If it's a matter of law, the judge is going to rule and can't punt. If it's a matter of fact, the judge should be 'punting' to the jury except for situations where, as a legal certainty, it's appropriate to rule. If there's a question of fact that must be determined to reach a decision and that fact isn't known to a legal certainty, then the jury of the defendant's peers should be determining the fact.
I'm frequently not happy with 'facts' as determining by a jury but I'd be less happy with a system where a judge (a federal judge with tenure for life, or a judge elected based on how the public perceives he or she rules) decides the facts based on his or her prejudices. And a large percentage of judges do have prejudices. That's how judges develop reputations after time on the bench. Pro-corporation. Anti-drug company. Don't believe the testimony of law enforcement officers/do believe the testimony of law enforcement officers. Harder on rapists; treat rapists the same as other defendants; believe women of flexible character had it coming, etc.
We have juries for a reason - and there are times when a defendant waives his or her right to a jury for a reason. I've served on two juries and been the chairman both times - both rape of a minor by a family member. I was stunned at how serious the jurors took it once the door to the jury room closed. People who had been kids and prima donnas in the jury box and during the trial poured over facts and testimony, and conflicting evidence. They were willing to deliberate more than a day and not rush things so everyone could talk and a new opinion could filter through the group. Almost swore I heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background.
ah but stand your ground was passed to prevent juries from making an emotional choice to in essence prevent a criminal prosecution but still throw a defendant to the civil trial attorney sharks.
If a finding on stand your ground is always going to require a fact finding then no judge will ever have to make a hard choice and it will always be punted to the jury when it should have been decided as a matter of law.
I am now wondering if this would be a matter that would allow an interlocutory appeal. (appeal before the final conclusion of the case)