Final answer:
The author's intent in presenting the trespassing scenario is likely to illustrate legal nuances and support the notion that, similar to self-defense being sometimes permissible, a broader interpretation of the law might defend Susan B. Anthony's right to vote.
Step-by-step explanation:
The author's intent in presenting a scenario in which a man shoots another for trespassing is to draw a parallel to the legal principles under consideration in the case of United States v. Susan B. Anthony. The analogy is likely used to illustrate the nuances of law—specifically, how certain actions, although appearing to violate the law, may be justified under specific conditions and interpretations of legal definitions. This reflects on Susan B. Anthony’s case, suggesting that while her act of voting as a woman during that time was illegal, there could be a broader interpretation of the law that might support her right to vote, much like the self-defense argument in the trespassing scenario. By presenting this comparison, the author is likely intending to show that just as self-defense is sometimes a permissible exception to the prohibition against violence, so too could an argument be made that women's suffrage is a right inherent to the notion of citizenship, even when not explicitly stated in the law.