I can imagine that at least some of the jurors felt intimidated by the judge. If you have ever been called to jury duty, one of the things the judge says is that the jury must decide based on the facts and the law. What is one to do when it seems that not all the facts are presented or the law itself is unjust?

My answer: jury nullification.

Of course anyone who is considered for a jury who utters those words will most likely be excused from serving. I do however, think there is a good way around this. I believe natural law trumps any law that is contrary to the rights of life, liberty, and property. I could in good conscious argue that the New Jersey law is contrary to both the 2nd Amendment and the natural right of self defense.

I think in this case, however; the jurors ultimately decided to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt instead of Mr. Aitken.