Sometimes when deciding cases before it, the U.S. Supreme Court uses what is widely known as the “reasonable man” or the “reasonable police officer” as the test for its decision. In other words, they try and put themselves into the situation, and based on what they perceive the “reasonable officer” would do, they decide the case. Do you think this makes sense? Why or why not? Note your reason in terms of deontology, teleology, and utilitarianism.
