In which scenario can deadly force be legally justified?

Deadly force can be legally justified when a subject presents an imminent threat to life. This principle is grounded in the necessity to protect oneself or others from serious bodily harm or death. The legal justification for using deadly force hinges on the perception of an immediate and credible threat; the individual must genuinely believe that their life or the life of another person is in grave danger, and that no reasonable alternative exists to avert that threat.

In scenarios where a subject is merely verbally threatening, the absence of an immediate physical threat makes it insufficient to justify the use of deadly force—it does not meet the legal criteria of imminent danger. In the case of a high-speed chase, while the situation may pose risks, it does not inherently justify deadly force unless there is an imminent threat to life involved. Similarly, the protection of property alone does not warrant the use of deadly force, as the law typically differentiates between the value of property and the right to use lethal means for its protection. Only when life is at stake does the justification for employing deadly force become applicable.