How many times have you heard that the law allows you to keep on shooting until the bad guy is dead?
1) If you shoot, there had better be a definite threat that can't be stopped by other, less violent means.
2) There is no "shoot to kill," and anyone who winds up using deadly force who uses that phrase around the authorities after using it is bound to cause legal action.
3) Shoot to stop the threat, period. No shooting if the foe attempts to flee, before or after you start shooting. No shooting once the foe is down and out of action. And you definitely don't keep shooting just because you're "afraid of getting sued."
4) It needs to be clear from the beginning exactly which person was the aggressor and which was the defender. Doing or saying anything that could possibly cast doubt on you being the latter party is flat stupid.
The only thing I would disagree with is number 1. Can you show me, either in the IC or in case law where I realsitically believing that I am under threat of death or bodily harm, have the duty to attempt to use "other, less violent means?" I believe that the definition of deadly force is not limited to means but defined by possible outcome, of which "lethal" is only one part.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for understanding.