Is the Reasonable Person Test Adaptable?

We’ve talked a bunch about the Reasonable Person Test including under this topic: Self-Defense Defense-Understanding the "Reasonable Person Test"

But there’s a twist that we haven’t talked about yet. What if your reality is totally different than a “normal” reasonable person?

"Preservation is instinctive and then when you have abuse, whether it be psychological abuse, verbal abuse, or certainly physical abuse or a combination of them then you have fear, and when you have someone that lives in fear, their reactions, depending on the circumstances, are going to be different than someone who has lived a rational happy life,”

That quote comes from this article about 17-year-old Anthony Templet:

It’s an ugly and very sad situation. Do you think someone subject to prolonged emotional, mental, and/or physical abuse should have different criteria for self-defense than the reasonable person test?

Do you think the reasonable person test can adapt to this type of situation?

1 Like

It always has been but with a Gender Bias. I’ve known of quite a few cases over the years where the “Abused Wife/Spouse” defense has been used successfully.

I have yet to hear of a case where a man has used it with any success.

I’ve seen it work well enough for women to avoid charges completely, or to get “No Billed” by a grand jury when the DA didn’t want to make the call him/herself.

If you are tried, of course it’s always up to the jury and anything can happen. Remember, OJ was “Not Guilty” and many clear cut lawful self defense, Felony Assault, Attempted Murder, and Murders trials resulted in conviction due to various biases.

What is reasonable and lawful at trial always falls to the jury and judges are loathe to set aside verdicts because of appellate issues.

1 Like