TexasCHLforum.com

I don't think there is one set answer to this question. Deadly force is defined as force that is known or intended to cause, or by its use is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Does a Taser meet that definition? That is still being vigorously debated in various places, including the courts.

As a police officer, I was taught that someone going for my Taser justified the use of deadly force against them. The logic is that a Taser would disable me and stop me from protecting myself when they went for my gun to kill me. Part of that logic was that someone using a Taser on a police officer is attacking, not trying to escape. I don't know if the same logic would apply to me as a citizen or off-duty officer not in uniform. If a robber hits me with a Taser in an attempt to get my wallet and doesn't know I have a gun, I don't see this logic holding up. But I can use deadly force to stop a robbery attempt anyway, so the weapon doesn't matter.

What if it is just an assault attack? If I am in good physical condition and not one of the questionable subjects that are being debated as wrong to tase, I do not think deadly force would be seen as justified by a court. But I could be wrong.

One point I wanted to correct is that you are NOT limited to the exact same level of force used against you. You may not use excessive force and the escalation must be reasonable, but you are not as limited as some (especially non-CHLs) think. The classic example of this is the first CHL shooting where an elderly male was being beaten by a younger, stronger man. The disparity in physical force justified his upping his force level to a weapon.