Sorry, not going to play your game. Second shot was reckless whether or not it hit the fleeing criminal. We don't execute for property crimes. We do allow deadly force when life or limb are threatened. Maybe if the criminal was advancing upon him after he verbally confronted him , the criminal, from a distance, as the homeowner claims that shot was justified, but the shot into the dark at someone fleeing, nope, reckless and that makes him too, the homeowner, a criminal. You do not shoot into the dark, unsure of your target or of bystanders.
As for expecting responsible use of deadly force that is not the same as saying we have an open door policy to robbers and home invaders, not remotely. The citizen turned criminal had the right to make a citizen's arrest, an arrest using force commensurate with the situation which did not include recklessly risking an execution for what was, at that time, nothing more than a trespass. Deadly force there would not have been remotely authorized for law enforcement and it certainly was not for the homeowner as to someone then well off of his property and fleeing.
Weeks ago I promised I would not engage you because , well, whatever points you have, points I myself have sometimes made, at least as to some of them, are destroyed by your taking matters beyond the pale of reason or law. I am going to go back to that stance. My time is best spent on others.