It sounds like you are confusing how and when someone determines how much danger they are in and whether they chose to defend the sanctity of their own home with your own personal opinions.
Not at all. If there's someone unlawfully in the house at night I will assume that imminent danger exists, and I will defend against it.
It also sounds like you are failing to understand that running away is not the only alternative to using deadly force.
Not clear what you mean. I won't "run away" in the house, but I
will defend from an advantageous position if I can.
Outdoors, if there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force would be in
justified,
unless safe retreat (in my jurisdiction) is possible.
Other alternatives? Well, I do carry a Kimber Pepperblaster as a less-than-lethal alternative, but I don't think I'll use it if imminent danger of death actually exists. And I sure as heck don't intend to wrestle with an armed assailant. But perhaps I miss your point.
Stop with the "you better run away or you are going to be in trouble" spiel. It just isn't true and does nothing but perpetuate the idea that anyone that defends themselves is asking for bad things to happen and somehow responsible for the outcome of another persons choice to break the law and endanger innocents.
Where I live, if outdoors, I must retreat before using deadly force if I can do so safely, or I will indeed be in trouble, one way or the other. I may either be killed or injured because I did neither, or charged and perhaps convicted because I used deadly force without availing myself of a safe avenue of retreat.
That's the law. The requirement stems from laws established around 1200 A. D. and later adopted by most of our states.
In practice, it has changed due to the advent of firearms. If the perp has a gun, it's highly probable that I
cannot safely retreat.
In some places, retreat is no longer required.