Why are you all talking about Florida law and trying to apply it to the incident in the OP when the incident in the OP took place in North Carolina?
My excuse is that I trusted Bricker got it right. I don’t know what his excuse is. 
The folly of the parties involved in the story naturally made them think “gotta be Florida”.
Is flour explosive?
In my experience, every parent feels that way.
An excellent point, Sir.
Yes, extremely but only when it is in the air. The tiny particles can interact with the oxygen very rapidly. Any open flame can cause a chain reaction.
I literally can’t count the number of times this happened to me.
I had no idea you were missing fingers.
Back to the drawing board. Since we’re talking about NC (bolding mine):
So it appears Machine Elf is basically correct (the fear of safety must be imminent death or serious bodily harm, and it can extend to that of another).
Interestingly, according to the first statute, one is presumed to have held that fear if someone is or has unlawfully and forcible entered your home, motor vehicle, or workplace. Apparently in NC if a little old lady is breaking through your screen door with a nail file you can blow her away with a shotgun.
Well, hell.
I’m off to find some M-80s and a silo.
It’s been a while but while researching a similar case in the same vein I found that in the United States using available crime statistics 10% of armed robberies where the victim doesn’t resist and complies involve either the death or serious injury of the victim and it goes up if you include sexual assault (it was harder to parse whether incidents were sexual assaults that involved robbery after the fact, or robberies that just happened to involve some sexual assault that wasn’t pre-planned) About 40% of robberies in the same definition involved any sort of injury though this includes minor non-hospitalization injuries and injuries that weren’t part of the robbers plan (like somebody tripping and falling upon initially seeing the robbers)
Of course that was with googling and looking up definitions as an amateur so there’s all sorts of holes you can poke in it but as a very rough estimate basically means you got around a 10% chance of something major happens even if you fully comply so it’s up to individuals if that’s worth the risk to resist.
Do you think that that happens often? Also every ccw class I’ve been in, including one in NC, they make it clear that if the attacker is not a physical threat to the shooter then your argument that you feared for you life is much less likely to be accepted.
I’m going to guess that that particular scenario never happened. I’m commenting on what is allowed according to the statutes I cited. What you remember that someone told you in a class is irrelevant.
From a NC law firm (bolding mine):
You seem to be missing this part. You reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. If a 250 lbs. man tries to claim that he felt reasonable fear for his life from an 80 lbs. woman with a nail file the jury is likely to find his fear to not be very reasonable.
Nope, you missed the “or.”
Yes your right, my mistake. Maybe this is why grannies don’t often do home invasion robberies.