[quote="passus, post:3, topic:249629"]
I'd say most definitely yes to the first one.
As for the second scenario, I take issue with the premise. What kind of situation in which an attacker was going to unintentionally kill you would warrant the use of a deathblow? Any defensive force along the lines of "deathblow" would seem to be appropriate only in a situation where the attacker definitely had intent to kill.
I disagree. The lack of knowledge of a person about the threat they present has no bearing on the matter. What if a child was pointing a gun, you knew to be loaded, at you with their finger on the trigger? This might be hard to imagine because it involves a child, but we could consider the same case with a feeble minded adult or even someone under the influence of a drug.
But rather than worry about all that just consider do you have the right to prevent your death by a non-human actor or physical event? Of course. You can kill an animal that is about to kill you. If you were deadly allergic to a bee you can kill it if it is threatening you. You can saw down a tree that is about to crash down on your house and thus threatens your life. So the knowledge and even the intent of that which threatens your life is not really relevant.
[quote="passus, post:5, topic:249629"]
This presumes that killing the driver would be an effective means of stopping the car, the actual imminent danger to your life. If you managed a perfect kill shot on the driver, the vehicle would likely be close enough to you that the momentum of the vehicle in question would still be enough to run you over and so you would be unjustified in killing the driver.
Police do this fairly often. Not the perfect kill shot since it often involves several rounds and several officers. But they do kill people who are driving at them in self defense.