As the fellow who initiated this thread, I want to offer a few PERSONAL OPINIONS:
a) Obviously, I would be willing to use lethal force, were I COMPELLED to do so, to defend innocent life from an imminent, grave threat.
b) However, I would not be willing to use deadly force to defend my property -- especially inconsequential property, such as the aforecited “toaster” example.
c) While this decision has a personal ethical component, the driving factors are practical. Even in a GREAT state like Texas (where the statues permit such force under broad conditions), shooting/killing the felon is likely to result in considerable expense (attorneys, potential civil lawsuits, and so forth) and hassle (police investigation, potential loss of you firearm, possibly incarceration, etc.). I simply don’t think it’s worth the troubles, especially since I am a prudent, well-insured individual.
d) In several ways, I am sorry to have reached this conclusion (“c" above), since it seems logical that only when criminals understand that there are real, direct, and substantial consequences for their illegal action will they be dissuaded from doing so.