Muscatine

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you' might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant's weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker's special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall' is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one's own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates' the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Oh, man, chosen. You can post all the fluff you want. But you must define the law for the locale/jurisdiction the incident is in. I remember in another post you embarrassed yourself when you tried to be an attorney, you posted Texas law on a subject matter from a different jusridiction. I highly doubt you understand what you just posted here.

That said, you spoke to the level of force (generally)  one may use in your other post I responded to; unlike this post which, of course, is off-topic once again, to that other post. This post is about deadly force only. So, thanks for clarifying that you were, indeed, wrong with your "equal to or less than" definition.

Equal to or less than ...would be a tie or a loss. I can't believe you would defend your own family that way.

You should have bolded this line as well: "There is no duty to retreat from one's own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest."

BB - I wasn't posting fluff as you put it. I find it odd you don't deny anything I posted. I also find it odd in your self proclaimed legal mind you fail to Quote the Iowa self-defense law that would take effect in this particular case. This could be because you believe there is no law that protects this person, which would be wrong. Or that you don't know the Iowa law/code that would help defend this person. Whatever the case, the fluff is correct.

Peace my brother.

Wrongo once again...and you embarrassed yourself once again. Calling your post fluff IS a denial of what you posted. I can't use the expletive in place of that word. Why would I post anything related to Iowa law, related to this case. What you posted is from Virginia. What planet do you live on? Having served in law enforcement, I certainly know more about Iowa law than you do. that's why I laughed when you posted Texas law quips on a matter not in texas.

Like I said; you're sh*thouse attorney/advisors are not serving you well.