unless . . . [s]uch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.”
As I said, the second Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger he was free to use deadly force. You just proved my point.
Zimmerman was on bottom in the fight according to Zimmerman, witnesses, and the evidence. He yelled for help, and I am sure was trying his hardest to escape. Thus when and if he felt his life was in danger he according to your own posting of the law had the right to defend his own life even if he started the fight.
That's not what the law says. The law says that you must reasonably believe that your life is in imminent danger. Losing a fistfight, even if a guy is on top of you and throwing punches, does not necessarily mean that your life is in imminent danger.
Zimmerman was on bottom in the fight according to Zimmerman, witnesses, and the evidence. He yelled for help, and I am sure was trying his hardest to escape. Thus when and if he felt his life was in danger he according to your own posting of the law had the right to defend his own life even if he started the fight.
Nope. A fist fight does not normally constitute the level of threat interpreted in the subject text. If TM had a brick, bat or 3 other assailants participating in the assault, a case for imminent danger of death or great bodily harm might pass muster. In that scenario, the instigator may be exonerated depending on extenuating circumstances.