TexasCHLforum.com

Real basically, the use of deadly force in Texas is justified when one's life is in immediate danger.
as in:

Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.

Note: "...is immediatley necessary to ..." because the attorney sueing you
is going to notice it.

Once that threat has de-escalated ie: the bad guy see's your gun, drops his gun and raises his hands - the immediate threat to your life is now over. You cannot legally shoot him and claim lawful self defense.
Like maybe, for instance, he turns and goes out the door (no immediate threat to you) and you shoot through the door....

Remember a CHL only gives you the right to carry. It DOES NOT give you the right to USE IT. Texas law governs the use deadly force.

And if you notice a lot of the laws read "it is a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION IF..."

as in :
PC §9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution
that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
Read: you will most likely get charged and possibly prosecuted. If so, your actions (if legal) will be justified in defense of yourself.

Here's another good one:

PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is
justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for
the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

ie: You get off legally on the criminal prosecution, but the family comes after you in a civil action because their brother, son, etc., was a good person and just happened to be where he was doing what he was doing, (trying to kill you) but it wasn't his fault and he'd never been in trouble, and all those arrests and jail terms he had served were all due to "The Man" being "down on him"..., etc.
That's where the big bucks can start adding up.

Actually Florida recently passed a new law that states if one is acquitted against criminal charges stemming from a self defense shooting, then they cannot be prosecuted in a civil suit. A Big Pat On The Back for Florida. Hopefully, Texas is not far behind on enacting this one for us.

I had a lot more to say, but I decided to edit .

Then, I decided not to:

Bottom line: You Do Not want to have to shoot anybody.
A lot of people, especially - on other boards- talk about how they'd drop the hammer on someone so fast and spout all this macho stuff without realizing just exactly how big a problem they will have if in fact they really do have to use deadly force. That is why places like Thunder Ranch go over de-escalation and avoiding the fight in the first place.
Clint Smith said he doesn't wear a gun because he thinks there will be a gunfight. If he thinks there's gonna be a gunfight where he's going he wouldn't go there in the first place. He wears a gun in casethere is a situation that arises where in needs to defend himself or his family.

Avoiding is A LOT CHEAPER than defending yourself in a lawsuit.

Don't think since you shot and killed someone in self defense because there was no other course of action to take, that everyone else (a jury) is going to see it the same way.
Add the proctological exam you can get from the D.A. if everything little thing about the case doesn't add up and the world as you know it can start to look kinda shakey. And in a shooting there's gonna be a lot of adding. From how it started to what various "witnesses" saw and heard to how you ended it including each and every one of your shots, why you fired them and where each one of them went and it can go downhill real fast from there.

Ok, now, I'll stop,