I somewhat agree with you...but I must ask this question;
Are not LEO's 'inherently reactive' & more than just a 'bit pre-emptive' in their nature"?
Why are law abiding civilians always held to much higher standard's and 'microscopic-scrutiny' whenever it comes to self-defense scenarios but LEO's are seemingly not held to these same standard's? Where's the 'fairness' in all of this?
I would have to lower my standards of conduct considerably to get down to cops' level of SOP when it comes to opening fire in so-called self-defense. I hardly think it appropriate to judge this or any other case from the perspective of why or when cops might shoot. I'm not a gambler, and that is the biggest craps-shoot going on in this country these days.
On another note;
Would you or I have 'preemptively' shot at some shadowy figure standing at a distance behind our fence at night?
But we were not there on that night in question and therefore we cannot 'accurately critique' the homeowner's actions.
However, I do think it appropriate to judge a case based on what us "reasonable" carriers would do in the same or similar situation. While this particular shooter would probably be within his rights in Texas or Alabama, I am fairly certain that Castle Doctrine laws that extend outside of the home to protect property or flight are rare. I like that my state gives me more options than I would exercise in this kind of instance. That means my government trusts gun owners to make the right decisions. However, if they wiped the books clean of all laws concerning the use of deadly force, I would still never shoot someone anywhere, inside or outside, unless I perceived an articulable threat. That threshold is much thinner inside, but having security lighting outside, it would be a very rare case that I couldn't identify an armed threat vs. a prowler or glove-box thief or whatever.
I realize all the facts of this case aren't in, or at least we don't have them, but as far as I can tell, this shooter jumped the gun (no pun intended). And it all depends on NOLA and LA laws concerning shooting to protect property crimes anyway. Doesn't sound on first blush that LA is as trusting of its citizens as your or my state is, Outlaw, and it's incumbent upon citizens who carry to know what conditions they're legally allowed to shoot in.
I most likely would have illuminated the trespasser with my flashlight and yelled out "Who are you!? What the hell are you doing on my property?" Now, if the trespasser simply fled from the scene, I would not give chase and I would immediatly notify the police.
But if the trespasser decided to approach me in a menacing manner in the darkness of night with very limited time & visual's of the trespasser's hand's, then I would most assuredly be prepared to to use deadly force because I would have to assume that the trespasser is a serious threat to me and mine in that moment.
I have no problem with any of this, except that you don't hold this particular shooter to the same restrained standards you hold yourself to. I get giving the benefit of the doubt, but no one gets more than I allow myself, ya know?