Neat move there, with your framing in the response. You should consider a career in the media! Almost everything you just said is what I said in the original post, RE: talking about the past, being on ones own property, continued force being applied, etc. And nothing about legal fees. I'd point to you Texas, Montana, Washington state for the more "extreme" (aka traditional American) laws about protecting ones property with deadly force, including a car you own being stolen on your property - there are others. I'm not leading anyone into any type of mess, thanks.
My commentary on the use of force continuum is a general commentary on the use of force continuum, not just regarding auto theft. People in coastal states (and many on this website) love to get into these messy coastal arguments about what the next step in escalation might be, in terms of legal protection for the type of force used, when they're talking about incidents involving free people in the actual United States. My point - in general - is that in much of this county, especially on your own property, the force leap from empty hand to firearm is not the issue that it is in blue states. Proportional force is less of, or simply not an issue. Nor should it be. It's not "honorable" or "ethical" to suggest that a person defending themselves should be hamstrung in their choice of means of doing so, on the basis that a closed fist or shod foot, or knife for that matter happens to be the weapon of their attacker..
Thankfully many states recognize this. Almost all of them used to. Doesn't mean you won't be jammed up by the wrong DA.
"He had a stun gun, and all I had was a handgun, so I was stuck defending myself with a bare fist" sounds like words to St. Peter at the golden gate, or around a feeding tube in the ER.
In a blue state, a closed fist is a deadly weapon when the victim dies or is hospitalized, but it makes for an "unarmed" assailant when the victim shoots back and avoids those outcomes. What a ridiculous double standard for the victim of an attempted or partially successful assault. How many teeth or intact skull bits does one need to sacrifice to the aggressor/assailant before they are justified in defending themselves with whatever they have at hand? Far less of an issue in central and southern states than it is in almost all of the northeast, or to a LEO who's bound to a higher standard, including the use of force continuum and the strictures of Tenn. V Garner.