Besides being stupid, are "warning shots" de-facto reckless discharges?

[moriah]

This question is inspired by the altercation between Ebony Jemison and Marshae Jones which resulted in the death of Jones's 5 month old fetus.

According to the shooter, the following occurred:

But, Jemison said, on the day of the shooting she and three of her friends went to the Dollar General store during their lunch break when she saw Jones with four of her friends approaching her outside the store.

An altercation broke out, and Jemison claimed that Jones grabbed her hair.

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”

“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

From the Alabam Code regarding justification (we'll go ahead and say that hair-pulling justifies deadly force for the sake of argument):

If a person is justified or excused in using force against a person, but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a substantial injury to another person, the justifications afforded by this article are unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence.

We all know brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are all stupid. Unless you reasonably believe the situation merits the death of the person threatening you, you should not pull out a firearm. Only when you are both justified and committed to killing a person should you shoot, and then you should shoot to kill.

But especially in an admittedly crowded parking lot, where there were "just too many bodies", is it de-facto recklessness to discharge a firearm into pavement vs the person you reasonably believe you are justified to shoot?