Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
I agree with the above, but disagree in the implication of Zimmerman using a gun when his opponent was armed with candy from the store. The belief has to be reasonable. Whether the words are the same, in application the Canadian standard is much different.
|
Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head, witnesses stated they saw Martin on top "MMA" style beating Zimmerman, and forensic reports showed that Martin was on top.
The blows were hard enough to break a nose and break skin on the back of the head.
At that point, both in the USA and Canada, you are entitled to respond with lethal force. When you're talking about a blow to the back of the head, any blow can be the lethal shot. If blood is being drawn, your life is in danger. Zimmerman would not have been expected to stop and analyze just how bad the blows were either. It also has nothing to do with who was armed with what. The only relevant issue is the reasaonble belief that your life is threatened.
In Canada, the only major difference would have been that Zimmerman would have had no gun to reach for.