He shot an UNARMED burglar in the BACK of the head. He's VERY lucky to not be on trial for murder 2. Yes, the guy was breaking into his house, but he saw NO weapon and evidently the boy was at least sideways to him. To me, there's NO presumption of "in fear of life or grave bodily injury" here. Bad shooting. Now he's gotta live with killing an unarmed person, AND the possible civil litigation from the boys family.
Motive - none
Intent - none shown
Opportunity - admittedly, yes
True, he didn't know the guy was unarmed, but that's why we're taught to examine the three criteria listed above before pulling the trigger. Maybe the boy was a bad actor, but that was unknown to the homeowner.
Interestingly enough, many years ago, our county got a new Sheriff. One of the first things he did when he took office was announce that, "If someone is breaking into your home, you may presume they are there to hurt you, not just rob you. Act accordingly" He and the DA went 'round and 'round for a while on that one, but I think it was upheld. In SC, a person who makes a LEGAL shooting is immune to criminal AND civil litigation.
I understand why he did what he did, but it's still a bad shooting.