I also agree that it shouldn't be a capital crime, but I don't think that automatically implies that deadly force cannot be allowed to prevent the theft in the first place. The distinction really comes down to your belief on public vs private use of force. On one extreme, you could believe that only the state should be allowed to use deadly force to enforce, on the other extreme you could believe the state should never use deadly force.

I would guess that many Texans who support the use of deadly force in this situation accept this difference. Personally I feel there should be no death penalty, but also believe individuals should generally be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. I'm worried about cases or mistaken identity or collateral damage, but that should be an empirical question rather than one of justice.