"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit).

In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.

I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted.

When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.

Sure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.

>"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is."

Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness.

I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.

Years of costly appeals will still ruin your life.

I was just responding to your point in the abstract, not arguing with you about whatever it is you are arguing about.