Many people have heard of the “reasonable person” standard, but few understand what that term actually means, especially in self-defense cases. This is because we all think of ourselves as reasonable people. The reasonable person test, also known as the reasonable man standard, is a legal concept used to judge whether actions taken by a defendant were justifiable under the circumstances. But the reasonable person used in the criminal law is a legal fiction: someone who doesn’t exist in reality and has been created as a vehicle to analyze other people’s actions. Therein lies the rub: How do you know the “reasonable person” is, in fact, reasonable?
What Is the Reasonable Person Standard?
If you ask a lawyer, a reasonable person is a person who is rational, empathetic and in most other ways ordinary. But not every person is ordinary, and over time two different analytical factors come into play when applying the reasonable person standard. The first factor is objective. It involves determining whether a self-defender’s actions are in line with what a rational and prudent individual would do in the same or similar situation. This focuses on the standards of a civil society, and, of course, common sense. It disregards traits that are personal to an individual, like, for example, being easily frightened.
The second factor is subjective in that it recognizes that people have varying levels of education, perceptional abilities, experience and personal traits that may directly influence their decision-making. It considers factors such as age, physical and mental condition, and even specific knowledge that might not be commonly held. This allows for a degree of flexibility in the application of the standard.
Essentially a juror first places himself or herself in the position of the defendant. Did the defendant act as they would have acted in the same situation? If so, they meet the reasonable person standard. But what if they would not have acted in much the same way. Then the juror needs to consider whether their actions were a product of their ability to perceive, their education or their prior experience.
Defining the Reasonable Person in Self-Defense Cases
In self-defense shooting cases, the test of the reasonable person is applied to assess if the force used was proportionate to the threat faced. Consider a 68-year-old man looking at the actions of an 18-year-old man. If he determines that the defendant acted in a manner that he wouldn’t act in the same situation, he then must consider whether, at age 18, he would have done the same thing. The standard accommodates these differences.
In courts across America every day jurors apply a reasonable person standard in negligence cases. People do stupid things every day and are judged by this same standard when money is on the line. In criminal law, there are numerous examples of the reasonable person standard being the determining factor in whether someone was convicted of murder or set free. The reasonable person test helps jurors decide whether a defendant’s belief that they were in imminent danger was justified.
Notable Examples of the Reasonable Person Standard
Consider the case of George Zimmerman. Much like Kyle Rittenhouse in 2020, Zimmerman put himself in a situation where he felt he had to defend himself from an attack. The jury applied the reasonable person test to assess whether his actions were justifiable under the circumstances. The behavior that created the need for self-defense was, by itself, not reasonable. Zimmerman should have called the police and let them handle it. However, once he found himself confronted by Trayvon Martin, and was punched and had his head pounded into the sidewalk, the six-person jury found that he acted reasonably and acquitted him of murder and manslaughter. But numerous cases go the other way.
Learn about USCCA Membership
In 1988 Peggy Stewart shot her husband as he slept. She was charged with murder and was tried by a judge. Stewart argued that years of abuse and numerous threats by the husband, including putting a gun to her head at different times, constituted justification for the killing. The judge acquitted Stewart, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the acquittal. It held that killing is only a reasonable response when there is a direct and imminent threat.
As recently as August of 2024 a Florida jury found Susan Lorincz guilty of murder after less than three hours of deliberation. A neighbor, Ajike Owens was yelling and pounding on her door. Lorincz claimed she was in fear for her life even though a door separated the pair. She shot through the door, killing Owens. The prosecution argued the lack of an imminent threat rendered her behavior unreasonable.
While the application of the reasonable person standard includes a bit of flexibility, it does not stretch to fit situations where a person’s belief in the need for self-defense is based on delusion. In People v. Elmore, a 2014 case from California, the defendant claimed he feared for his life. Elmore was mentally ill and stabbed a 53-year-old woman to death with a sharpened paintbrush handle. He testified at trial that something went wrong and that “somebody was saying something violent to me,” before he stabbed the woman. The court held that even though he may have felt threatened and truly believed his life was in danger, his belief was delusional and therefore unreasonable.
Balancing Threats and Responses: The Role of the Reasonable Person Standard
Jurors tend to be adept at determining whether an action was reasonable under the circumstances. The all-female jury in George Zimmerman’s case acquitted him after two days of deliberation (even though two would later claim they had wanted to convict him initially). The nine men and eleven women that made up the Kyle Rittenhouse jury similarly applied logic and common sense to his claim of a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury facing three distinct threats. It is important to remember whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have felt the need to use force depends on the significance of the threat, the level of force facing the defender, the immediacy of the threat and the proportionality of the response. Once those factors are all present in favor of the defender, the reasonable person standard will normally resolve the issue properly.
The reasonable person standard plays a critical role in self-defense cases. The test of a reasonable person ensures that actions are judged by what a rational individual would have done in similar circumstances, balancing both subjective and objective factors.
