I'm asking you to consider hypos. Life itself is a what if game, a series of choices. None of my scenarios is unusual. Many have happened to me personally. I have seen a man come into the garage to take an item he felt was his. I know of a relative who actually hired some bums off Burnside to ransack my dead great grandmother's house and take everything before the property could be divided. Not a nice thing to do, but should we start killing over it? I believe on a moral and legal basis that the only reason any of us should be taking any human life as individuals is precisely to defend our person and our lives. There is no other valid reason for an individual citizen to go that far. I also believe it is righteous to stand your ground and defend your property with your life. I do not believe a duty to retreat should be imposed. But even then the killing must be in defense of your life, not mere property. Otherwise we have placed property over human life in value and empowered the individual victim to be judge and jury on the spot. That's profoundly immoral even if the legislature approves it. This is why I'm throwing out hypos about fleeing criminals and non-violent thieves. If you remove the danger to self, then killing a person over property becomes indefensible. The use of deadly force must always turn on the imminent peril to yourself or others, not just peril to stuff.