Would the people who are determined to twist the OP's original post about there being no doubt of a real threat into a situation where all credibility is strained in favor of the criminal making the specific threat, "Hand over the money or I will kill you!" please address my contention that if there is no credible threat you are dealing with a panhandler, not a robber?
With those words spoken I see only 2 options.
#1. You have a credible threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" and are thus justified in using deadly force to stop that threat.
#2. There is no credible threat and you can ignore the person who spoke those words and leave.
I fail to see any possible middle ground where the level of threat is great enough to compel me to give up my hard-earned property and yet not so great as to justify the use of deadly force.
Again acknowledging the boundless stupidity found in the criminal community, does the real world contain a crook who would actually say, "Hand over the money or I will commit simple assault by slapping you with a carefully measured amount of force which will bruise you but not break bones or cause any other type of great bodily harm. And here is a notarized document promising that I will certainly not commit any form of sexual assault against you or the children accompanying you after I have you under my control." ?
How can it be possible that, unless the criminal were to grapple you, take the wallet/purse, and leave in an ambush situation that took you completely by surprise, a robbery can occur without satisfying the means, motive, and opportunity criteria?