Mister Sixpack, all of those questions have been decided by legislatures and/or by appellate rulings in superior courts.
Some go back for many centuries. It won't do much good to debate them on a public forum, and it would do little good to try to contest them in a trial court if higher courts have already ruled on the issues in question.
What the convicted sexual assailant agrees with them now or did at the time of his trial is not up for debate here.
What constitutes lawful justification for the use of deadly or non-deadly force has been the subject of deep thought by learned judges and appellate court officers for many, many years.
The laws have evolved over time. In the days of contact weapons, "retreat to the wall" was required. Until just over three decades ago, it was permissible to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon under a broad range of circumstances.
The things that brought about changes to those rules involved technological advances, as well as a broad expansion of the definition of felonies.
I would not rule out the possibility of further changes.
Two areas to watch, as indicated in my crystal ball:
- the enactment of "defensive display of a weapon" laws in more jurisdisions; and
- possible rethinking of when a defender would be justified in the use or threat of deadly force when faced with unamrmed attackers.