On the fiction front.it would have been better had Jean ValJean had found some work to do for someone or begged stale bread,but those cases which surelly did happen would not make the point of the Les Miserables tale which is an obseessed pursuit of an individual for a single act of petty crime.
THe Middle Ages had a long list of crimes punishable by death and the rich and powerful apparently lived quite lavishly while condemning their fellow humans to severe poverty;not exactly according to Biblical principles as I understand them.The rich have obligations,not to give away all they worked for,but to at least give something.Remember the owner of fields was not to go over the ground a second time but leave the grain missed in the harvest for gleaning by widows and poor.
Now let it be stated the burglars of Smith’s home were not desperately poor ,starving Frenchmen and I made a mistake bringing up Les Miserables in the first place.
I was not aware ambush meant the intended targets were innocent;I seem to recall military setting up ambushes of the opposing forces.
The online dictionary defines ambush as attacking suddenly from a concealed position;nothing is mentioned as to relative morality of the actors.
I therefore submit that waiting concealed with the intent of shooting on sight does constitute an ambush.Whether that is an appropiate tactic in home self-defense is yet another argument.
And the point of the Smith tale which is an obsessed pursuit of an individual for a single act that may not be a crime.
...the rich and powerful apparently lived quite lavishly while condemning their fellow humans to severe poverty; not exactly according to Biblical principles as I understand them.
I agree on both points, however, the rich and powerful accomplished this by being the State,... and the courts and the enforcement that comes with being the State.
The fictional baker, Valjean and Smith are individuals, NOT the State, and all must be protected from thieves, the State, and, most importantly, State thieves.
Now, understanding that the State is the bad guy, reading the rest of your post has a different meaning.
Hugo's brilliant fictional novel avoids discussion of state responsibility to maintain human interest.
I can find no evidence that the baker or Smith obtained their stuff immorally or unethically so it should not be taken from them. Not even by the State.