As I stated above, self-defence is never violence. This includes stating your intent to defend yourself, your family and your property even with lethal force. Y

As I stated above, self-defence is never violence. This includes stating your intent to defend yourself, your family and your property even with lethal force. You shouldn't need to state it though, it should be assumed. A homeowner cannot possibly know the motive of a trespasser, and it is therefore completely rational for them to use lethal self-defence, because they must assume the worst-case, that the trespasser may harm them or their family. So there is no violation of the NAP here - the trespasser is the only one who may be in violation. Obviously, the vast majority of people aren't out to kill. They don't want to harm someone for stepping onto their lawn, nor do they want to clean up a dead body. The use of self-defence is a last-resort if they feel in danger, or if they feel their property is under threat and it's worth more than the perpetrators life. If the trespasser decides that somebody's property is worth more than their own life (which is the case if they assume the owner may use lethal self-defence), then there should be no expectation of the property owner valuing the life of the perpetrator more than their property. Both parties agree that the property is worth more than the aggressor’s life.