Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootistPRS
...Judges rarely act to question the law, they just judge whether the law was broken. ....
|
That's such a gross oversimplification as to be essentially meaningless.
The legal system is about resolving disputes. Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal are tools judges use to decide outcomes.
During the course of proceedings in court to resolve a matter, various questions can arise which will involve a judge having to decide various questions based on the judge's conclusions about what various "laws" mean and how they apply to the particular subject in the particular context.
So there are laws about how proceedings are conducted -- rules of jurisdiction, of procedure and of evidence. And there are substantive rules relating to the ultimate question before the court.
At various time in the course of the proceedings the judge will need to decide various questions as a matter of law and raised by the parties, for example: was the action brought in the correct court; is there actually a justiciable controversy; does the court have jurisdiction over all necessary parties; was evidence properly obtained; is a law material to the subject matter valid; etc. Finally, the process will lead to a conclusion, for example: the defendant was negligent in the operation of his car and owes the plaintiff $100,000; or all matters related to the administration of the estate are concluded and the executor may now distribute the property according to the will; or the defendant is guilty of murder and will go to prison; or the law under which the defendant was charged is invalid and he goes free.
And by the way, a trial is all about resolving disputes of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootistPRS
....That thought process is what kept a felon who used a gun in self defense from being prosecuted for possession of a firearm. It was decided that he had a right to defend himself. There was no prosecution for possession.
|
Really? How do you know? Can you cite the case and provide documentation about what actually happened, how it happened and why?
It is conceivable that a prohibited person taking transient possession of a gun for justified self defense under exigent circumstances might not be prosecuted. There can be a variety of reasons for such a result.
There's a legal principle sometimes referred to as the "doctrine of necessity." That basically says that a violation of the law may be excused when the action contrary to law is necessary to save human life.
There's also prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor might decide not to pursue a criminal charge under some circumstances.
On the other hand, there was the case of Bernie Goetz. He was charged with assault for shooting the guys trying to rob him and also for having possession of a gun illegally. He was acquitted on the assault charges but went to prison for the weapons violation.