[Tax-chick]

"To go into whether he is immune clearly requires fact-intensive decisions" that judges should not make, Isaac said.

That's true, to an extent. For instance, whether the dead man was genuinely an intruder, or was invited in and then killed by the occupant, is a question of fact that is extremely relevant.

[Huntress]

Agreed. It would be interesting to see a the text of the law. There are a lot of poorly written statutes on the books. They are hard to interpret, and often make bad precedent when they are.

[rovenstinez]

People seems at times that they don't have any basic rights that supposedly were guranteed in the Constitution.

[Gay State Conservative]

That's true, to an extent. For instance, whether the dead man was genuinely an intruder, or was invited in and then killed by the occupant, is a question of fact that is extremely relevant.

Unless I'm mistaken (and that's a real possibility) a judge presiding over a jury trial in a criminal case has the power to unilaterally declare a defendant not guilty or to dismiss the charges against said defendant due to what *he/she* believes to be insufficient evidence and has the power to do that at any point in the proceedings...even after a jury declares that defendant to be guilty.

I'll patient await any lawyer's post telling me that I'm full of beans.

[Hazcat]

That's true, to an extent. For instance, whether the dead man was genuinely an intruder, or was invited in and then killed by the occupant, is a question of fact that is extremely relevant.

And this report does not make that clear or that the shooter was in fear of his life.

[taxcontrol]

But isn't that question normally decided by a grand jury?