This is not true. As long as a person has given you (or another person) reasonable reason to fear for life or safety, you are justified to continue to take whatever means you need to eliminate the threat. If he is moving, you can continue to shoot. If he is a threat, then moving is considered a threat.
The fact that we have crazy DAs out there who will try to charge you for nothing is not relevant. They will try to charge you no matter what.
If (God forbid), I ever have to shoot someone, I will empty the mag, with the knowledge that I will probably be financially destroyed....at least re: assets they can find.
You may not realize how right you are.
You are justified in eliminating the THREAT, but not the persons life.
The advice posted here earlier (now wisely removed by the Admin Moderator) that after the initial confrontation you should walk over and put a bullet in the prone perp’s head, then drag him into the house to try to establish a Castle Defense was in reality a plea to be indicted for murder.
“Moving” is a sticky point. Crawling away is not a threat. Trying to bring a gun to bear is.
re: The DA/SA. When you “tell your story” without answering questions, you have established playing field. Although you have the right to counsel, much greater weight is given to what is said as an “initial utterance.”
Also, someone is going to tell the cop “what happened”. That will be in his/her report. That will then be the story the media tells. Never let the other person, the other person’s friends, or in these days, even those of the perp’s “other” race make up a story to tell the cops.
As it turned out, in Ferguson, the people who claimed the LEO shot Brown unnecessarily COULD NOT have seen what happened. They were elsewhere, but because the PD didn’t tell Officer Wilson’s “story” for days, the perp’s “friends” story was the only one the media had.