Self-defence laws vary between countries and states. This should be a general answer for the US and many western countries.
The philosophy of self-defence laws is typically:
- Self-defence is to prevent harm. It is not for the victim to punish or take revenge on an attacker
- Self-defence should be proportional to the harm prevented
- Deadly force should be a last resort
Deadly force is typically only acceptable when the victim is (or believes they or someone else is) in danger of death, rape, abduction, or serious bodily harm and when there is no other option. It is almost never legal to kill someone over property and the law does not have provisions for someone who you think is "asking for it"
As the article says, he could have called the police. It's a car. Not only is it a possession, legally it must be insured. The outrage comes from internet justice supporting the three Rs of punishment (Retaliation, Revenge, Rabblerabblerabble) and not seeing criminals as human.
As for the other examples:
The black man who was shot at could have stopped pursuing at any point. Even when he was being shot at, if he had the opportunity to retreat he was legally obliged to take that rather than kill someone.
The car owners in your other examples did not have the right to kill someone over a vehicle. They were in no danger yet decided to end a life.