But yet the sentence isn't constructed that way. If we were to accept your viewpoint as true, then the preceding predicate "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" is also not a requirement for the protections of Section D, which isn't the case (they have upheld that predicate multiple times, see Dawkins vs State, 2011). It doesn't have to hold your hand and Wikipedia bullet-point with historical examples... the way it's written says everything there is.
And I never said a CC must stand by for anything. Now you are the one over-reading what is written. I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.
The Oklahoma Jury instructions again iterate both items as a predicate for Section D:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361
OK, lets put your theory to the test. Identify any Oklahoma case law that shows a CC case where CC holder (who was not engaged in unlawful activity and was in a place they had a right to be) protected someones life and was subsequently charged for protecting that individual. You find something like that, then I might buy your argument....otherwise, it doesn't hold water.