Would a "reasonable person" feel that that catfish is really going down on that lady?
Zimmerman is expected to invoke the state's Stand Your Ground law, which gives wide discretion for the use of deadly force to citizens who feel "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm".
In her research, Nielsen said she's found that laws such as New York's which require a victim be repeatedly followed in public, feel a "reasonable fear of physical injury," or that a perpetrator act with intent to "harass, annoy or alarm another person"—can be difficult to pursue.
The Supreme Court first dealt with bus searches in a 1991 decision, Florida v. Bostick, which held that the test for the validity of such a search was whether, on a case-by-case basis, "a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter".
Under the law, there are three paths one can take on the way to "bias intimidation": one can get there purposely, knowingly, or — and now we leave the mind of Dharun Ravi — if an act did intimidate and if a reasonable person would feel targeted because of sexual orientation.
The legal standard thus asks a judge to decide how a reasonable person would feel when confronted in a particular way by police.
The standard that the Supreme Court has identified asks whether, under the circumstances, "A reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter".
Rather, they must determine whether a "reasonable" person would feel threatened by the comments.
I see it as a wonderful release of all inhibitions, well not all, but a reasonable amount to feel completely reinvigorated.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer remarked that he thought a Supreme Court precedent was not necessary because he thought it obvious that age affects whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave.
