Based on what I've read of this case, the shooting was justified. Just because he's been charged doesn't mean he'll be found guilty, but I don't think he should have been charged in the first place. The kid invaded his property in the middle of the night. He has a history of burglary. He got what he had coming to him, plain and simple. New Orleans just became a safer place now that he's off the street.
That's nonsense. I have no idea what the actual facts of this case are, but the right to use force to defend ourselves comes with reasonable restrictions. Trespassing doesn't warrant 'shoot-to-kill'. As others here have noted, if he'd actually tried breaking into the house, there's little dispute the homeowner would have been within his rights to shoot. But if all that happened here was the kid hopped a fence, I think blowing him away is little over the top, don't you?