Two Ohio home invasions, two very different outcomes

Two recent home invasions in Ohio had two very different outcomes for the victims, and for the perpetrators.

In Case #1, a 23-year-old Akron woman, Ms. Raysean Clark, was shot in the chest by Timothy D. Secession, after he forced his way into her home and began beating her. Clark is still slowly recovering.

In Case #2, a Columbus homeowner used his gun to stop David A. Griffin when he crashed into the home in an attempted home invasion/robbery. When police arrived they found the robber's body lying in the front yard, with gunshot wounds in upper torso.

Since these perpetrators were obviously undeterred by the various and extensive felony laws they were breaking, isn't the more attractive outcome one in which the innocent victim is spared injury? Since future home invasions, car-jackings, muggings, etc. are bound to occur, doesn't the more attractive scenario involve the intended victim being allowed to exercise their right to self-defense?