ha
You and old Wormpus obviously know your stuff on this one regarding the details and fine points etc but it's like the word normal. I find it completely meaningless. I don't like how terms are thrown around like reasonable person etc because my first thought is how the hell do you know they are reasonable? it's just ambiguous and massively assumptive.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:00, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

The way it is used is:
The facts are that Mr X stabbed Mr Y becuase Mr X had caught MR Y abusing his disabled son.

The jury have to decide whether those actions are consistent with what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances.

They can consider any personal quirks that Mr X has, but only in so far as they relate to the provocativeness of the provocation (calling a guy with a massive nose 'The Elephant Man' for instance) but not to Mr X's general capacity to be provoked (his short temper for instance)

It's all very confusing. What I'm trying to get at is What would provoke you into killing? Do you think you should be punished afterwards?
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:19, Reply)