My original point was not that property cannot be morally defended through violence, my original point was that you cannot defend property morally through viole

My original point was not that property cannot be morally defended through violence, my original point was that you cannot defend property morally through violence, which is the law (not a single state allows the use of lethal force to protect property, only life), and it makes perfect sense when you value human life over property (as the vast majority of human society does). And considering the stakes, it does not make sense to enforce post-hoc a punishment for incorrectly applying this imaginary "defense of property" law you've invented. People's lives are not something you can un-end.