno:

    I have NO easy solutions, just ideas...
     

  3. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    So, what about the poor guy? Does 'commutation' mean he's still a 'felon' unable to possess firearms for the rest of his life?

    Gee, thanks, Mom! :mad:
     
  4. SurviveNthrive

    SurviveNthrive a dude

    654
    0
    One issue...

    Gun owners are making this individual a Cause célèbre, for gun rights, however, this fool brought this upon himself with a stupid manipulative statement he made to his mother that panicked her. He initiated this by talking stupidly without thinking about consequences or to make impact in that conversation.

    I don't want him to be a gun owner:

    On that day, Aitken, an entrepreneur, media consultant and graduate student, had told his mother that his life wasn't worth living anymore after his ex-wife canceled visitation with their young son. When he left the house, Sue Aitken called the police out of concern, but hung up before they answered.

    He told his mother life isn't worth living, hung up and according to a report didnt' answer the phone so she called the cops. He did this in such a manner that his mother felt he wasn't blowing off steam. He deliberately and wilfully used trigger words which is manipulative or telling.


    Freed, gun-owner wants to clear his name | Philadelphia Daily News | 12/22/2010

    I don't want our gun rights tied to the actions and choices of this individual. He needed to lose his firearms rights for what he said. Should he be in prison? No, certainly not. Should he ever have his firearms returned? No! This clown might off himself and provide fodder for anti gunners.
     
  5. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    Survive, you stated, "He needed to lose his firearms rights for what he said."

    Hmmmm. No trial or anything, huh? So if someone claims you said something 'off the wall', bang. You lose your 2nd Amendment rights.

    And no. He was not tried and sent to prison for possessing a gun and saying life isn't worth living. He was sent to prison for possessing a firearm without proper licensing and possessing (gag gag) hollow point bullets.

    Bear in mind, he did not threaten himself or anyone else. He was simply despondent because he would not see his kids. As a sidebar, a relative of mine has been suffering from a severe intestinal disorder for most of his life. Many times when he has been in pain and his life was completely disrupted, he has stated he wishes he would just die. No he has not killed himself -- but he should have no right to own firearms?

    How many times have you (and the rest of us) said something like, "I'd like to kill that little creep." Boom! We lose our right to possess firearms.

    You take 2nd Amendment rights a little more lightly than I do.
     
  6. SurviveNthrive

    SurviveNthrive a dude

    654
    0
    Bear in mind, he did not threaten himself or anyone else. He was simply despondent because he would not see his kids. As a sidebar, a relative of mine has been suffering from a severe intestinal disorder for most of his life. Many times when he has been in pain and his life was completely disrupted, he has stated he wishes he would just die. No he has not killed himself -- but he should have no right to own firearms?

    How many times have you (and the rest of us) said something like, "I'd like to kill that little creep." Boom! We lose our right to possess firearms.

    Whoa! I don't know what training you have, but during the times I've been authorized to carry a firearm on duty we'd pull the firearm from and put under investigation any one of ours who made a statement like that!

    But even on a personal level, why would any mature male say something like that? Maybe it comes from something my football coach said, maybe it was the Marines or Army, but I wouldn't say something like that because because it serves no purpose. I wouldn't sasy 'I'd like to kill that little creep' because it's stupid, inaccurate, and valueless to say such things, and if a person really wanted to kill someone, why would he voice something that can be used against him?

    How many times have you see some fool become the prime suspect because he made stupid threats? He either telegraphed intent or else his mouth got his *** in trouble and it served no purpose. If the person says "I didn't mean it" well, he's a liar, one way or another.

    If violence is necessary and merited, it's just done and a statement about killing is taken seriously if a person is good to their word. It'd take a whole lot for me to want to kill someone.

    When a person chooses to carry a firearm, such a statement is juvenile and foolish and counter productive. Heck, it's even evidence. Why express a fecklessness? Someone who goes around saying such things certainly shouldn't be carrying firearms.

    You take 2nd Amendment rights a little more lightly than I do.

    I take my right to bear arms deadly seriously. One doesn't get in a confrontation that's unnecessary. One is polite in person when one carries. One doesn't make threats or stupid statements about self harm.

    But beyond firearms, why would any grown man make a statement that he wouldn't back? This is akin to writing wolf tickets or lying.



    In this case he:

    "told his mother that his life wasn't worth living anymore"
     
  7. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    as much as I hate to suppress individuals' liberties, SnT has a point that he may be unqualified to possess firearms for psychiatric reasons, and he is right in pointing out that he should definitely not be a 'poster boy' for gun rights, IMO no one should & in saying that I mean that if there were a poster with a 'poster boy/girl' on it that it would have 330 million faces, because THAT is the true representative and beneficiary of gun rights advocates
     
  8. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    The Columbia v. Heller decision supposedly allows convicted fellons to own firearms for 'home defense'... lightly defined terms & sofar uncontested :rolleyes:


    The Gun Control Act of 1968 further defines a prohibited person under Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 44. A prohibited person is one who has been convicted or is under indictment for a term exceeding 1 year; is a fugitive from justice; is a user of unlawful and/or addictive controlled substances; is mentally defective; is an illegal alien or has renounced citizenship; has been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. armed services; or individuals who are subject to a court order of restraint. To be excluded from the list of prohibited persons, convicted felons must determine which sets of statutes are involved. If a federal court rendered the conviction, then the restoration is handled under federal law. If the conviction came under a state court, then the individual can seek relief on the state level. However, there are cases of violent crimes that cannot be adjudicated on the state level. Convicted felons can have their civil rights restored, including in some cases, the right to own a firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 addresses the restoration of firearm rights. However, there are significant roadblocks in the form of dead-end procedures and loopholes in the legal jargon. Reinstating the rights to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury can be obtained through mandates in state law but, at times, federal and state laws conflict when considering firearms. Petitions for removal of the federal firearms disability can be directed to the U.S. Attorney General. In turn, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reviews these petitions. However, Congress repeatedly denies the funds necessary to review these petitions. By refusing to fund the ATF review process, Congress suspends the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the federal district courts to review convicted felons' applications for restoration of their firearm privileges... awfully convenient :rolleyes:
    There is no legal distinction between violent & non-violent offenders when it comes to the Gun Control Act of 1968, a felon is a felon. There is a legal process that can facilitate a restoration of civil rights, but the Supreme Court ruled in Beecham vs. U.S., 114 S.Ct.1669, (1994) that even if the felon's civil rights have been restored under state law, federal firearms disabilities continue to apply to a person convicted of a federal offense. The best way for a convicted felon to receive the right to bear a firearm is to obtain a presidential pardon. This is not an easy process but can restore the federal felon's rights to vote, serve on jury, hold public office and own a gun. There is little other recourse under legal statute for a convicted felon who wishes to own a firearm legally.