My understanding from my law training is that, perhaps surprisingly, "reasonable" is an objective, not subjective standard. The "reasonable" standard asks whether a hypothetical, ordinary and rational person, acting reasonably, would reach the same conclusion based on the same information. And this can be decided by a judge or jury if/when necessary.
> The "reasonable" standard asks whether a hypothetical, ordinary and rational person, acting reasonably, would reach the same conclusion based on the same information. And this can be decided by a judge or jury if/when necessary.
It's subjective in other words. A jury would be unnecessary otherwise.
