In addition to the factors you mention, and the articulation ability Jumping Frog mentioned, there is another point many people miss. We forget what the definition of deadly force is. This is a very complicated topic because there are some very vague definitions and some very specific definitions.clarionite wrote:The reason it's asked so much, and the reason everyone is confused is that the answer is "It Depends"
Use of a firearm is ALWAYS use of deadly force. This comes from section 1.07 which defines a deadly weapon as a firearm or other device. So it doesn't matter if it is a .22 from a NAA belt buckle derringer aimed at the lower leg, a .45 from a 1911 aimed at the head, or a round from a 75mm howitzer aimed anywhere close, it is use of deadly force.
But the very same section says it is ANYTHING that in its manner of use can cause serious bodily injury. And Section 9.01 confuses this just a little by redefining deadly force to be the use of anything capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. So, use of a firearm may not be quite as always as I first stated, but since it would be hard to argue that a firearm is not capable as indicated, it is probably still safe to say always. But the anything could include fists, legs or other personal weapons.
And one of the really important parts people forget when discussing this is the second half of the definition. Serious bodily injury is a term defined in the law. Section 1.07 says it is death, serious risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted impairment of or loss of any organ or bodily member. This is important because the law specifically says the other guy does not have to be trying to kill you, just seriously hurt you. The vague part is how protracted in the use of a member or organ and how serious must the disfigurement be.
My experience is that most courts will take broken bones as serious bodily injury (protracted impairment), as will most stabbings with knives. Clubs and similar weapons generally will be accepted as causing serious bodily injury also. So, if someone has a weapon in general, the courts will look at it as an attempt to commit serious bodily injury. But for personal weapons, you are going to need to show the injuries I think (again, from my experience). But, it doesn't have to be the serious injuries you show, just some injuries with more to come.
And all of this shows why the answer really is "it depends" and most cases are very gray areas.