Having more "options" is not always a good thing, especially if those options lead to irrelevant courses of action. A case in point is private citizens with handcuffs - there is no need to 'citizens arrest' assailants and home invaders. It is an example of taking a set outside the scope of operations and buying more risk and liability for no practical benefit.

Many people involved in self-defense believe that they have a larger duty to society to help the police do their jobs, or worse to punish wrong doers. You will hear quotes about 'good men doing nothing' which I feel is a little misplaced. Good men are not doing nothing, they are working their jobs, providing for and protecting their families. This is the scope of operations that our society has decided is appropriate for private citizens.

As attractive as it might be to some people, shooting criminals to protect "stuff" is foolish. The value of the "stuff" is frequently less than money that has to be spent in legal bills. I think the tide might be turning back with "stand your ground" laws, but depending upon your local prosecutor shooting thieves will continue to be more expensive than simply buying new "stuff." I don't like thieves, but I would rather loose a TV set and still be able to afford college educations for my children.

Some people believe that the legal liability angle is over-hyped. The truth is that the totality of the situation both on the tactical level and the current political climate can certainly influence how much of a threat legal action is. If we would train to maximize our survivability in the tactical scenario then shouldn't we also train to maximize our chances of a positive outcome in the legal scenario?

By narrowing the scope of operations to defending myself and my family I can focus my efforts and resources upon those critical tasks. I have removed a number of irrelevant "options" from my courses of action. While I heartily endorse the concept and the surrounding legal protections for stand-your-ground laws, not shooting the people that don't have to be shot will always lead to better outcomes.

I don't believe in a deadly force "option", if it was optional then I would do something else. I believe that deadly force is mandatory, when all other options have been removed.