Re: Too subtle for me.
The presence of an intruder in your home is not enough to qualify as reason to believe you life (or the lives of your family) are in danger.
Why not? The intruder has demonstrated a disregard for decent behavior. Why would you assume at that point that he or she would feel the same concerning the lives or health of you or your family? What would it take to convince you that you are in danger if not a thug ransacking your home with you in it?
If you have the capability and/or training to disarm, disable or subdue an intruder without harming them then you are not allowed to use more force than that.
See, this is how people end up on the floor, dead with a knife in hand that they did not enter the house with. This sort of argument reminds me of people questioning why police don't shoot to wound rather than to kill. "Disarm, disable or subdue" is likely to get you dead. Stop or drive away by any means are much safer goals.
It is up to the police to capture the intruder, not you. And possessions are not worth lives; yours or theirs.
Yes, as I noted above, capture should not be your goal, even though your statements are self-contradictory on this point. I would (and have) walked away from possessions when faced with a credible threat. I am not familiar with Florida's laws, but most places I am familiar with look at the situation as if the person is forcing his or her way into your home while you are there, you have a right to defend yourself.
The concept that you can shoot someone dead for trying to get in to your house, and where they've made no threat to your (or your family's) life is...bizarre.
It can be, and has been, construed that the fact that someone is breaking into your house constitutes a de facto threat to life and limb. I thoroughly agree with you in that possessions are not worth lives, though I suspect we disagree on the point at which one reasonably might be expected or allowed to use lethal force.