odoylerulez wrote:robinhoodOO wrote:odoylerulez wrote:despina wrote:odoylerulez wrote:Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?
I was just saying this to someone yesterday. Apparently I got through law school by being able to argue my own definition of reasonable, and analogizing to cases we had read together. On the MBE, I just have to read people's minds? I'm finding it especially challenging with crim pro with respect to reasonable suspicion, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.
My rule of thumb for "reasonable escape" is -- do I have to put my physical safety at risk (jump out a third story window) or greatly embarrass myself (run outside naked)? If not, it's probably reasonable. Has worked so far.
I just answered one where a lawyer woman was effectively trapped in her apartment because a group of guys was harrassing her when she came home from work, and one of the guys told her something like "she better not come back out." She was very frightened and she felt she couldn't leave her apartment and stayed there for several hours.
Her only two means of escape were the front door and an old, rusted ladder (fire escape, basically) that went to the ground from the second-floor window. She also felt it would be embarrassing if her neighbors saw her climbing down the window while she was dressed up. Without anything more, I assumed she wasn't falsely imprisoned. I assumed there would be more facts if the author wanted us to assume it was unreasonable -- but, I guess that's what the authors were going for when they mentioned the ladder was old. I didn't think that made it automatically unsafe or anything without more facts. I thought the embarrassment was irrelevant because that wasn't objectively reasonable (not exactly being asked to leave naked or anything -- and, she's in her apartment, so why can't she just change clothes?). I was wrong. Meh.
I had this same question today. Just remember embarrassment can be enough...Don't look outside the 4 corners of these questions. (for example, she could have reasonably changed her clothes, etc.). They just wanted to see that you saw the exception.
Dumb? Yes. But that's what you gotta do...
The embarrassment has to be reasonable though, right? For example, if it were in the facts that the woman had a back door to her apartment, which was in working order and was safe, but she refused to use it because she subjectively believed that if she walked through the back door of the apartment, it would bring her ten years of bad luck, that surely wouldn't be false imprisonment.
It seems to me that you almost have to look outside of the four corners of the question on some of these to figure out whether something is reasonable or unreasonable. Maybe not quite as much on this one, but it seems to be a recurring thing. I always assume that every fact can matter -- here, I thought it was relevant that the writer of the question chose to say that she was locked in her apartment as opposed to, say, a second-story restroom with a window.
I believe being subjected to embarrassment/ridicule is constitutes unreasonable means as a matter of law if it's undue. Reasonable means of escape is better defined as: Not likely to cause harm, injury, or "undue embarrassment." Thus, if it causes harm, injury, or undue embarrassment, it's automatically unreasonable (Which could be subjective). Kind of a misnomer, I suppose.
Does that help?
Anyway, I think another poster said this, but if you can narrow it down to 2 based on a known exception/wrinkle/issue, then my rule of thumb is to ultimately side on the 'affirmative' if I think it's a reasonableness issue.