TexasCHLforum.com

I keep seeing this phrase, "reasonable person". I did a search and its all over the place here on the forum. Maybe I've even used it myself once or twice. But, in layman's terms (versus pure legal language), what is a "reasonable person"? How can I know if MY actions are those of a "reasonable person"? I ask because the term seems subjective and thus open to interpretation...which could lead to trouble on down the line.

(I'm sure this has been asked before, but I couldn't find it with a search and over 150 pages came up when I searched for the term itself. If I've posted this in the wrong place, please feel free to move it. Thank you.)

It's someone who didn't get out of jury duty.

bayouhazard wrote:It's someone who didn't get out of jury duty.

I understand what you did there, but I'm talking more like a definition, in plain English.

That's the whole point of the jury system. Normal people are supposed to imagine themself in the same situation, knowing what you knew or should have known, and decide if your actions were reasonable. For example, could they imagine themselves doing the same thing?

Fortunately a Grand Jury will review felony charges before it makes it to trial.

In layman's terms:

"A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."

Good luck

The whole "reasonable person" concept is great when you have a single culture.

Toss in the glory and pretense of "diversity", and "reasonable" becomes meaningless.

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an overweight person would examine and control their diet and exercise to improve their health?

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an individual is responsible for their own security?

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an individual is responsible for providing food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their family?

I would answer yes to each of those questions, however, others would answer no.

So, who's "reasonable"?

Apparently, nobody.

K.Mooneyham wrote:But, in layman's terms (versus pure legal language), what is a "reasonable person"?

A reasonable person is a person who can reason.

"Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, for establishing and verifying facts ..."

What Ihave always been told is "Be reasonable do it my way"

K.Mooneyham wrote:I keep seeing this phrase, "reasonable person". I did a search and its all over the place here on the forum. Maybe I've even used it myself once or twice. But, in layman's terms (versus pure legal language), what is a "reasonable person"? How can I know if MY actions are those of a "reasonable person"? I ask because the term seems subjective and thus open to interpretation...which could lead to trouble on down the line.

(I'm sure this has been asked before, but I couldn't find it with a search and over 150 pages came up when I searched for the term itself. If I've posted this in the wrong place, please feel free to move it. Thank you.)

NOT a liberal!

In the context it's usually used (the 'reasonable person' standard) in the law, it's someone of "normal" education, without specialized knowledge -- i.e. the "average joe."

One of the reasons lawyers almost never want other lawyers on a jury is because the specialized training and use of language and interpretation of the law as written is not "common" to the rest of us. DItto the reason LEO's are very rarely seated on juries.

In a case regarding firearms or self-defense, the odds are pretty good that one or the other lawyers wouldn't want most of us -- as a rule we have more knowledge of the specifics around firearms and self defense law and application than the "average" guy on the street.

At least that's my layman's interpretation of the "reasonable person" that is so often referenced and so rarely actually located.

They left the definition vague on purpose to allow some flexibility in the law. What it comes down to is what would most other people do, given the situation? That will depend on the actual scenario, including time of day, weather, distance, age differences, amount of force used, location, and on and on.....

There are far too many variables in a self-defense situation to be able to lay out black and white guidelines of how someone should react to be considered acting in self defense. Hence what a "reasonable person", or most other people would do if faced with a similar scenario. That is, put in your shoes, would they react in a similar fashion?

What is reasonable out in the country may be considered different than in urban areas. Depends on the arresting agency, the prosecuting attorney and the juries....

Its what a jury panel decides. What is a reasonable person to you or me might not be what a jury would decide, or it could be exactly what we believe.

cbunt1 wrote:In the context it's usually used (the 'reasonable person' standard) in the law, it's someone of "normal" education, without specialized knowledge -- i.e. the "average joe."

One of the reasons lawyers almost never want other lawyers on a jury is because the specialized training and use of language and interpretation of the law as written is not "common" to the rest of us. DItto the reason LEO's are very rarely seated on juries.

In a case regarding firearms or self-defense, the odds are pretty good that one or the other lawyers wouldn't want most of us -- as a rule we have more knowledge of the specifics around firearms and self defense law and application than the "average" guy on the street.

At least that's my layman's interpretation of the "reasonable person" that is so often referenced and so rarely actually located.

So, to make sure I've got what you are saying, if the case had something to do with cars, the lawyers would likely be against having an ASE-certified mechanic on the jury?

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:The whole "reasonable person" concept is great when you have a single culture.

Toss in the glory and pretense of "diversity", and "reasonable" becomes meaningless.

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an overweight person would examine and control their diet and exercise to improve their health?

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an individual is responsible for their own security?

Is it "reasonable" to believe that an individual is responsible for providing food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their family?

I would answer yes to each of those questions, however, others would answer no.

So, who's "reasonable"?

Apparently, nobody.

And THIS is what I was kind of worrying about when thinking about the term "reasonable"...