IMO, we need to define and/or identify the “reasonable person”. IN court, they’re referred to as a “Prudent Person”. Websters says that prudent is “acting with or showing care and thought for the future”, or "wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious (having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd); discreet or circumspect (careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences ); sober. careful in providing for the future.
So the question is, “Do you think the “reasonable person” in your local community is supportive of the Second Amendment?”
Well, I have to take issue with the question, but being that I’m the only “reasonable person” that I know of in my community, so yes, I DO support the 2A.
Seriously, how are we to know who many or even WHO is the prudent people are in our community?
Anyway, you start out by talking about prosecutors and the “reasonable (or prudent) person test” in a lethal force, self-defense, (in Florida) “stand your ground” case, and then tease the conversation with the speculation that the prosecutor an jury may see the actions of a prudtn person, in YOUR CASE, different than you do/did.
Well, I was in such a case recently and yes, the prosecutor apparently DID have a different perspective on what a prudent person would do, IN MY CASE. Yes, I had a jury, but here’s the thing: The jury has to decide within certain parameters and the judge gives them the instructions. I went in with a “stand your ground” self-defense case and so they had to decide within those parameters.
What were those parameters? Well, they’re different state by state,. In Florida, we have the Castle Doctrine or “stand your ground”, and then within that, there are different situations: One is defending yourself in your home or place of business, you vehicle (o0n the route where you normally go) or private property, etc, -that case usually doesn’t go to trial. Another is when you witness a forceable felony like armed robbery, rape, arson, car jacking, etc. In thas case, there’s ONE acid test: IF he had NOT have shot that BG and stopped him, would someone else have gotten fatally harmed or killed? If the answer is yes (eye witness or video helps tremendously)- Not guilty. The other one (and the one I had) is a "one on one “encounter. SO the parameters there are disparity, ability, mental aquity (mentally retarded) > cause- was I justified in defending myself,? Also, the judge gives the jury the insrtuction, that if there is ANY doubt, they HAVE to find me not guilty.
OK, disaprity- well the first simple example is a 100lb 5’ tall woman against a 6’4”,250lb hardened felon, but also age is a factor and also, physical ability, mental aquity and preexstiing medical conditions. MIne was the last one. Due to the fact that I was recovering from recent surgery to replace torn rotator cuffs in both shoulders and the other person had NO phiysical disabilites, so the disaprity and ability went against him. We were matched in mental aquity, so YEs, I was jsutified to defend myself, so I was found NOT GUILTY, YMMV