FWIW ... In the
first video from this article, a news reporter stated that the charges may be from "stabbing one of them to death." Apparently two of the assailants were injured (one fatally) and the other two got scared and ran off. The invasion was at 2 am. Reportedly the assaliants prior to the home invasion
(before the home invasion) had said "I'll kill you and your family."
The second video from the first link also shows a picture of the home, and it doesn't appear to be a very big home.
IMO, if you're one person under attack by four people, and you are defending yourself without a firearm, then you'd better be damn sure that the first one who attacks you is not going to get up and attack you again after you fight him. That would mean doing enough damage to severely incapacitate that person (and perhaps kill that person) if you are able to.
If you're defending yourself from multiple people
with a firearm, you can fend them off from at least a bit of a distance away and are in a much better position to be able to stop fighting off (because you may be able to maintain some distance and can pause to see if they will come after you again or not). That's not really the case if your method of defense is your close contact with fists and/or feet and/or a blade.
The only thing I can think of is that the police think the guy who ended up dead was already down on the floor and not moving, everyone else had run away, and then the guy on the floor was stabbed again by the resident. Even if the guy was on the floor, it's possible he could still have been logically seen as a threat (if he was crawling towards the residents of the home). But all of that is just speculation on my part - I suppose we'll see how it turns out in a trial if it gets to that.
One thing that potentially worries me is that the prosecutor will see this as a matter of someone who is "too well trainied" and therefore should have stopped fighting sooner. IMO if one still perceives a threat, they're still justified in fighting, regardless of how much training they have.
A right requires neither permission nor subsidy. It simply requires that a government not interfere with that right.