So basically the US Marshall employed Texas rules instead of DC rules. If this is allowed to stand, everyone arrested over shooting to protect property can cite this case and raise selective prosecution concerns.
I don’t see it as protecting his property at that distance. There’s no guarantee that if he gave up the car that he wouldn’t be shot anyway. In the complaint the complainant stated that he was wearing a US Marshal polo at the time of the incident. While I agree that everyone should be able to defend themselves from being carjacked, when a clearly-armed suspect points their weapon at you, it’s no longer about the property they want to take.