I believe that those who invade another's home, even just to steal, deserve to be killed (yes, I said it....killed.), and judging from the laws of my state, I am not alone in this belief.
Many states recognize that burglary alone is reason enough to use deadly force.
Sound logical at first blush, but dig a little deeper....
Many states, including mine, legally permit the use of deadly force against one who is unlawfully breaks into an
occupied home, place of business, and/ or automobile. That's essentially an extension of the concept that a man's home is his castle, as embodied in the old English Common Law that serves as the foundation of the laws in all states but one. In fact, the concept goes back about 4000 years.
But is the purpose to permit the slaying of someone for stealing? I think not. Read any scholastic discussion of the concept behind those laws and you will find that the justification has to do with the right of the occupants to self preservation.
Try shooting someone for breaking into an unoccupied house and see what it gets you.
Have any of the states actually decided that one who breaks into a house "just to steal" deserves to be killed? Well, if so, would the laws not prescribe the death penalty for such a crime? They do not, anywhere in the country.
Under Sharia law, a person convicted of stealing may have a hand amputated, but that's not in effect here....yet.
There are two states--and only two states--in which deadly force is permitted for the sole purpose of protecting property, and in those the circumstances are limited.
In all others that have castle laws, the laws are intended primarily to address self defense. In some, but not all, they make the defense of justifiability less onerous by eliminating the (ridiculous, in my view) requirement to retreat from or within the home.