As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner.
MLeake, The bolded point is exactly what I have been talking about. As enacted, the Florida statute confirms immunity on a homeowner who's home is unlawfully and forcibly entered and some are concerned that such immunity extends to the shooting of an innocent bystander by a reckless homeowner. Personally, I am not convinced that Florida law will be construed as such.
By the way, wouldn't you say it was reckless to discharge a firerm in a densely populated area where there was no need, such as when the bad guy is incapacitated, whether they are passed out drunk or had been incapacitated by a previous shot to center mass?