I think that's a good summary. I think the prosecution is looking towards #s 1-3 as the "right" answer and are talking about #4 as if the victim had to play nicer. Maybe it's really all just PR blather, but them talking about #4 as a right to use deadly force issue has (rightly) brought the political machine down on them. Had they pitched it solely as a "someone [a jury or judge if the defendant chooses] should test the facts and see whether the story is consistent with the facts" I think there would be almost no uproar.

As you can guess, I think #4 is the reasonable option for self-defense. In taking real responsibility for one's safety, one takes real responsibility for one's actions: One deals with the consequences if one is mistaken. Some forms of manslaughter are not lightweight charges to face.