If you spend much time in the self-defense world, you’ll hear phrases that might seem confusing, or at least not entirely normal. There are a lot of specific legal terms surrounding self-defense and the criminal and civil courts, and it can be useful if you’re at least somewhat familiar with what they mean. One such term is “reasonable person,” which is part of the “reasonable person standard.” What exactly is a reasonable person? Why does it matter, and who gets to decide whether or not you are one? We’re going to answer those questions and take a look at how this standard fits into the legal system and your life as a self-defender.
First, a disclaimer: This is not legal advice it’s simply the sharing of information. This information does not and should not take the place of advice from a qualified attorney.
What is the reasonable person standard?
Legally speaking, the reasonable person standard is one of the standards by which a person’s actions are measured in court. That means you’ve been charged with a crime and now you’re on trial. This standard involves a hypothetical person — the reasonable person — and asks the question of whether or not a reasonable person would have done the same thing in your position. Other legal factors to consider within the context of the reasonable person standard include things like the totality of the circumstances. We’ll get into that soon as well.
When is this standard used?
The reasonable person standard is used in court proceedings, typically by the jury. Two things are important to note here: the standard isn’t only for criminal court but is also often used in civil proceedings. Also, the standard isn’t only for juries. It’s not a law, it’s a standard, and it can be referenced or applied by anyone in the case.
Why isn’t the reasonable person standard a law?
Although you might see standards and laws as two sides of the same coin, they’re pretty different. Generally speaking, laws are set by legislative bodies. A law has legal implications, is legally binding, and has legal consequences if you break it. Standards aren’t legally binding. Yes, the way a standard is applied to the situation can impact the legal outcome, but the standard itself is not a law.
Standards, while they’re meant to be applied objectively, are colored by the experiences and knowledge level of the person or people applying them. It’s nice to say the reasonable person standard is objective, but in reality, it’s rare for a standard to be truly free of outside influence.
Laws are, by nature, meant to be more black-and-white or cut-and-dried. Of course, being charged with a crime doesn’t mean you’re going to be convicted. That’s where things like the reasonable person standard come into play — to allow a so-called jury of your peers to make these major choices about your life. As you can see, there’s a world of different terms and phrases and there are real nuances between them. It’s helpful to understand some of these before you ever find yourself or a loved one in a legal battle. Aside from that, it’s useful to be familiar with them because it can help you better understand how self-defense works from a legal perspective. If you carry a firearm for self-defense purposes, you should spend time learning about both the criminal and civil legal systems.
Who is a reasonable person?
If you’re talking about the reasonable person referenced in the standard, that person doesn’t exist. There is no actual reasonable person that the standard references. Instead, it’s a hypothetical person who is logical, rational, and mentally well who is put into the position you — or whoever is being charged — were put in. Would this reasonable person have had the same reaction you did, considering the totality of the circumstances? Or would a reasonable person not have done what you did? Do your actions meet the reasonable person standard? If they fail to do so, you’re likely on your way to a conviction.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a reasonable person is:
- A hypothetical person used as a legal standard, esp. to determine whether someone acted with negligence; specif., a person who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgement that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests. * The reasonable person acts sensibly, does things without serious delay, and takes proper but not excessive precautions.
What is the totality of circumstances?
When we’re talking about the reasonable person standard it’s helpful to also consider what the totality of circumstances means. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the totality of circumstances test means:
- Under this test — which replaced Aguilar-Spinelli’s two-pronged approach — the reliability of the hearsay is weighed by focusing on the entire situation as described in the probable-cause affidavit, and not on any one specific factor.
That definition applies to the test. Generally speaking, when the totality of circumstances are brought up it’s a reference to the need to consider everything that was going on, and that the person was aware of, at that time. Things you didn’t know at the time, like what was in your assailant’s pockets, aren’t supposed to be included. It applies only to the circumstances of the moment, not the before and after.
Bottom line: when the totality of the circumstances are considered in court and in relation to the reasonable person standard, it means considering everything that was going on that the person in question knew about in the moment, not later, and how it impacted events.
Are you a reasonable person?
The decision of whether or not your actions make you a reasonable person according to the standard is going to be up to the jury (or whoever is using it as a measure of your actions). The reasonable person standard is meant to be objective, meaning it is meant to be applied neutrally and not colored by outside opinions, but we’re all shaped by our experiences and opinions. It’s difficult to remove your opinions and experiences from a decision-making process entirely, so keep that in mind when you consider what the legal system might consider reasonable.
Your actions might seem perfectly reasonable, to you. To an outsider with no experience or understanding of self-defense — and maybe this other person has also never had to face or deal with violence — those actions might not seem so reasonable.
When you consider the reasonable person standard as it might apply to a self-defense scenario, remember that it has to do with reasonable use of force and escalation. Is it reasonable to draw your gun when you’re faced with a confused dementia patient? Probably not, although the totality of circumstances might affect it if the patient in question is violent and becomes an immediate, credible threat.
Take the time to educate yourself about legal terms and standards and how they are applied. It can save a lot of confusion later and might even influence your decisions in a positive manner today.
