Shot placement matters

[KillerFord1977]

Adrenaline is a two way street; he may have had solid torso hits, but didn’t hit anything vital, and the Bad Guy had enough adrenaline/other chemicals working that he was only temporarily affected by the gunshot.

Sounds like he took his first shot, the attack was broken off, he retreated, and then was attacked a second time, firing a second time, and ended that attack.

This was a good stop.

We have different takes of a good stop

 

[Lock n' Load]

In all my trainings, legal and tactical, "shoot to stop the threat" was emphasized as any further action may result in serious legal trouble for the victim unless the attacker recovers enough to continue the assault, as in this case.

 

[Bassbob]

I think it's all a specious argument anyway. Yes our goal is to stop the threat as quickly as possible. We are trained to do that by making good hits to the upper thoracic and if that fails the melon or the pelvic girdle. In short the quickest way to reliably stop the threat is very likely going to kill the attacker. So no, your goal is not to kill the attacker, it is to stop the threat. But that's largely lawyerspeak BS. You may not, or rather would be foolish, to say out loud that you were trying to kill the attacker, but you were trying to kill the attacker. Thought police isn't a reality. Yet.

Where you've screwed up is if the threat has ended and you continue trying to kill the attacker. So in this case if the homeowner's first shot had stopped the threat and he shot him again anyway and someone could prove it, he'd be in trouble. As it is, it was a good stop.