[101stAirborneVet]

He or she reasonably believes

'Reasonable' in the eyes of the jury. Not "reasonable" in the mind of...George Zimmerman...

Uh, what?

[Cboldt]

"Reasonable" in the context of "reasonably apprehend a risk of serious personal injury" does become a question for the jury. The person facing the charge, in this case, Zimmerman, does not get to assert, un challenged, that his belief was reasonable.

And Martin's estate, if it was able to sue under FL law, would not get to self-define "reasonable" for Martin's actions (punching Zimmerman) either.

[Darren McCarty]

Whether Zimmerman was "reasonable" in his claim of self-defense (an affirmative defense) is a question for the jury if the state/county finds probable cause to charge him for manslaughter (or murder, but I'll be surprised there).

The question is whether or not Zimmerman acted as a reasonable man would act. If the state has probable cause that he did not, they will charge him, and a jury will make the ultimate decision.