No, he doesn't act like AB's friend.
He acts like a frustrated tort attorney, who wants to be able to go after homeowners more easily.
And he puts words in people's mouths. AB said nothing about executing a passed out drunk. AB said a drunk, breaking into his home, and appearing to be a threat, would not get special treatment for being drunk.
Nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot the drunk if AB did not feel threatened; nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot a passed out person.
As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner. Please note that shooting under justified circumstances, but missing the target, does not in my view constitute recklessness so long as the homeowner is under threat.
Have that homeowner keep shooting at a fleeing BG and hit a bystander, and things change.