How that cliche pertains to the question at hand is not clear to me, but one person's "good shoot" may not be a "good shoot" in the eyes of those who will determine the shooter's fate.Posted by FIVETWOSEVEN: Even still, a good shoot is a good shoot.
In the event of a shooting that the actor believes to have been done in necessary self defense, it will be incumbent upon the shooter to provide evidence supporting each of the following:
He or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
He or she actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.
The danger was such that he or she could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force.
He or she used no more force than was necessary.
He or she actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.
The danger was such that he or she could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force.
He or she used no more force than was necessary.
If the actor cannot do so, or if contradictory evidence outweighs the evidence produced by the actor, the "shoot" will not be judged "good."
There is also the issue of the ways in which the shooter either recognized and addressed the risks of harming someone other than the intended target, or exacerbated those risks. The reason that long-pull striker fired and DAO firearms are recommended for self defense and for law enforcement usage these days is that it is very easy for a person under high stress to fire a single action trigger unintentionally.