This is true. But I see no basis that the land owner had no reasonable basis for belief that he was in such danger in
No matter how much emphasis you put on the size difference a big person first must mean to attack in order to be dangerous. This big person wanted to argue and refused to leave. But showed no indication he was going to attack.
Now as far as I know there is a valid reason not to charge the landowner. I am no expert on law and do not pretend to be. Just saying the way I saw it on that video the only person in serious risk of bodily harm or death was the big guy. Even though he was big and the other guy smaller. Even though it was the small guy's land and the big guy had no right to remain there when asked to leave.
Again, under Texas law and case law, he does *not* need to believe he is actively in danger. He only has to believe that there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death if he were to attempt to remove the trespasser by regular force. That requirement, per the courts, is met by the very large discrepancy between the meathead’s build and the home owner’s build. No indication that meathead is going to attack is required to bring deadly force to bear, only the assessment that accosting the trespasser could reasonably result in serious bodily injury or death. That is all that is required.
Again: If a landowner in Texas tells you to get off their property, you leave. Immediately. If meathead had left the property but continued to shout and yell from the roadside or sidewalk, there is nothing that the home owner could have legally done.