I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.
Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.
The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.
A burglary is a felony and Florida law states a home burglary is presumed to be a force so the homeowner can shoot someone in their home.
If they were targeting homes with no one in them, that would seem to turn the table on that.
The two quibbles people have had, it uses the word force which is a bad word choice or that once they left the house it was an issue.
Reasonable context would imply in the house and the owner does not have time to be able to suss out the reason for the invasion. Therefore, an immediate allowable force. The trouble is, if someone is fleeing, they clearly are not intending to harm the people in the home. That is the whole reason why a homeowner is allowed to use force. It isn't to protect their property, it is to ensure the protection of their lives.
In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.
That is one portion of the equation here, as I'm speaking as to the liability of a criminal to the death of another criminal. If the intent of the criminal is to not rob a home with someone in it, and once they notice someone coming, they flee, it is hard to understand how a criminal could be held liable for a killing while in the progress of fleeing a crime. While Florida law may speak otherwise, I can only fathom a reasonable law only allowing a felony murder charge in a case of an aggravated (armed) felony.