FWIW,I’m familiar with MN deadly force statutes, not Montana’s.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
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.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
I don’t think a reasonable person believes someone unarmed and dying in front of you is a threat of death or great bodily harm(why the jury did what they did)
If he believed that, he probably wouldn’t come as close as he had to to deliver a ‘kill shot’ under the chin.
The Minnesota homeowner shot one in the head at point blank range after they were no longer a threat and recorded himself taunting before doing so.
(Then he kept the bodies overnight before calling police.)
That was my thought as well on the MN homeowner. Once he went from defense to revenge all his preparations showed a jury premeditation. Personally I have some sympathy for the guy (I can relate to the desire for revenge after a break in) but I can easily see how the jury convicted him on murder 1.