I'm not sure how you're connecting race to this in any way. This case is absolutely nothing like the Martin case where a guy shot an unarmed kid outside after following him and initiating contact with him.
Regarding shooting an intruder in my home: I'm not going to jump straight to deadly force in my escalation of force drill unless I can see a weapon. If I see someone advancing up the stairs they get at least a verbal warning before I fire (in general - things change if they are charging, etc).
From a legal standpoint, this sounds like a good shoot, as the intruder was in the house after having come in through a window and setting off an alarm and then advancing up the stairs; however, from a moral standpoint that is something the homeowner and the homeowner alone will be left to contemplate because non of us will ever have all the facts. Did he shoot a teenager drunkenly stumbling up the stairs without ever telling him to stop or did he only shoot because an adult sized figure was charging up the stairs after ignoring commands? It makes a difference from a moral standpoint only - again, legally it sounds as if the homeowner was in the right. But, as NES members love to point out, there can certainly be a gap between what is right legally and what is right morally.
Once again I'd like to point out that taking the life of another human being is a traumatic experience that changes people for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether it was a justified killing or not. That trauma is amplified the closer and more personal a killing is, such as in your home. Read Dave Grossman's On Killing for the definitive look at the subject.
By all means, protect your home and your loved ones, but be aware that shooting someone will have traumatic consequences for you, so you might want to be aware of that as you're doing your mental shoot/don't shoot rehearsals.