rofl, it's kind of funny how people are uneducated on this.
First shot was actually not even in self-defence. As per according to Canadian law(and probably American, not sure tho), you can only use equivalent force in order to defend yourself against an attacker. So let's say I attack you with a baseball bat, you can only do as much damage to me as I could theoretically do to you with a baseball bat, or until I surrender myself to a citizen's arrest/local authorities/whatever.
This man shot an unarmed man who was an accomplice to a man holding a firearm. If he had shot the man WITH the firearm, that would be self-defence, but in this case he used overwhelming force on an unarmed threat (a warning shot would've been a-okay tho). By then, that already wasn't self-defence anymore but simply a case of overwhelming force. When he came back, that's second degree murder (or whatever you yanks call unpremeditated murder). Was it done in cold blood? Yes. But it was done in a situation where the man was still shaken and not thinking clearly or in full capacity of reasoning. In Canada, that would amount to around 5 to 10 years in prison, with parole eligibility after about 2 years.
So no, it's not self-defence. As soon as he shot at an unarmed man, it went straight into an assault, and then it went to murder. Simple as that, and the law is quite clear on it.
Also GATOR, that thing about the robber suing the home owners is actually a urban myth and a mixture of many cases. There HAVE been cases where a burglar put assault charges against home owners because, just like right here, there was an overwhelming amount of force used (you can SHOW overwhelming force however, as long as you don't ACT on it). Most of the time the cases are dismissed pretty quickly tho since the judges usually just go "you deserve it son, next time don't burglarize people and you won't get shot in the balls".
