This story is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell what actually happened, but I had the same thought.
Now, in Texas, there are circumstances in which one can legally use deadly force to protect what the law calls “mere property”, but I’m pretty sure that’s unique to Texas.
As things continue to deteriorate we’re going to see more ordinary people making these sorts of decisions, I’m sure, regardless of the specific laws in place. And if I’m on the jury, anyone who uses deadly force against an armed felon is going home.
In Washington state you can use “reasonable force” to prevent property theft or damage. In the past you could shoot a fleeing robber, but now folks that do that are getting prosecuted more - even though the written law stays the same.
I guess the term “reasonable force” is what has changed in the eyes of juries and prosecutors.
I recall an old news article (20 years old?) where there had been several shootings of fleeing robbers in the area. The sheriff was asked what was going on.
He replied something like “What’s going on? I guess it means it’s a really bad idea to try to rob people in this county.”
Today? If somebody is stealing my truck, sad to say, but they can have it if I am not in danger and they are just driving away.
However, there have been a rash of shootings where the people have stolen a car first and then go shoot up a house or what not. I doubt that my defense of “Hey, he stole my truck and I was preventing a mass shooting” would work.