It depends on the property and the circumstances.
I would hold fire for trivial, easily replaced property whose absence would not imperil me.
There are times and places when the ABSENCE of certain carefully husbanded property, such as food, shelter, critical tools, and the like would emperil me or my family.
The idea that a criminal's life is worth more than the property they take is a relatively modern one. It wasn't all that long ago that a huge list of crimes came with the very real possibility of a death sentence, and so the idea of potentially killing someone over a crime whose penalty was death anyway didn't present the discrepancy it does today, which presents us with the possibility of killing someone over a crime whose probable punishment was probation.
Finally, while I'm certainly glad that we've reformed our notion of criminal justice, and no longer execute youths for theft, as a matter of principle, our society should not be in the business of *reducing* the risks of engaging in criminal activity.
We should be in the business of *maximizing* these risks. It is entirely to the benefit of society, and the honest people in it that the commission of serious criminal acts, especially violent crimes, maximally expose the criminal to legally and societally sanctioned violence only during the commission of the crime.
This motivates 2 things: first for the crime not to be committed at all, and second, to motivate the criminal to surrender peacefully and immediately so as to remove himself from the position of getting eligible for a thorough legal beating.
The message is simple: while committing crimes, you are a free and fair target for whatever anyone cares to dish out, until you surrender.
Edited to add:
Please note that the above is my statement of how it should be, not how it is. How it actually is varies wildly from one jurisdiction to the next. YMMV.
