Is this intended to be analogous with catching a thief red-handed?
No, it’s attempting to refute the “trespassing” angle. You aren’t entitled to beat trespassers to death, even if they remain on your property the whole time you’re beating on them.
You can’t murder trespassers. You are entitled to self defense. If the father was in fear of his life from this kid, then he was justified to use deadly force against him. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. The father wasn’t scared of the kid, he was angry at the kid, and so proceeded to beat the kid to within an inch of his life.
You aren’t entitled to kill people because you are angry at them, even justifiably angry. If you intentionally and unjustifiably kill someone, you shouldn’t be surprised to find yourself facing murder charges.
My father (rest his soul) was quick on the comeback when needed.
One night after my mother had died, he heard a noise in my old bedroom. He opened the door, flipped on the light, and saw a guy climbing in through the window. His comment was classic
FTR he did not own a gun.
Needless to say the bad guy beat feet.
I miss my dad.
Well, that’s great. Now we know, from someone who admittedly isn’t an attorney, what the possible legal ramifications might have been had the father actually killed someone who is currently still alive. As it is, it would seem the legal system found that he was perfectly within his rights here in the land of reality. That would include both a civil & criminal point of view.