Correct me if I'm stupid, but that's the whole intent of the Castle Doctrine legislation and the whole home invasion issue:
DON'T DO IT. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. YOU MIGHT DIE. Why do we feel like people that violate the rights of others to such a huge degree need such outlandish protections from the rather natural consequences of this type of crime? I'm all for the "guilty until proven innocent" bit in court, but if somebody I don't know just smashed my garage window and is in my living room holding something that could be a lethal weapon... I figure his rights just evaporated until the circumstances change. I won't go down stairs with guns blazing but I won't feel any remorse for killing him should I have to shoot. Nobody shoots a gun to wound an attacker. A firearm is a lethal weapon and should be treated and used as such. If I have to shoot somebody? They're going to die. Do I like this? Not at all. Am I okay with this in self-defense? Certainly.
Remember now: With everything in the legal world (and life in general), these Castle Doctrines have to be applied to the least common denominator of those who would have to use them. Most women and the elderly aren't inclined to wrestle young male intruders. It's cool to be all bravado-balls and talk about home invasions where you'll Jackie Chan some guy in the dark... but let's be realistic here. American Gladiators we are not. You and I aren't the only type of person on the planet... combative males. Home invading bad guys would be wise to target the single moms and lonely grandmas of the world and the law has to work for the defense option that these type of people can exercise...
i.e.: Chock-chock-BANG.
Don't get me wrong: I really do believe in the supreme value of human life. I don't want to hurt anybody. I also believe, however, said value fluctuates based on choices.