Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
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.
|
You are talking in absolutes about something that is very far from an absolute. Blood being drawn does not automatically entitle you to use lethal force, nor does a blow to the back of the head. The jury here determined that the totality of the circumstances made Zimmerman's belief that his life was in danger and use of lethal force in that situation reasonable, but it's far from a conclusion that any one of those circumstances gives rise to that in any other case. Believing as such sets a danger precedent, and communicates to people that the standard for responding with lethal force is much much much lower than it actually is.