I've seen a lot of commentary saying that if I support defending property, I value my property over someone else's life.
This isn't true, and it's also wrong.
My right to life, liberty, and property are not three random, unassociated concepts that have been selected out of a hat. Each acknowledges your existence, because you exist in time — you have a future, present, and past.
Your right to life is an acknowledgment that you have a future. If someone ends your life, you lose your future. Your right to liberty is an acknowledgment that you have a present. If someone ends your liberty, you lose your present.
Your right to property is an acknowledgment that you have a past. Your property is the product of your life and liberty, as well as the life, liberty, and product of the thousands of ancestors it took to create you. If someone steals or destroys your property, you lose the portion of your past that resulted in the acquisition, possession, and maintenance of that property.
You cannot believe in the right to life and liberty without believing in the right to property, because life and liberty become mostly meaningless if you cannot reap their reward.
And defending property doesn't exist in a vacuum. If someone tried to steal my car and I step in front of it to prevent them from accessing the door, their continued pursuit almost always includes a threat to my life. At that point, I am now defending life and property — both my car and my body.
Sometimes I wish we emphasized the right to property more than "pursuit of happiness" so people valued it more, because the latter is already covered by the right to liberty and the former is not cherished enough.