I defy you to read my post without understanding a single lick of it. It is remarkable how far away from the point you landed.
The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.
The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.
The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.
The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.
Good luck in your studies.