Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
“Defending yourself against someone with a crossbow is the same as gunning down an unarmed teenager”
In that both of those things are apparently legal in the respective countries? Yes.