Well, I'm not going to go into all of them, but if the boys were "known to the police", had priors etc then they weren't exactly out looking for snacks, now were they? Let's be reasonable here.
In a situation where juveniles break into someone's home and the homeowner shoots one of those juveniles in the back (after the youths allegedly plead for their lives), why would it be relevant whether some or all of them had any prior offenses or brushes with the law? That's only relevant when it comes to punishing the juveniles, not in evaluating whether the homeowner was justified.
If it was at midnight when the lights were off, it's a different story than if it had been at 4:00 p.m.
You mean the homeowner would be more justified in firing blindly into the dark than knowing what he's shooting at?
Why were four boys looking for "snacks" (yeah right) in someone else's house? Didn't they have food at their own homes?
So what? I think it's clear, from the story, that they were breaking the law by being in the trailer. But that has little relevance to the question of whether or not the homeowner was justified in shooting one of the youths in the back.
How big were they? Did they have weapons?
Again, how is that relevant in a case where one of the youths was shot in the back?
Did they threaten the old man? (not that 63 is old).
While running away?
Now, admittedly, there are probably lots of details that have been left out of this story, and I certainly don't claim to know all the facts. And I'll hasten to add that I have formed no opinions on whether the defendant in this case is guilty or innocent. But in a case like this, where the charge is murder, there are some facts that are relevant and some that clearly aren't. And the ones you've raised aren't.