[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.

[101stAirborneVet]

"Reasonable" in the context of "reasonably apprehend a risk of serious personal injury" does become a question for the jury.

Almost.

The question for the jury is "did Zimmerman reasonably...", or "could Zimmerman reasonably...".

And, indeed, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not or could not have, within the scope of the event, apprehend such a risk.