The law is poorly drafted and has clearly given rise to the suggestion that it shifted the standard from objective (ie, was the shooters fear for his life reasonable, whether it was genuine or not?) to subjective (the question being - did the shooter actually fear for his life, whether or not it made sense to be in fear?).
Whether or not a "reasonable man" standard is objective is, itself, a subjective question. I submit that it is not an objective standard. An objective standard essentially is a standard that must be decided the same way for any case, regardless of who is reviewing the evidence and rendering the decision. With a "reasonable man" standard, one jury might view the evidence and deadlock 11:1 in favor of acquittal, a second jury might view the same evidence and deadlock 10:2 in favor of conviction, and a third jury might view the same evidence and hand down a unanimous verdict -- for acquittal or for conviction.
I respectfully submit that this is a subjective standard, not an objective standard.
A speed limit is an objective standard. Speed limit is 65 MPH. Was he going faster than 65? Convict. Was he going 65 or slower? Acquit.
Bank robbery is illegal. Did he point a gun at the teller, ask for money, and walk out with a bag full of greenbacks? If yes, guilty. If no, not guilty.
Those are objective standards.
"What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he had been in my client's shoes when the incident took place?" How can that be objective? Each juror has to make his or her own [subjective] decision as to what a hypothetical reasonable man would have felt or done in the circumstances as described -- and which almost certainly conjures up a different picture in the mind of each person hearing the sordid tale recounted.
