Even a justified self-defense shooter remains legally responsible for each and every round fired, no matter in whatever or whoever each bullet may eventually stop.
This is just plainly in error. One must demonstrate negligence to be deemed civilly liable, which is a disregard for a duty towards specific persons. Being pressed by circumstances to shoot in self defense does not constitute negligence, thus a good shoot (absent recklessness) does not trigger civil liability according to the laws of most states.
As to the specific case under discussion, I don't think this guy's actions constitute recklessness, since his gun was pointing at the perps (and no one else) when he said he sometimes had his eyes closed upon pulling the trigger. Furthermore, there were no third parties amongst the perps at the time to which a duty of care was owed by the defensive shooter.
