Again according to to his account of things, which most judges would throw out with a decent attorney, unless their was a philological evaluation to go along with it. Which I am sure will come into play anyways, but either way breaking into someones home is not rational, and it isn't logical to assume they would behave any prescribed way cornered in their basement after already having shot and had felt the need to kill one.
You're other case AGAIN NOT the same thing, and one of the main reasons for the conviction along with eye witness accounts was the video. But in any case not the same thing, the guy wasn't alone, he wasn't assume to be scared according to the evidence, and no case could be made otherwise, and personally, I am glad he got first degree murder, because i disagree with THAT sort of behavior based on the CIRCUMSTANCES of this being a business.
But try walking stealing money from a bank, or a Armored car, you don't even need a gun, just the assumption of one and they can shoot to kill, and i find that can even debatable.
But this 64 year old man having his property assaulted by two fully grown teenagers, after they broke in, and based on the stupidity of his account of what happened, baring no similar situations like this in his past, NO, I would give him the benefit.