one thing I was taught about the appropriateness of a 'mission statement' or 'goal' was to test it with varying results. If the result was a good result then it should meet the 'mission statement'
Mission Statement #1 "Shoot to Kill" (MS#1)
Mission Statement #2 "Shoot to stop" (MS#2)
Scenario one. Bad guy attacks, you shoot him with a 22LR, he stabs you in the eye with an ice pick. You die. He dies later from his gunshot wounds.
Outcome good? No.
Outcome match MS#1 ? YES
Conflict, denotes MS#1 is a poor MS
Outcome match MS#2 ? No
Both the same, this indicates MS#2 is acceptable.
Scenario 2.
You are attacked by a axe weilding maniac. You blast him with a 12 guage shotgun loaded with buck, but you shoot a bit low. The load takes him in the pelvis breaking it causing him to collapse unable to use his legs, but still very much alive, and unlikely to bleed to death, yet unable to reach you with his axe.
Outcome good? Yes
Outcome match MS#1? NO
Conflict, denotes MS#1 is a poor MS
Outcome match MS#2? Yes
Both the same, this indcates MS#2 is an accpetable MS
REGARDLESS, the tactics of shooting to stop are no different than the tactics of shooting to kill. As I pointed out, the military trains to kill and they shoot center of mass. Defensive trainers tell their students to shoot to stop and to do so by shooting center of mass.
The issue isn't WHAT you're doing, it's WHY you're doing it. MOST importantly it is what you're going to say if you are asked about it, and what the record will show you said about it in the past.
Actually, there is one tactical difference. If the threat is stopped, but has not surrendered, the threat will either be killed or taken captive under 'shoot to kill' while under 'shoot to stop' you wouldn't need to walk up and put one in the back of a defeated opponent's skull. Failure to terminate a foe, defeated or still posing a threat, means you fail at 'Shoot to Kill'