Wow...this one went over the edge in a hurry! (Multiple deletions made.)
Spend much time here and you'll notice that we devote a whole lot of time to preaching layered security, situational awareness, and avoidance at ALMOST all costs of any bloodshed. We'll tell you that killing someone is the absolute second WORST outcome of any violent encounter -- with only the result of you and/or yours being shot, assaulted, and/or killed yourself being a more negative end.
This was a gross failure on the part of a person who let herself get out of her mind in public and won the "stupid prize" that such "stupid games" often reward.
This was also a gross failure on the part of the homeowner(s) who now have to live with all the various repercussions of having shot another person (blood, screams, terror, police, EMTs, investigators, press, in their own home no less -- as well as potential legal and relational and psychological unpleasantness that can result). And as unpleasant as that all will be, it could have been FAR, FAR worse. If a blitzed young woman could mistakenly get to them, how about a determined violent robber or even process predator?
Rights ... responsibilities ... repercussions. All different concepts and all interrelated.
The laws which define when the guilt for assault with a deadly weapon may be set aside because the standard of proof for a self-defense claim has been met, vary from state to state. So far, it appears the local police and District Attorney are accepting that this situation put the couple in realistic and reasonable fear for their lives -- as informed by Colorado's "castle doctrine"-type laws.
As none of us were there, and none of us saw what exactly happened, we're going to have to take the local authorities' word that the standards were appropriately met.