BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
I'll just point out that the statute does not say "a reasonable person" but rather "the person reasonably believes".
So it's specific to the person using the deadly force at that time and place.
That's *sort* of correct. You can't be expected to know facts that weren't available to you. For example, if you intervene in a fake kidnapping. The facts, as you perceived them, are going to be based on what a hypothetical reasonable person in your position would believe to be happening. Your actions will be judged based on what that hypothetical person would believe is reasonable. Two separate prongs. Reasonable perception of events, reasonable response to those events. Even if you are wrong in hindsight, you can still be justified if you were reasonable in both prongs, compared to Mr. Hypothetical.
So, its not really specific to the person, but is specific to the time and place. "They" need to place the hypothetical reasonable person in the same position as you were.
I'm honestly not sure if this helps or makes it more convoluted, but its the best I could summarize it.