[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.

[Cboldt]

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

See What is Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law? - Beth Karas (HLNtv). It's a simple description of the possible branches of the state case.

The burden and standard of review vary, depending on the stage of the proceeding.

Not saying you are incorrect, you aren't. Just figured you and/or others might be interested.