Self defense is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights. One man's right to life does not justify his taking the heart of someone else, just because he needs a heart transplant.
This logic is brain-dead. By definition, self-defense is the exercise of your right to defend yourself through the use of FORCE to stop another individual from harming you. It necessarily requires you to violate the other party's right. Point in fact, it is possible for a person to FORFEIT his right by course of action. If you violently attack me you FORFEIT your right to live when I exercise my right to self-defense. THIS IS WHY THE LAW PERMITS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Self defense Property ownership is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights.
At issue is a conflict of rights. That Property Rights should always trump has not been justified from what I have seen so far.