Self-Defense Re-Examined

 Actually, there are two questions involved here.  The one NOT addressed?  The 'moral' one, unless 'morality' is determined by a judge or jury.  Arms/Law notes a paper by a LawProf at GWU:

...self-defense is an area where the views of the legal elite and the rest of the population collide. In the eyes of the legal elite (and thus the law), the lives of the aggressor and of the defender have equal or almost equal value. Thus the defender can only use lethal force if he reasonably fears that the aggressor is about to use the same force; the tie goes to the runner, or the defender, but otherwise they are equal.

To the rest of the world's population, tho, they are not at all of equal value. The life of a burglar and of a good citizen homeowner are not at all of equal value, nor are those of a person minding their own business and someone who attacks and tries to do them harm. Years ago, a local prosecutor told me that he'd told his boss they might as well give up prosecuting homeowners who shot fleeing burglars in the back. It was illegal, but they'd had three cases of that type and lost three jury verdicts in a row, and if juries will not convict, then it is legal in the real world, regardless of what the statutes say.

Her paper has an interesting point; many European codes are actually more liberal toward the defender than is American law....

As to shooting in the back--no matter what a jury says, shooting someone who is in flight from the scene is at least assault/deadly weapon.  I suppose a scenario could be constructed which allows such an assault, say, if the goblin was re-loading so temporarily 'running away,' but in general terms?  Nope.

On the other hand....one is likely to give the home-owner or assault victim a fairly wide latitude regarding the decision to pull a gun and shoot.  Fright is something which provokes ill-considered reaction, and 'fright-reaction' is something that will evoke empathy.  Can 'fright-reaction' rise to the level of justified force?

Hmmmm.