In which scenario is deadly force against another not justified?

In situations involving the use of deadly force, ethical and legal standards are paramount. Retaliation for a past offense does not meet the necessary threshold for justifying deadly force. The principle of self-defense and the defense of others is based on an immediate threat; it is about responding to a current danger rather than seeking vengeance for a previous act.

Justifying deadly force requires that the threat posed is imminent and significant, such as a threat to life or serious bodily harm. In the scenario where someone seeks to inflict harm in retaliation for a prior offense, the situation does not involve a current threat to life, thereby failing to meet the legal criteria.

This contrasts with other scenarios where deadly force may be considered justified, such as when preventing a burglary in progress or protecting oneself from an immediate threat. In those circumstances, immediate danger and the necessity to act for self-preservation or protection of others are present, making such responses subject to legal endorsement.