It needs to be reasonable and necessary in the eyes of grand jurists above and beyond being lawful. A jurist is likely to say they are on the side of the men apprehending a fugitive or attempting to do soI thought that was the only one in question.
Given the homeowners perception of the situation, do you think either of the other 2 are in doubt ?
He thought he was the victim of a home invasion by multiple armed individuals. DPF being "reasonable" and "necessary" seem obvious.
Honestly in this case I think the home owner would have a pretty strong case. The bounty hunters trying to use Art 35 as a defense if they returned fire would be much harder to sell to a jury.