You have no right to complain about treatment you recieve from anyone that you have threatened to harm or have created a situation which within they feel they may be harmed. A burgler creates that situation by the act of breaking and entering.
The actions that may be taken after the victim encounters a burgler should not be of consequence in any case. The victim did not create the situation, the victim did not initiate contact, so why then should the victim be held accountable for any outcome that proceeds from the criminal's actions?
In this particular case, low lighting, a criminal who may have been numbed by intoxication, and a rush of adrenalin would explain why so many shots were fired and why the firing probably lasted around 2 seconds. 6 shots from a .45 and 5 shots from a pump action shotgun do not take long to fire.
"You have no right to complain about treatment you recieve from anyone that you have threatened to harm or have created a situation which within they feel they may be harmed. A burgler creates that situation by the act of breaking and entering."
If you are stating this as a moral assertion, that's one thing. But I don't think it's true in a legal sense. I believe that you have to be facing deadly force to use deadly force. I do know that people have been prosecuted for shooting home invaders in the back as they were trying to flee, the interpretation being that since they were trying to run away they no longer posed a threat.