Titan, I wasn't saying shoot once, pause to see if he stopped, and repeat. What I am saying is that if you realize the target has stopped attacking, your job in self defense is done. This isn't a jurisdictional thing, it's a transition from self defense to killer, for whatever motivation you have to kill him.
- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter
Or his homies do it in retaliation for his death.
- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds
Or they do it in retaliation for his death.
- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)
Or he dies, and either you get charged, or his family sues you.
- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense
Or he dies, and media/politicians try to pass such laws.
Both cases can happen whether he lives or dies. If he has stopped the attack, then the only difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" is whether or not you kill him. Anything that he can have people do in retaliation, they can do of their own free will if he dies. Therefore, all you're doing is following the principle of "the best defense is a good offense" and getting revenge for his potential future crimes by killing him on the spot.
You didn't mention shooting someone in the back, but your attitude, as was said by Coro and Warp, is that you're not done until they're dead. If they're walking away, that would mean shooting them in the back.
Unless you were just trying to be macho and say that you take him down instead of just wounding him, in which case you're missing the point. Self defense isn't about being macho, its about survival.