Shooting holes is someone is commonly seen as creating a hazard.
If the attacker created a situation where the defender was legally justified in shooting, then the attacker created the hazard and the defender is not legally responsible.
This principle is carried through clearly in the laws of some states where if any death results from a violent crime, even the death of one of the criminal's accomplices at the hand of a defender, the surviving criminal is charged with murder. The crime/criminal created the hazard, and the criminal, not the defender, is responsible for the outcomes of that hazard.
Ok, I'm not an expert on MN law and states can have weird laws; but here's my take on the law you quoted.
1. It's not from the homicide/criminal assault section of the law, nor is it from the section of the law related to self-defense. Instead it is from the section about public safety. In my state, that would imply that the discussion is about unintentionally dangerous acts, not intentional acts of violence or self-defense.
2. The law you quoted clearly states that there is no responsibility to provide aid if the person reasonably perceived that trying to provide aid would create a significant risk of bodily harm. In virtually any self-defense shooting, there's already the underlying assumption that the defender was placed at significant risk of bodily harm by the attacker.
3. The penalties set forth are in the case that the shooting victim dies or suffers serious bodily injury. In a self-defense case, the defender is justified in spite of the attacker's death or serious injury, so that makes no sense.
Taken together, those points make it clear that this law is applicable to unintentional/negligent shootings and would be used to prosecute, for example, someone who accidentally shot another person while hunting and then failed to render aid. Not someone who was forced to use deadly force in self-defense and then didn't rush to bandage the attacker.
You should consult a lawyer in your state for an official read.