Okay, I've found and watched the video.
To say "although the pickpocket is bigger than the old man, several decades younger, and has him down on the floor in a position of complete disadvantage, Branca maintains that the old man still wasn't permitted to respond with deadly force." is incomplete and therefore misleading.
First, no one is or is not "permitted" to use deadly force in the event. It is a matter of what is determined
after the event.
Now, here's the scoop.
- When the sleeping man awoke to find his pocket being picked (a property crime), he was surely entitled to use non deadly physical force--which he did.
- When he was pulled from a chair and pinned down, things were a lot more dicey. But the man did not, at that moment, face an immediate threat of deadly force. But Branca says that he would have arguably been justified in using a higher level of less than lethal defensive force--such as OC spray. That, by the way might well have stopped the attack altogether.
- As soon as the man was being subjected to a deadly force attack, he most certainly would have been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself.
And hopefully, the criminal justice system would have so found.
Of course, he would have had a lot of difficulties afterward. He would have been a pariah, and most likely, impoverished.
The lesson? DON'T SLEEP IN THE SUBWAY!
Had the man been awake and obviously alert, it is doubtful that anyone would have reached into his pocket in the first place.