Not quite...
The phrase is "...legal jeopardy..." not "...legal liability..."
In Black's Law Dictionary, the term Jeopardy is defined as "The danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict in a court of competent jurisdiction..." and has nothing to do with civil suit.
To the best of my knowledge you can be sued in Indiana after a righteous shoot. They'll just claim the force wasn't "reasonable." Based on the righteousness of the shoot, they might have a hard time finding an attorney to take the case, and may well have a hard time winning, but I don't believe that prevents them from trying. Any attorney worth his salt, though, would probably tell them they're going to spend a lot of money and then lose, but again that doesn't preclude them from trying.
More discussion here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...llowed_against_lawful_self_defense_in_in.html
and here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._homeowner_and_the_burgler_tx_court_case.html
and here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../31099-self_defense_and_lawsuit_question.html
edited: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I do my best to understand my rights and responsibilities as a citizen, and to know the potential ramifications of whatever course of action I might choose to take in a given situation.
My reasoning is the IC meant to remove the Chill factor from one taking a defensive action. Is it it your contention that the legislature left the door open for civil action? Seems to be a half measure.