Any other information, you can contact me at li2l_misstrouble@yahoo.co.uk!!
2006-10-09 07:46:59 · 7 answers · asked by Crazzzzzy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"reasonable man" is a fictional, hypothetical person in law that sets a standard for judicial decisions to appreciate whether a person acted correctly, or on the contrary in a reckless and stupid way.
In the cases when this is used, the question is usually whether the defendant acted "as a reasonable man" would, and thus is to be held blameless, even if the theoretically sensible action had unforeseen and deleterious consequences.
2006-10-09 08:04:32 · answer #1 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay, it goes like this, In the eyes of a reasonable 'man' was the behaviour reasonable. There is no actual test. If a person is not insane or biased how would 'he' regard the alleged crime?
Eg. A man breaks into a house and is caught at point of entry. The man is not armed and seems to pose no other threat but the occupier beats him up, then in the eyes of a reasonable man (Which is how the judge tries to think), the occupier's behaviour was NOT reasonable.
Were the burglar armed however, then in the eyes of a reasonable man, the occupier's behaviour WAS reasonable.
2006-10-09 09:58:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm with Rachel's answer. you ought to have the skill to have a dissenting opinion with out every person getting indignant. in the event that they do get indignant it is possibly a difficulty they have with their very own faith. I recommend i've got considered some solutions on R&S that i might stay removed from (i.e., Rachel's sky daddy remark, or the "I manage christians like babies becuase they have shown that they are able to't reason, etc). the appropriate words: you have had an journey which skill some thing to you. i can relish that. I even have not had this journey. i'm unable to tension it. i'm unable to make myself have faith. hence this is what i think. this is obviously does not exchange your ideals, yet i desire you are able to comprehend why i think the way I do. some thing like that perhaps.
2016-10-19 02:23:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a standard used to determine whether the person on trial acted properly or not. It is used in civil lawsuits. So the Court asks itself: "what would a reasonable man do in the circumstances?" If the Court finds that a person, acting reasonably, would have done just what the person on trial did, then the person on trial would have acted properly and will not be held responsible.
2006-10-09 08:13:10 · answer #4 · answered by Einmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "reasonable man" is not limted to the UK. The triet of facts, the judge or jury, decides of the person did what reasonable man should have done. By reasonable, they excluse was some jerk would so but someone with reason would/should do.
Got more questions? just ask
2006-10-09 07:54:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A famous judge once said that the best example was 'Take a man off the upper deck of an omnibus at Clapham Common' or words to that effect................
I have always believed that a better word, and more easily understood by the general public, is 'fair' - was he reasonable - was what he done, fair...............
2006-10-09 07:55:06 · answer #6 · answered by thomasrobinsonantonio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
where a guy takes a hit at an annoying girl. Close yr eyes and count to ten....
2006-10-09 07:48:42 · answer #7 · answered by tyrian&eustas(the puffin) 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋