You have alot of what if's, what if someone interprets the law wrong???
Well that applies to self defense as well. So do we not make a law for the people who inappropriatly interperet it, you can no longer use deadly force in defense of your life because someone may interpret the law wrong?
I keep bringing up what-ifs because you need to think about them when you're making a law, or talking about a law for that matter. And you're not
thinking about them. You're basically saying you're okay with a law that gives a license to kill in order to prevent (perceived) property theft. And when other people bring up the problems with such a law, you blithely handwave them away by saying things like "well, if they interpret it wrong, then they'll get punished for it." Fat lot of good that does the person who got killed! Fat lot of good it does their family, who now have to deal with their loss!
That is the point here which you just keep refusing to see. When you kill someone, it's permanent. You can't bring them back to life. But you can return or replace stolen property. So why do you think it's justifiable to kill someone - to take their life, which can't ever be returned to them - in order to stop a theft - property which can be returned or at worst replaced? And it's even worse than that, because you're being inconsistent. According to you, a victim has the right to kill someone because they are sure someone is stealing their property, but a bystander doesn't even if they are equally sure someone is stealing another person's property. Similarly, a thief doesn't deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system - if the victim gets to them first. But if they kill the wrong person, or someone who was innocent, then they deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system. Why, because the real victim isn't alive to dish out his own punishment?
Giving a person the right to kill someone else is not just, not even when acting in presumed self-defense. It's just that when you're in imminent danger of being killed, and the only way to prevent it is to kill your attacker, then it's acceptable. But it's still not just.
"Oh he said something bad about my momma" so I beat him to death in defense of my mamma. No!!!! we throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing him for something that was not self defense.
"Oh I thought he was stealing a TV from my neighbor" so I shot him to death in defense of my neighbors TV. We throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing someone who was not stealing.
Hey, thanks for the examples. Mind if I borrow them?
"Oh, he was slandering me, so I shot him to death to defend my good name." "Oh, he was stealing my TV, so I shot him to death to keep him from getting away with it." Neither of these are even remotely acceptable excuses to justify killing someone. In both cases, the shooter was being a dumbass who deserves to be thrown in prison.
That is a judgment call of the victim. Do I feel my TV is worth this risk. Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation? Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit. Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.
It is not even remotely close to self-defense, in any way, shape or form, to shoot someone over a television, or some other piece of replaceable property. So your example here is totally worthless.
For that matter, your attempt to compare theft to rape is abhorrent. Rape is an attack on a person - not a theft of their property.