When covering that section of law, about deadly force to protect property, someone asked him for an example. He would not commit to a specific set of circumstances and say "I would not prosecute you for this." He did give an example where he said there would be strong consideration for protecting property with deadly force to be justified by law.
Bear in mind, this is my memory and interpretation of what he said 15+ years ago in another county. Take it for what it's worth and I will not provide you with bail money.
Anyway, he said something along the following lines: Suppose you have a carpenter who lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and one night he discovers someone stealing his tools out of his pickup truck in front of his house. If he loses the tools, he will lose his job, he doesn't have enough money to replace them right away, he won't be able to buy food for his kids or pay his rent if he loses his job because his tools were stolen.
Those factors would cut in his favor when considering the defense of property justification.
I think I would not test this particular defense if at all possible.