Why are you stressing over the meaning of "reasonable"? Doesn't reasonable mean what reasonable means, whether it's in this section of the law or that?
A jury at a trial is supposed to acquit if they think Zimmerman's self defense claim is reasonable
. At the immunity hearing the judge is supposed to grant immunity if he thinks Zimmerman's self defense claim is more likely true than not
. If you look at the various sections of the Florida self defense law, they use the language of reasonability, e.g. 776.013(3)
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
So is the jury is to decide whether or not it is reasonable
that Zimmerman reasonably believed it necessary etc. while the judge at the immunity hearing is to decide whether or not it is more likely than not
that Zimmerman reasonably believed it necessary etc.? The distinction between reasonable and more likely than not begins to elude me here.