Interesting case. Several gun toting friends are posting crazy to facebook about how a guilty verdict will result in a large protest from 2nd amendment thumpers, saying they would do the same to an intruder, that it's an outrage he was charged at all, etc. Surprisingly one of them is an attorney who even posted the statute in support of his stance "The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode." - completely avoiding the plain reading that once "prevention" is absent, so too is the right to kill. That appears to be the crux based on my reading of the facts recorded and/or described by the homeowner. If I cared to jump into that hornets nest I could easily describe scenarios that would test their tunnel vision on this topic, but why bother? It's obviously pointless. Reality is there seems to be a large contingency of regular folks who see this homeowner as the only victim, and I too expect a hung jury. FWIW, my aunt/uncle are neighbors to the shooter. It's a private wooded lot along the river, but not what I would describe as rural.