You have points yes. The question though was How heavy handed are you in giving out conflict? And I did say Very as my answer. I was trying to point out that as far as my GM, I , and my group interpret those rules as they should offer the enemy time to surender, be that AFTER you disable them or before is only dependeant on if they let you talk first. In you example of Yoda vs Duku you didn't mention that they gave him the option to surrender before they attacked him. That senario isnt really relevant in my opinion<take that as you wish> due to the fact that they did offer to let him surrender in the first attacks and its assumed that if they surrvie the fight youda would be arresting them since hes a member of the established defenders of justice/police/blah blah froups.
In the example with the storm troopers, if they attacked the party without provocation(which in this setting is rather hard for a troop of LEGAL, AUTHORIZED, POLICE FORCE units, to actually do) then yeah id say defend away. But if they come in on the orders of THEIR government to take out a set of TERROISTS then yes they are going to shoot anyone they encounter with a weapon and that is their JOB. Now if they waited for the team to fall asleep, tied them up, and then oh i dont know started shooting one randomly and the party jedi rips the troopers arm off to stop that yup no issues. But if they are just being attacked by storm troopers cause they are the Terroists they happn to be? no. A jedi should be able to find a way out with the least amount of harm to EVERYONE in that situation. If they cant minimal amounts of violence to get away? yes thats fine. ERADICATING the troopers tothe last man? No. I Prefer my players and my GMs as well to find ways to motivate the group to not just go out and kill of everything that attacks them . Thats just not the jedi way.