Shooting someone to protect property is not justified.
Confronting someone who is breaking into a car, though, certainly is.
That said, if the perpetrator, on discovery, presents a deadly threat, lethal force in self defense is justified.
It’s the details that the police seem to be trying to gather that matter. Jumping to conclusions in any direction is a mistake.
The shooter is Black, expect more than a fair trial.
Of course it is. A robber is trying to deprive you of your sacred rights. By seizing something that is yours without your permission, he is threatening your person. He is substituting his own personal force for morality and the law.
And if he does so openly and in your presence, it's an explicitly violent and tyrannical act. He has put you in the position of either losing your right to what you have earned and bought, or risking your personal safety merely to retain what you own and he does not.
Even 13-year-olds understand this. (Try to take their stuff and watch what happens next.) The handful who defy others' personal property rights are signaling that they are criminally insane, dangerous tyrants without decency, and there is no predicting what they will do next. If they won't desist without being shot, it's sad if they die, but if they insist on invasion, there is no alternative.