My overall look at the court thing is as follows.
Some particular species have a natural tendancy.  Hobs are winter, gruffs are summer, etc.  Exceptions will exist (see below).
Many (most?) have no, or only a slight natural prediliction, and their associations and actions will generally determine a court if there is a calling of the wyldfae, but they will generally be left alone.
Many will choose to associate themselves with a court without needing to be born or compelled into one.

Then you should have always been expecting your character to die. That's not surprise. Hell, did you put on pants? If yes then you were already tangling with death.

Pretty fair.

Is there no rational discussion between players and GMs?

I think if it is a problem you should talk it out with the players and express that lethal force spells will be expected to cause lethal hits.  The rules are all written with the basic principle that GMs and players are working together on the game.

The rules don't impose a penalty, as a GM, if you've discussed it and the player still doesn't reign things in or acknowledge the lethal consequences, maybe you should consider, and I know this will cause all sorts of trouble, imposing real consequences and ruling some of those hits lethal.

This tends to drift into the old D&D problem of "if it has stats I can kill it!"  Just because the rules allow for you to be throwing 8, 9, or 10 shifts of power into your aggressive evocations, why are you, especially around mortals?  Harry is in the top 20 or so wizards when it comes to raw power, often has a bit of fallout when it comes to his big spells due to his lack of control.  Why is every Tom, Dick and, uh, Melvin throwing around Senior Council worthy evocations all the time.  It strikes me that those big spells should be saved for situations that call for really big spells and dramatic effects.
Just my thoughts on the story-based issue involved.

Thoughts for keeping it in line:
Especially for White Council characters who intended to play it straight.  Invoke and compel those aspects against them.  Using lethal force against mortals should be unpalatable to most people and an act against their nature.
People who fling major power around indiscriminately should be regarded by people who know about them as maniacs and it will discourage people from working with and helping them.  A lot of the supernatural world is political and social, reckless use of magic will seriously damage your credibility in any sort of tactful situation.

@Vine: The main reason not to allow a shaped or extended block as a reaction is that it makes a mockery of the action economy. Why would you ever spend an action on a block when you can just do it as a defence?

Took me a second, but I remembered one.  Starting off the fight with a decent sustained block does mean two chances to defend against those pesky incoming attacks.  Still not enough though, just throwing it in for the fun of technicality.

Yeah, as I was writing I knew there was something that was bugging me because when I started I had a different opinion, but didn't remember what it was.

Just ignore that whole part of it.

Just for an example for the riposte idea.
Let's assume a low-power character.
Four shifts of power in a shield.  Let's say the control roll was a 5.
What would the various attempts to riposte look like?

*edited out due to relevance*