[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.

[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.