Liesbeth, I believe, posted the legal definition of a reasonable person and it isn't and cannot be mitigated by any disability - I personally believe any brain injury, which is rumour at this point - would likely be included. This isn't an American courtroom - by law there is very little room for mitigation.
Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
That wasn't me. But I did find this:
OP will be judged on the premise that a reasonable man in the circumstances in which the appellant found himself would have believed that his life or property was in imminent danger.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/
and here is a definition
A reasonable man
The reasonable man standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.
The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:
1. the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
2. the extent of the risk so created;
3. the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
4. any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.
Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable.
The test for a reasonable person is an objective test. It does not consider the individual circumstances.
http://www.tarservices.co.za/South-African-Law/
Then this:
When courts judge someone by the standard of the reasonable person, they also take into account their
physical disabilities and other vulnerabilities.
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscars-vulnerability-relevant-case-says-expert/
and this:
The law takes into account a
person's knowledge (including
special skills e.g. licensed gun owner, Olympian, etc),
experience, and
perceptions in determining whether the individual has acted as a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances.
The law takes a person's
physical characteristics into account in determining whether that person's conduct is negligent. Whether a person's conduct is reasonable, and therefore not negligent, is measured against a reasonably prudent person with the same physical characteristics. There are two reasons for taking physical characteristics into account. A physically impaired individual cannot be expected to conform to a standard of conduct that would be physically impossible for her to meet. On the other hand, a physically challenged person must act reasonably in light of her handicap, and she may be negligent in taking a risk that is unreasonable in light of her known physical limitations. Thus, it would be negligent for a blind person to drive an automobile.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/The+Reasonable+Person
