Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was not a deadly weapon, its context in appellant’s brief demonstrates that it is being asserted only to support the contention that the complainant did not suffer a serious bodily injury. 4 . See, e.g., Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). This is true even if the trial judge failed to give a reason or gave a wrong reason for the ruling. See id. 5 . Appellant’s expert made no assessment of the extent or magnitude of the injuries to the complainant’s mouth. Therefore, even if the relevant injury were confined to that solely resulting from the impact of the bottle, the expert provided no evidence that the complainant had not suffered serious injury in the form of disfigurement or impairment. 6 . See also Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) ; Riddle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 1, 6-7 (Tex.Crim.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
B. holding that deadly force was unreasonable where according to the plaintiffs version of facts the decedent possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot him
C. holding that officers positioning himself next to his patrol car with gun drawn and then firing was a discretionary use of deadly force
D. holding that instruction on use of deadly force was not required where there was no evidence that decedent had attempted to assault appellant appellant could not retreat or that decedent was armed
E. holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where appellant was aware of the decedents violent history decedent had a gun in his car and appellant used force only after decedent had made an attempt to approach his car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.