[animal]

"Are you willing to kill someone over what is in your wallet" is a red herring to a discussion of natural rights and so is whether "standing your ground is always a good idea". How individual rights are actually exercised is a separate question and always involves valid or invalid actions chosen according to one’s personal morality and the situation in which one finds himself .

As far as rights and duties go with respect to retreat : The person who is operating within his rights has the right to retreat and the person infringing on another’s rights has the duty to retreat.

Personally, I believe it is morally wrong to use deadly force to protect my property unless failure to protect it would result in endangering my life or the life of another. I also believe it is morally wrong to infringe upon the property rights of another, or to impose my moral code upon another where their right to liberty does not conflict with the rights of another.
Private property extends the boundaries of "self". Your property is basically part of you as a person (not what you are as a man (except for the very core of your principles) but how you are considered in relation to others). I can’t force another to take action and change himself as a person. My only right in trying to change someone else is to use speech in hopes that he will listen and change himself.

Self preservation is not a selfish act as long as you recognize that others also have the right to self preservation. When one attempts to violate a particular right of another person, he forfeits that right for himself.

(use of "man" in this and previous post is not meant to be gender specific, but more in the sense of being human. If someone cannot act as a human, they are no longer fully human … just as an automobile without an engine could be considered a pile of scrap metal with the potential to be an automobile rather than being an automobile. It’s function and action define what it is to the world around it.)