Nobody's getting shot unless they become a direct threat. Not being prepared for such a situation would be "nuts."
ETA #2: 36 of 50 states carry no "Duty to retreat" clause in practice. Thirty-one of those have established Castle Doctrine Law, and several beyond the 36 are swaying toward the logical side of the spectrum. This was just something I wanted to look up, so I figured I'd throw it in since I did. =)
I am in total agreement with you; I think acting appropriately in accordance with the circumstances in many cases justifies deadly force. So does the case law in many jurisdictions. However, some states and many judges are into judicial activism, and by activism, I mean socialist/liberal holdings that would not be favorable for deadly force even in defense of others (family).
I just wanted to put it out there that your actions in your state will be interpreted with state case law that may or may not be dispositive for castle doctrine and duty to retreat. 36 states have no duty to retreat, but that means 14 probably do have some duty to retreat.
As far as what you'd be "charged with" you would need to be in a state with an Attorney General that will try to fabricate charges when a person defends himself, or has an existing BS legal precedent/law for charging a person acting in self defense.
I will only point out that the AG in most states has no real interest in charging you with anything, primarily because that has been delegated to municipalities via home rule statutes or similar authority. So most of the time, and 99% of the time, you are being charged by a county or municipal prosecutor aka "district attorney." While the AG has the sole authority to render opinions on how state law would be interpreted, the AG does not have the authority to invade the decisions of a duly elected/appointed and sworn prosecutor. They will decide what to charge you with and if they will charge you.
AG's have much different roles these days, with interstate compacts, sovereign issues with native americans, fighting the feds, fighting asian carp, etc. The last AG opinion I read was by Jennifer Granholm, now lame duck gov of Michigan, regarding the possession of a handgun while hunting, opining that it had to be non-concealed if no license was held by the person to do so.
As for it being BS . . . I do not agree. There exists truth in most convictions and the case law of the state needs careful and slow interpretation to avoid a miscarriage of law. We are seeing absurd regulations on the people's rights to bear arms being eroded, but baby steps are appropriate.