I asked you a simple question first fork. I know the most likely answer. If you want respect, you got to give it. It works both ways.
True. It's also a courtesy in discussions to show that a question's relevant so the responder doesn't waste his time responding to a question that doesn't matter.
In the interest of cordiality, the answer is that nobody knows what they would have done--David's anointed as the future king, and not a beggar, and that might mean he was treated differently. What they OUGHT to do is obvious and that's give the showbread to the starving man on the basis that it's about human need.
That underlying principle is certainly relevant to the question of pursuing game on to another's land. Law exists to meet human need. The problem here is that the hunter isn't the authority empowered to make the decision in that particular community, and if he takes that action on his own, it damages society's attempt to create needed security, order, protect property, etc. If we arbitrarily pursue against the wishes of the law, we create a situation that potentially allows any kind of trespassing. All one has to do is say they're pursuing wounded game. However a state or community decides, it's very important to do it as they say.
The person not allowing the pursuit sounds like an ordinary (if obnoxious) landowner, but he may have very valid reasons for not allowing pursuit. I'll give you a real example of another situation: I hunt an area that borders a juvenile detention facility. A hunter chasing wounded deer onto property like that is causing a big problem for security. Same for someone pursuing wounded game onto land bordering a power plant or some other such facility.
Again, pursuit at minimum needs to be done in the way the community says to do it. The common good is what's at stake.