According to judicial interpretation, when is the use of deadly force justified?

The use of deadly force is justified when there is a reasonable fear for life. This principle is rooted in the concept of self-defense, which requires that an individual not only perceive a threat but also that the fear of harm must be reasonable under the circumstances. The determination hinges on whether a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In legal terms, the standard of "reasonable fear" implies an objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the situation. Factors such as the nature of the threat, the source of the threat, and the actions of both the person using force and the perceived aggressor are all considered. Therefore, it’s not simply enough to feel threatened; there must be a justification based on facts that would reasonably lead a person to believe that using deadly force is necessary to prevent significant harm.

The other options do not align with the established legal standards. For example, stating that deadly force can be used whenever a threat is perceived oversimplifies the situation and ignores the necessity of reasonable fear. Also, applying deadly force in any criminal situation disregards the critical requirement of proportionality and justification based on perceived imminent danger. Finally, the notion that deadly force is justified specifically when pursuing a fleeing