You seem obsessed with the “intimidation” or “anger” facet. Under the law, it doesn’t matter if the trespasser is angry, sad, high as a kite or whatever. If they’ve been told to leave, don’t, and there’s reasonable cause (as defined by case law) to believe that accosting the trespasser would likely result in the homeowner sustaining serious bodily injury or death, the homeowner has the right to bring deadly force to bear. The emotional state of the trespasser is irrelevant.
In a prior post, I believe you postulated that the homeowner would have shot the meathead if the meathead had turned to leave. That’s actually *not* legal in Texas. If you tell someone to leave and they do, you are *not* allowed to shoot them while they are in the process of leaving.
I do not think I postulated that the guy would get shot in the back. But as far as intimidation by trespasser we have come full circle, I was responding to your comment that you don’t get to intimidate a homeowner on his own property as a way to sum up that the belly bumps on the porch qualified the unlawful entry of the porch as being “with force”. I am still not sure if that qualifies as force from my own reading. As far as risk of serious bodily harm it seems obvious to me that there was no such risk even though a technicality might le the defendant presume there was one automatically. Arguing that there was one seems ludicrous to me.