The Reasonable Person Doctrine
By: Michaeljon Murphy
Director of Communications
Constitution Party of Wisconsin
Being an officer in a state third-party political organization helps me in viewing the latest news. Many will have the initial knee-jerk reaction to rally behind their political “team” and support whatever is being attacked or praised in the media or on the Internet. I primarily use a couple of trusted news websites/aggregators to get the top stories of the day, but I also leave my web browser set to the default MSN home page. Some days it’s a real treat as the algorithm wars within itself. It gives me some conservative headlines based on my click history, but then it includes its standard left-wing news “authorities” that are baked into the platform’s preferences. I may get two wildly diverging headlines on the same event. Something like “Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Puts Ignorant Reporter in Her Place,” along with “Karoline Leavitt Flies Off the Handle During Press Conference.” Obviously, it takes some more digging and filtering through the philosophical bias of each article to arrive at the bare facts.
The Standard for a Jury
Renee Good
Jonathan Ross, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With the recent ICE-agent-involved shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, we have the added ability to view multiple videos from various angles and see if what transpired matches the exaggerated language both sides are using to describe it. Being a supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense helps as well. I had the privilege of being part of a group of men who encouraged each other to add equal parts marksmanship training and being schooled in the legal theory of the proper use of force. In today’s legal and cultural landscape, you can do everything right when using your firearm and still have to defend yourself in court. When jurors are seated in a trial judging a self-defense action, the judge will instruct them to apply the “reasonable person doctrine.” This states that they are to consider what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation knowing what that person knew at the time. Some jurors may initially misunderstand this instruction, thinking that “I am a reasonable person, and I would never use a firearm.” The doctrine does not ask them to judge by what they themselves would do, but what a “reasonable person” would do. Some jurors may simply be unreasonable people and will have great difficulty putting themselves in the place of a rational gun owner. Given these obstacles, it is the defense team’s job to help the jury understand the proper definition of a reasonable person.
The defendant’s training and mindset go a long way to fleshing out that definition. If the defendant is someone who understands the legal theory of self-defense, knows how to recognize a threat and when the situation presents sufficient grounds to use deadly force, this helps to show that he or she is a reasonable person operating logically in a dangerous situation.
What the Videos Show
In the video evidence from Minneapolis, we see that Agent Ross (the shooter) circles Renee Good’s vehicle 360 degrees. In the moments before the shooting, he appeared to be starting around a second time, probably to join the agent at the driver’s side window. When Good puts the car in reverse, Agent Ross hesitates. At that point, he is standing at the front of the vehicle near the driver’s side. Then Good places the vehicle into drive and begins moving forward. It is at this moment that Agent Ross makes the decision to use his firearm.
Blogtrepreneur, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The legal standard in using defensive force is that you must be in fear of great bodily harm or death. In the position that Agent Ross was in, it appears both of those conditions would have been met. There was a likelihood he would be severely injured when struck by the car or killed if pushed under the vehicle. Many have suggested that he should have jumped out of the way. They are being selective in their what-ifs. It is uncertain if Renee Good even saw the agent in front of the vehicle or only saw him at the last second and attempted to turn away from him. However, I have not heard anyone lamenting, “Why didn’t she look forward sooner?” or “Why didn’t she hit the brakes?” In any event, the decision to attempt to stop the threat by use of force does appear to be one valid option of what a reasonable person would have done in that situation.
Knowing What the Person Knew
The second part of the reasonable person doctrine is “knowing what that person knew at the time.” Here, the fact that Agent Ross had been involved in a previous incident where he was dragged by a car in the performance of his duties shows his firsthand knowledge of how dangerous a vehicle can be. The fact that the earlier incident was documented by medical records, including the over 30 stiches he received, makes this perfectly admissible as evidence in a court of law. The flip side of this rule is that knowledge gained after the fact is irrelevant. If, for example, it was later revealed that Good had a long history of running people over (which has not been alleged), that would have been something that Agent Ross would not have known at the time and would not have increased his feeling of danger or his decision-making. The knowledge that Agent Ross did have was far more than the average person and resets the definition of a reasonable person in this case.
If you are a concealed carry permit owner, it would behoove you to also keep records of training you have received, times you have spent at the shooting range, and even a list of news articles you have read or YouTube videos you have watched. These can then be used as evidence in court as a way of educating jurors to bring them up to the standard of a “reasonable person.”
Listen to this blog post as an audio file below.