It is a good way to at least make us think, but it’s flawed in order to make the point. It’s not like someone has their property stolen and then goes on a rampage killing people over it. The idea is someone’s house is broken into or someone attempts to mug them of their personal property and they react with deadly force to the perpetrator. The victim of their murder is the same person as the perpetrator of the crime. Whether you think that’s an over reaction or you think it’s the right call, most logical people wouldn’t see that as the opposite of one person is murdered and as a result a bunch of people go destroy property totally unrelated to the murderer.
Just pointing out the two scenarios are not opposite sides of the same coin. I’m not commenting on either of them on their own.