You should read even one of the sources you listed.

Here is the AK one, as it is most relevant.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

Duty to retreat laws are EXTREMELY situational and often very jury dependent. Basically if it is in court you need to show that you feared for your life and had no easy option to leave the scene.

A single male can be easily fucked by those laws (me) a father of 5 will be more likely to be protected by them because of the complexity of a retreat.

If I was in that situation, where it was well lit enough for me to see that the invader was not obviously armed and I was in that state I would be required to retreat. An old lady with poor vision in bad light would probably not be convicted by a jury of her peers.

I sincerely hope you are not a gun owner, as you an embarrassment to basic gun law.