“Reasonable” is arbitrary and capricious and has no place in American law. It is an invitation to abuse.
I disagree. It is the very basis of our law of self defense. A jury gets to decide if you, knowing what you knew at the time, in the situation that you were in, acted reasonably in believing that you were under a serious threat.
It is not perfect, but it works pretty well most of the time.
"Reasonable" is open for subjective judgment, which is precisely the purpose of a jury. It would be nice if it could be more specific, but that would create unreasonable loopholes for murder, and any specificity you might write into the law, would be up to a DA and jury to apply validity to.
Did the man break into your home with the knife or was he invited in, shot, and a knife placed in his hand?
I beg to differ.
“Reasonable” means that the jury can use their own judgement as to “If they were in that person’s shoes at that time, with that situation, would they have shot him?”
I’d rather put my trust in the jury in this case, rather than a bunch of pinhead lawyers, especially the DA and the judge.