My understanding is that one of if not the primary motivator of the "shoot to kill, not to injure" mantra is to reduce the liability of the shooter. It has been

My understanding is that one of if not the primary motivator of the "shoot to kill, not to injure" mantra is to reduce the liability of the shooter. It has been demonstrated many times that when you shoot someone, even if there is insufficient evidence to convict you, you are often able to be held civilly liable if the person you shot survived. Not advocating for this, just repeating what has been expressed to me by many different people.