This is essentially correct. The wrinkles come from issues of where the intruder happens to be at the time, the character of the intrusion, the nature of the property interest being protected, and the relationship between the parties.
First thing, you cannot protect "mere property" by means of deadly force, not ever. You can protect the home you're in, whatever that happens to be at the time, and regardless of who owns it. The area protected includes the "curtilage", the area around the home that is so closely associated with the home that it's just like being inside, in terms of the likely use people will put it to. Personal property can never be protected by deadly force, nor can real property beyond the curtilage.
The real issue is the likely harm to human occupants of the property protected, not the invasion of the property itself. So if a burglar is stealing a TV set from the homeowner's living room at 2:00 a.m., the threat is that he's got felonious intent and may be presumed to be willing to kill or maim the occupants. Same with "home invasions" - it is not necessary that the intruder make any specific threat to anyone, nor that he be engaged in burglary - if he's not supposed to be there and is there under circumstances that allow the homeowner to conclude that he's up to no good, then deadly force may be used as reasonably necessary, because there's a presumption that he intends harm to the occupants.
There is a distinction, as the Hon. Mr. Nap observes, between intruders and trespassers. If the person is intruding into the middle of your cornfield, he's merely a trespasser. Similarly, if you have reason to know he's not motivated by evil intent, he's merely a trespasser. My favorite example: if the Alzheimer's patient from across the street gets confused about where he lives and comes through your unlocked door at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, he is a trespasser, but not an intruder. You may use such force as is reasonably necessary to expel a trespasser, and may escalate if he resists, but you have a duty not to "wantonly or wilfully injure" him. If he turns it into a self-defense situation, of course, that's a different ball-game.
A related defense is "stopping a serious felony in progress", which gives you the legal power to stop a person engaged in a "serious felony", for the same reason: the implicit threat to human life and limb. The "serious felonies" are murder, rape, robbery, arson, and burglary. Lots of folks would add abduction, but the courts have never ruled on that one. The article originally cited by OP used the term, "robbery", but robbery is the taking of personal property from the person of another by means of threats, force, or intimidation. Distinguished from burglary, which is the breaking and entering into a dwelling of another in the night-time with the intention to commit a felony. Virginia law has abolished the "night-time" distinction by statute. So the guy who's stealing the TV (worth over two hundred dollars, which makes the theft "grand larceny") at two o'clock a.m., can be shot both because he's a burglar, and also in defense of habitation. And if he pulls a weapon out when discovered, then you can add justifiable self-defense to the list. But defense of habitation and stopping a serious felony are about keeping people safe in a general way because of the inherently dangerous nature of the criminal enterprise, while self-defense / defense of innocent others requires a specific and immediate threat.
By the way, I've noticed that other lawyers have begun to copy stuff I've posted on OCDO and putting it on their own websites. Watch out for cheap imitations, lawyers who specialize in "wecitd" posing as personal defense attorneys ("whatever comes in the door"). I'd like to know about it, though, if anyone knows any really good attorneys in Virginia or West Virginia who actually do practice in the same area I do, since I can't be everywhere, and sometimes it's not cost-effective to have me travel from Fauquier to, say, Wise or Dickenson.
