Old Guard Dog,
The other side of the Webleymkv's argument is that if you had the knowledge to make a reduced load, why wasn't the load reduced even more? If there's a fatality, it could have been avoided with a reduced load. If there's a maiming, it could have been avoided. There's probably an attorney who would ague that if you were shooting rubber balls, that they were too painful and the load should have been reduced. It's a no win situation with civil litigation.
Sadly, it's your experience that could work against you since you may be held to a higher standard of care than the reasonable man. (I, too, am a Vietnam vet -- just so you know we're of a similar age.) I spent the last 20-years of my professional career as a consultant/expert witness supporting litigation. It never ceased to amaze me how a skilled litigator could turn something seemingly benign and insignificant into a cause of action.
I was involved in a shotgun fatality as a percipient witness. During a hostage situation, following a bank robbery, a local LEO mistook the fleeing hostage for the BG and fired. The media had just cast the DA as soft on LE because of a questionable acquittal in a case alleging excesses against civilians. Needless to say, the shooter was put through the wringer as the DA covered his own six. Eventually, the jury found the LEO not guilty. IMHO, had other LEOs not violated procedure, the verdict would have been guilty.
We're all entitled to equal justice, but to think all justice is equal is naive.