Look, friend. I don't have a drunk Charlie for a neighbor and who said anything in the hypothetical about him being the homeowner's friend. It seems you want to make this personal.
I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.
That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.
Why do you care what I believe?
If there are only a few that think like you, I guess I don't care. Unfortunately, there may be many and that is scary.
I should add that the criminal is generally liable for injury to a third person, but that should't excuse the homeowner if they recklessly injure the innocent bystander. Both should be held liable, but any liability of the homeowner should be usually be junior to that of the bad guy. In the case where the neighbor was totally harmless I would make an exception if the recklessness amounts to wanton and willful misconduct.