Completely in the right in the situation. He was attacked, hit, disoriented, and fired upon his attacker. Anyone who argues the 'warning shot' or 'eight discharges is excessive' doesn't know the first thing about defensive shooting. First off, if the attacker does have a firearm, all a warning shot tells them is that they need to shoot you as soon as possible. Yes it might scare them off, but it can also scare them into pulling their own weapon when they might not have done so.
Secondly, firing one or two shots, you can't guarantee your first shot will hit, or hit in a place to incapacitate the target. Even police forces (although I would argue they kill far more people in situations where lethal force isn't warranted as opposed to law-abiding CCW holders) use this idea, which is why you have perpetrators shot multiple times. You shoot to take down the target, if you're forced to the point where you have to use lethal force, you don't want to just wound the target. If you're frightened to the point where you even have to consider using the gun, then a legitimate threat has been presented and you have to incapacitate or eliminate the threat. This is done by firing at center mass, because the torso is the largest target on a person and in a panic situation ensures the best chance to hit, and you fire as many rounds as needed to ensure the attacker isn't a threat.
And really, the man was approached by two people at night, he didn't know they were teenagers at the time so don't give me that "Oh but they could've changed" he didn't know they were kids doing some dumb shit. He didn't know their life story, and didn't know their motive until one of them punched him in the face and knocked him to the ground. He didn't have a chance to ask them if they meant to severely beat or kill him, if they just wanted money, or if they were just having a larf with a bit of the old ultra violence by decking him in the head for no reason. He had a means to defend himself against two attackers, and he had no idea if they were armed or not. Add in the fact that there were two attackers, and odds are even if they weren't armed chances are good he wouldn't have fared well in any ensuing fight against two people.
Bottom line: He was assaulted by two people, and he used his right to self defense. His family discussing possible litigation is sick, maybe if they would've raised the child correctly and taught him not to attack and rob people he wouldn't be dead.
