I am not going to read your nonsensical novel, because you clearly don't understand a nuanced point of view. I will just leave you with this point of view. The victim in the video was not a trespasser you big dummy. He was clearly invited to the place. It is not clear if the invitation was expressed or implied, but it is clear that the ex-wife and her new husband expected him and that he was not a trespasser.
So the statute you cited is for a trespasser, not for an invitee which means that your statute does not apply unless you can first establish that the person's invitee status was revoked and that he entered the status as a trespasser. Even if the victim then entered into trespass status you still have to show that he posed so kind of unlawful threat to you or someone on your property, because you still have to show you are justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary... . Nothing in that video warranted the killer introducing deadly force in that situatin.
Exactly. The guy you writing to talking this stuff about "he doesn't have immunity from being asked to leave" as if mere "not leaving" is equivalent to a deadly threat.
If the shooter gets off it's due to his connection and politics, not because it was the right or legal thing to do.