You make a good point. From the perspective of the attacker. Can you determine the intent of the attack as the victim in those cases? Can you as the intended victim afford to say that an attack is not intended to be deadly? I can’t answer for you or anyone else but myself. My answer is no, I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked.
That’s what people seem to forget. It’s not the intent of the attacker, it’s the perception of the victim. If Mr. Zimmerman felt that his life was in immediate danger, and I believe he felt that way, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to defend himself.
I couldn’t care less if the idiot attacking him intended on killing him or not. If he didn’t have that intent, he should have not engaged in the attack in the first place.
I agree with your assessment on blame. Zimmerman should not be blamed.
No, it was meant to draw the reader into thinking about the downside risk, from the point of view of the victim. "Steal a kiss" and "cop a feel" especially, don't justify use of deadly force to stave off.
Taking a beating does justify use of deadly force in reaction. Slam dunk, unless the person administering the beating is like some 5 year old kid (or a physical invalid) who can't cause much damage.
Contrary to your contention that "I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked," I am pretty sure you could tell the difference between a beatdown by a person who is strong enough to break you, from one where the person is NOT strong enough to break you. If you can't tell the difference, they you run the risk of failing the "reasonably" part of "reasonably apprehended risk of serious injury."
-- If Mr. Zimmerman felt that his life was in immediate danger, and I believe he felt that way, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to defend himself. --
The evidence cuts 100% in his favor. He's on the ground, he's overwhelmed by force so he can't even get up to run away, he's yelling for help for at least 10 seconds, etc.
-- I couldn't care less if the idiot attacking him intended on killing him or not. --
Well, I care in the metaphysical sense, but as a matter of law, his ultimate intention is irrelevant. See too, manslaughter, which is often unintentional death. You are correct, the person at risk gets to make the call - and then will be judged as to whether or not the call was a reasonable one. This case is about as cut and dried as they come.