How do you reconcile that with supporting a guy who more or less intended to pass a death sentence on a thief without any process? It's normal to cut some slack to someone you identify with (in this scenario, I suppose you own a property, one or more guns, and don't go steal into other peoples cars, so you probably identify more with the shooter than the shootee), but it's still not how the law works.
It's cute that some of you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the gunowner/homeowner, but not the slightest bit to the "thief". At the moment that the shooter took his potshots, he didn't know they were metheads, didn't know they had priors, he didn't know anything really, other than "these guys are walking on that particular square foot of land that belongs to me".
As for presumption of innocence, the shooter does benefit from it. He's still presumed innocent. Only when/if he pleads guilty or is declared guilty will the presumption that he is innocent disappear. The fact that our society provides him with that presumption although he does not debate the fact that he did shoot someone is kind if a lot considering he didn't offer that same thing to the "thief".
What some people on this board are asking for is not presumption of innocence or a fair trial, it's for the right of homeowners to perform summary executions on car-stealing metheads. Case in point:
