Talk:Objective standard (law)

sense

Apart from the no notability aspect the sentence "A subjective standard of reasonableness asks whether the circumstances would produce the in a person having the mental and physical characteristics of the defendant, an honest and reasonable belief" makes absolutely no sense. Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, I added some sources. As to your second point, I fixed the error and tried to clarify it. A problem is that, as numerous high court justices have written, the conceptual distinction is quite difficult. A good example is the famous Geotz case where that guy shot four black youth in the subway. The case went to the highest state court, to resolve and try to make sense of the objective/subjective standard distinction, and only to do this. I will fill out the details in that article, with sources, and add a summary in this article, but the upshot is that the indictment for murder etc. was quashed based on introduction of an objective element in reasonableness, when the subjective standard should be used. The prosecution appealed, and won. The court basically reasoned that (in my own words) the legislature intended an objective standard, not the subjective standard, because it did not intend for paranoid white racists to be able to shoot unarmed blacks in the back, or because they walked in with other blacks. But the wording, for me at least, does nothing to really clarify the distinction. It only seems to provide an example of its application. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]