These thought experiments are interesting because they highlight the legal and moral ambiguity for what can be defined as self-defense. It reminds me of the
Plank of Carneades.
On a basic instinctual level, self-defense is whatever promotes self-preservation under a threat from an external actor. Property can be directly related to someone's self-preservation. Shelter is a basic necessity of life and if you take that from someone, you may be affecting their survival and their ability to pass on their genes. So while it might not present on imminent threat, it's difficult to reason with someone when natural instincts are triggered.
As a civilized society, we strive to be above natural law, and for good reason. Is it a legal self-defense to take a life over property, probably not usually. But is it murder? I would say not always.
Our society even promotes this idea in the event of war when killing is permitted to protect a way of life and how we provide for those necessities. If one country takes resources (or property) from another, we allow that killing isn't murder to get that property back.