If the human was wearing a bandana across his face to disguise his identity, that is ample evidence of his consideration of the consequences, since he manifestly took steps to avoid them by foiling any efforts to identify him in the aftermath of the crime and thus tie him back to his own criminal actions. And if the human were wielding a weapon, a club, a knife, a molotov cocktail, in his pursuit of my chicken in my own well-fenced backyard, then yes, I would consider that the kind of violent trespass that reasonably leads to a belief that they are there for purposes that lead to my grievous bodily injury or death and would employ lethal countermeasures to prevent same as appropriate.
What I was also saying up-thread was that I shouldn't have to wait for the physical attack on my own person, or that of another human being, to come for me to be justified in pointing a firearm at a person manifestly engaged in criminal conduct, just because that conduct is directed against property. That chicken might represent my family's sole source of protein for the foreseeable future. The car thief may be crippling my family's ability to get back and forth to our sole means of income, obtaining food, or obtaining medical care. The "mere" thief, in the act of committing their crimes, is nothing that can or should be coddled from the use of lethal force by their victims.
And I know that the police have no compunction against going to guns at the least provocation.
None of the "if"s in your response were contained in my original premise. Nor did you address the first question. Revist the questions, let the stand alone, and please respond again.