Ancient video, years old anyway (at least Feb 2008,
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=344100&highlight=mother+clerk+motel+robber ). Whether the camera narrows the angle or not, the clerk didn't play by safe firing line, IPSC, IDPA, or Bob's Gun Range safety rules. It was a horrific travesty of breaking the 180 rule. LOL. Really???
Having to deal with a real life situation where sometimes the bad guy isn't the only one down range and that the people in danger from the bad guy are close to, but not directly in the line of fire is something that happens commonly in real life situations.
Look, the clerk didn't try to shoot between the woman and the baby or try to line up a shot that would take out the baby's pacifier and hit the clerk at the same time. You don't have to be a ninja, a copy, firearms instructor, or cowboy to make that sort of shot. Lives were in danger, including his own and he protected them. The clerk didn't break any conventional safety rules. He didn't point the gun at anything he wasn't willing to destroy. He hit was he was trying to shoot. He didn't shoot the mother or the baby. It wasn't even a hard shot to make.
Worrying that he got too close is like me worrying about all the people I almost killed driving my wife to the hospital to have a baby. I missed people by just 2 or 3 feet with my car at 60 mph hour and nobody complained or thought badly of it.
As far as debating castle doctrine here, don't bother. The robbery took place in Ohio BEFORE Ohio castle doctrine went into effect and it does NOT apply aboutside of the reside or vehicle. Your place of employment is not part of your castle.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-s-castle-doctrine-gives-legal-right-to-self-defense