Exodus 22:2

If the thing be as clear as the sun that he was not entering to destroy life, and one hath killed him, the guilt of the shedding of innocent blood is upon him; and if spared from his hand, restoring he shall restore. If he have not wherewith to restore, the beth din shall sell him for his theft until the year of release.

IF THE SUN HAS RISEN UPON HIM.. 2. If the sun be risen upon him ‘damim lo’ (there shall be guilt of blood incurred for him). He shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. “This is nothing but a metaphorical expression, [for did the sun rise upon him alone? Does it not rise upon the whole world? It means etc.] But Onkelos who rendered the phrase if the sun has risen upon him as: ‘if the eye of the witnesses fell upon him’ chose a different way of interpreting the verse, which is as follows: if the witnesses found the thief before the householder came, and when the householder came to resist the thief, they warned him not to kill the thief, then damim lo, he is liable if he killed him, for since there were witnesses watching him, the thief had no thought of taking human life, and he would not have killed the householder.” Thus is Rashi’s language.
But I wonder! When He said above [in Verse 1], there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, thereby acquitting the householder for the murder of the thief, it must surely be speaking of a case where the witnesses warned him not to kill him, for no murderer is ever liable to death without prior warning. And if you say then that in stating: there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, Heaven permitted the thief’s blood to be shed, that is to say, it is permissible to kill him — that is not true! particular verse. For while the law itself is true [that the owner is permitted to kill him], but here the verse speaks of a case where he has already killed him! So how can you say that the intent of the verse is to give him permission to kill him, when he has already killed him! Moreover, since damim lo [in Verse 2] declares the householder culpable both by the court and at the hand of Heaven, then ein lo damim [in the preceeding verse, stating the opposite case], must as a counterpart free him from both, and the way Rashi interpreted Onkelos ein lo damim frees him only from punishment at the hand of Heaven! In other words, Verse 2 must be a case where there were witnesses, as is indicated by the phrase if the sun be risen upon him, as Rashi understands Onkelos. In contrast Verse 1 speaks of a case where there were no witnesses, and hence it cannot refer at all to freeing him from the death by the court, for the court can never act anyway without witnesses; but instead it refers only to freeing him …

אם זרחה השמש, if he was stealing in broad daylight.

ונמכר בגנבתו, if the Torah had not legislated this form of paying off one’s debt for theft most of the poor people of the nation would become thieves, knowing that they did not have to make restitution except with liquid assets. As a result of such lack of legislation civilisation would disintegrate into anarchy.

שלם ישלם שנים, “must pay twice the value of what he had destroyed” The Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 60, quotes G–d as having said: “I have lit a destructive fire in Zion,” (Lamentations 4,11) it therefore behooves Me when (the time comes) to pay for the destruction I have caused.” This is the deeper meaning of what the prophet Zecharyah has said in Zecharyah 2,9, “I will be for Zion a (protective) wall of fire all around it.”