'Home intruder' law vague to judge

Lexington Herald-Leader (Kentucky) ^ | 7/27/06 | Brandon Ortiz

[BenLurkin]

If Judge Sheila can't understand this law then she needs to step down and let someone else preside.

[BenLurkin]

BTW, a factual question need be submitted to a jury ONLY when there is a factual dispute.

NO mention in this article of any testimony other than that of the victim who acted in self defense.

[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.

[YOUGOTIT]

If the judge and the prosecutor cannot understand that one is allowed to defend oneself in ones home then they have a very low IQ or they are anti-American left-wing Democrats who support the criminals and not the victims.

[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.

[traditional1]

"Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."

What a maroon.

The "Court" has no business in the law whatsoever; it's their to facilitate the rights of the accused and the offended parties, coupled with a JURY who determines the outcome based on the facts.

This Judge has the mis-conception that she is some sort of God or something, and only THE JUDGE can properly determine right and wrong..........

[rovenstinez]

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

[vox_freedom]

Dear Sheila,
Ever hear of "a man's home is his castle"? He/she has a right to protect it including with the use of deadly force. Got it?

[Gay State Conservative]

First problem for *this particular" guy is that the law in question was passed after he committed the act(s) that resulted in him being charged.

[Niteranger68]

Funny. The perp ended up understanding the law quite clearly.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How is a sincere criminal, trying hard, going to get ahead in his profession if his victim fails to cooperate?
Almost all crime depends on the cooperation of the victim.
If the victim refuses his assigned role, the criminal is placed at a disadvantage, one so severe that it usually takes an understanding and compassionate judge to set right.

LAZARUS LONG

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Supporters of Senate Bill 38, also called the castle doctrine, said that previous law required Kentuckians to retreat from robbers breaking into their home or car.

Not so, Lawson says: Unlike many states, Kentucky never had such an obligation.

If the Professor is correct, then why was James Adam Clem arrested and why is he now being prosecuted? The new law didn't create a requirement to arrest and prosecute folks defending their property.

[Smogger]

Not a very informative article as to the facts of the case.

[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.

[middie]

People who offer the same conclusion are, I'd bet, the same folks who scream when judges interpret a stautue in a way they don't like. Then it becomes the case of''...an activist judge making law instead of applying what the legislature has enacted...blah, blah...''

Special interest legislation drafted by lobbyists and passed quickly by legislators anxious to appear fighting crime, or whatever the subject may be, is often the worst drafted, least precise and inarticulate mess that shows up in state and federal statues. When anyone schooled in statutory interpretation looks at a jumbled mess of words such as this it's easy to recognizes that it is unintelligable. The langusge of the Ky. statute is just that. Does the judge find immunity? His job is not as a fact finder unless a party waives a jury trial.

The law professor is an objective and learned observer whom I would trust to make such a conclusion vis-a-vis a kneejerk reaction.

[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.

[BenLurkin]

This judge is refusing to apply the law. That makes her the 'activist'.

Do you happen to know the citation for this law? I'd like to take a look at it for myself.

[1rudeboy]

A judge can direct a verdict, true, but the decision is appealable. I'm not sure a judge can dismiss a case during proceedings for lack of evidence. Evidentiary rulings are appealable in any case.

[BenLurkin]

Here is California Penal Code section 198.5. Judges haven't had an trouble interpreting it.

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."