Tongue firmly planted in check. Not all assaults are created equal under the law. A armed assault would most likely justify lethal force. State laws vary and your state's law must be researched to be sure.
Some members of OCDO have stated, repeatedly, that the theft of property is not justification to employ lethal force. In this incident it appears that the shooter may not be prosecuted.
OC4ME, et al., while this this is a couple of years old I'm not locating anything more current on al gore's invention...
http://ccwvslaw.org/item/888
quote: Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property.
If someone commits a felony crime against your person in these jurisdictions, you may legally shoot them. Conversely, if you want to make a living by felony crimes against persons, these are not the safest states to ply your trade.
Stand-your-ground: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia unquote
ipse
addendum:
that said...and again for the record, i am one of the proponents who
will not intervene during the theft of property from someone as i, nor those near and dear, are not facing death or serious bodily injury from the event!! (please understand my firearm will be out and at the ready, and seeking cover, but will not intervene!)
invoking the death penalty for theft of property is not something i could live with.
finally, if, as it sounds like, IMHO the defender screwed up their SA posture and got way to close to the situation, at that point that is their problem and the good samaritan deserves whatever judicial or civil consequences are forth coming.