Now quote the part of that you think agrees with your statement that the perp must have a weapon for the defandant to be justified to use lethal force.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
Yes you are required to refrain from the use of a deadly weapon as long as the other person is not armed.
A physical assault is not considered deadly usually, so you can not then respond with deadly force.
But if you use professional combat skills, like Karate, then that is considered deadly force, and others then can use weapons.
Here is a legal explanation.
{...
Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable. To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too.
...}
Amber, having been trained in self defense, should not have felt at all at risk in being able to handle any physical situation, and there was not even any indication that a physical situation would even occur. For Amber to have a reasonable belief, she would have to have seen a weapon, heard of crimes by Jean in the past, or some actual basis for fear.
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf
Laughable....i could really ridicule you but i have to feel sorry for someone as mixed up as you obviously are.
Why do you refuse to post the actual law on self defense from your state?
Since this is a Texas case, here is Texas statutes.
Texas Penal Code § 9.32 | FindLaw
{...
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31 ; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
...}
And since Jean was either sitting on the couch or just getting up from the couch, he could not possibly have constituted a reasonable threat, no matter what she believed.
So she had no legal basis for using deadly force.
She also clearly was the person provoking the confrontation, since she entered his apt.
She was committing the criminal act of trespassing.
Amber had been trained in self defense.
Jean never got near to her and was never a reasonable threat.
