They don't have 20/20, CNN, and NBC Nightly News where you live?

Then you infer incorrectly.

Know that my state requires imminent grave danger before deadly physical force is allowable anyway. Inside the home, as opposed to outside, there's no specific duty to retreat, for the reasons I feel we agree on. In other states, deadly physical force is allowable even for unlawful entry, or even attempted unlawful entry.

Outside the home, in this grand old state, there's a bit of a contradiction. Deadly physical force is allowed in the face of imminent grave danger, but you also have a duty to retreat. Which I always found bizarre, although sitting here I can think of a few situations where the danger could be imminent but retreat is also safe and possible.

DPF is never allowed in defense of property. Although there's a bit of a jury nullification aspect, naturally. I think that a county jury would no-bill an indictment if one were to shoot somebody attempting to commit arson against a stable of horses, even though the normal requirement for an arson DPF is that you need to reasonably believe the structure is occupied, and horses are considered personal or commercial property, not life.

Read these forums enough and you'll encounter a fair few people that post as if it doesn't bother them. And even ridicule morality-based arguments, which is kinda silly, imo. Think about it--I'm a gun guy, a CCW/SD guy, and I'm from a "blue" family. Pretty much the best possible person you could ever hope to sit on your jury. If I don't think that a particular course of action was moral or ethical, that doesn't bode well for what 12 randoms will think.

Hell, I've seen dumbwits in CCW classes literally ask the lawyer such fun things as:

"So, when am I allowed to shoot somebody?"

and my personal favorite,

"So if I'm at the gas station, and some guy robs the cashier, can I walk up and shoot that mother****** in the back of the head?"