The right to bear arms

Here in Ohio, we have the right to bear arms. We have the right to use deadly force to protect our own life, or the lives of others. BUT... we apparently don't have the right to use deadly force to protect our property. Yesterday a 61-year-old man, Bennie Hall, started his car to warm it up, and then went back inside. When he went back outside, he saw 14 year-old Quavale Finnell driving away with his car. Hall got his gun and fired at the fleeing boy, hitting him in the chest. The boy later died from his wounds... and now Hall could be facing murder charges. This hoodlum has a rap sheet already, with 13 cases ranging from jaywalking to robbery- yet the man whose car he stole could be facing a jail sentence.

I have a HUGE problem with this. We can defend ourselves, protect our property and loved ones, but we cannot use deadly force when anything other than a human life is being threatened? So does this mean that if someone breaks into my house, but isn't armed, I can't fire off a shot at the asswipe? (haha... remember folks, I've only fired a gun once in my life, do not own one, and do not know how to properly handle any sort of weapon, so the chances of ME actually doing this is pretty much zero)

What sort of precedence will this case set? I am NOT comfortable with this- even though I have no idea how Hall could have gotten to a loaded gun quickly enough to fire off a round or two into his car. Gun ownership comes with great responsibility (kinda like Spiderman, eh?)... but does it, or does it not, mean that you can use the weapon to defend human life AND your property... or just human life alone?