I would have voted “not guilty” simply because the criminal he shot was in his home without permission. However, he was pushing his luck. Any time you shoot a thug in the back while he is leaving (if that’s really what happened), you are taking your chances legally.
For sure. Like shooting at some perp running out of your driveway after breaking into your car. Not a good plan no matter how PO’d you might be.
Legally perhaps, as is illustrated by the story.
Morally, no, the homeowner has a duty to himself and his family to make sure they’re safe, and if he decides that to be safe he needs to kill the guy, then do it.
And, while there’s no way the homeowner could have known about the ‘victim’s” earlier statements, they do indicate that perhaps he wasn’t fleeing in terror - no telling if one wasn’t right there so the homeowner has to get the benefit of the doubt by the mere (not so mere) fact that the guy had invaded the castle.