Obviously, no one here knows all of the details, but it is important for everyone to understand that if someone is imprisoned for shooting someone, it is because the state successfully prosecuted a criminal case and the defendant was convicted of a felony. The defendant has the duty of presenting evidence that such a shooting was justified (that the actor had reason to believe that the shooting was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm), and if he or she fails to do that, he or she cannot expect to prevail in a defense of justification, regardless of what the intruder may or may not claim.
In recent years, the relevant Michigan law has been amended, so that the fact of breaking and entering one's occupied domicile provides a presumption of justification.
Well the law itself can also be improper as well. Which still makes the person guilty of a crime, even when it would be justified to most people.
There is plenty of places in the world where self defense is not recognized, or recognized in a much lower degree.
Laws also change, so someone that was in fact guilty of violating the law when tried was still guilty, but would be innocent under later standards.
All those people guilty of illegal alcohol use during prohibition were still guilty criminals after it was legalized. Even though the law was only overturned because of so many people illegally defying it.
The civil rights movement had blacks illegally protesting, sitting in the wrong places, illegally using the wrong fountains etc
Just as the people in Egypt protesting are criminals, protesting in a place where the very act of protest is a criminal offense.
Under the law any one of them can legally be rounded up, tried, given a fair trial, and convicted for violating the law.
(In fact videos have been used by the government to do exactly that, many of those that were perceived leaders have been arrested, and some remain jailed. Even though they certainly could not arrest them all and do not wish to.)