Look, I completely agree with the argument that when someone steals from me, he steals a portion of my life, period. Thus, I am completely within my right to defend that portion of my life, period.
Now, that is a principle by which I live. However, it is a principle, not a dogma. Meaning, I am willing to bend it for a greater good (the survival of my beloved family), particularly when the tactical analysis of the situation calls for a retreat.
Contrary to a half-baked warrior-prince fantasy some folks might have (sure, every man dreams of laying down some major "smack" against the evil ones), defending a store with 2-3 other family members while 50 or even 100 armed looters come at you is NOT a winning proposition.
The question on whether it is moral or not is already decided. The real practical question is: is it "the hill" you want to die on? Or risk the lives of your children?
We, humans, are resilient creatures. Even when we "lose it all," if we have each other (meaning family and friends), it is possible to re-build. That is not the case if you, your beloved wife and children are all dead. Does that mean I do not believe in self-defense? Of course I believe in self-defense! But what it means is that, given the choice between "retreat" that will increase the odd of my family's survival and "fight" that will diminish it, I will always choose the former. I will only fight if there is no other alternative. This isn't from some bunny-hugging feeling about the criminals, but rather from cold, calculating analysis about the odds of survival.
Skorzeny