I see that you say: "If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period."
In Oregon, that's a ticket to jail.
There are 3 things required for a defensive shoot to be justified, here: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. If I am shooting, and the threat drops a weapon, and turns to flee, I can't keep shooting until he collapses, because my life is no longer in jeopardy. While he is still technically capable of continuing some form of aggressive behavior, he has dropped his means of presenting lethal force. Ability and jeopardy are out of the equation, and my continued use of lethal force would no longer be warranted.
To clarify: If the threat stops shooting, but continues to face me, he still has Ability, and I am still in Jeopardy. In this case, continued use of lethal force is justified.
I won't speak for 57k here, but I imagine that he didn't mean he would shoot until the person stopped moving, regardless of the situation. It's shoot until your threat is no longer a threat. If that means he runs away, you stop. If that means him falling to the ground is what stops him being a threat, then you stop. In any state, shooting a person who is withdrawing from the confrontation, regardless if you were initially
justified is a jail sentence waiting to happen. 57k can clarify his own statement if he'd like...that's how I read it when he wrote it anyway.
Going off a combination of gel testing and street performance is exactly what I do, for exactly the reasons that you highlighted.
As far as "shooting for the CNS" goes... I think the majority of us train to aim for CoM. When I've referenced the CNS in this thread, it has basically been to highlight how rarely CNS hits come into play. The clear majority of stops are psychological stops, or the rate of handgun deaths would be considerably higher than 1/7. We're on the same page there, as well.
I wasn't replying to you specifically, I don't think. If I was, it was maybe because I didn't understand fully what you had written. My statements, for the most part, were comments on many of the different posts, in this thread in general. Someone else had mentioned something along the lines of shot placement being the important thing, so FMJ was all he needed for a stop. That's where my CNS comments came from, for the most part.
Basically, my post was about 2 things. 1) Your choice of ammo should be ammo that is a proven defensive round, and has shown street effectiveness as well as laboratory effectiveness. Picking one type of data over the other is a recipe for disaster. And 2) individual anecdotal "evidence" of one type of round, working or another not working isn't helpful in a discussion like this. Practically any round can
be effective, but some (and really, with modern ammo, it's less about an individual round, and more about caliber choice) have been proven to be more effective than others, and that's where we should keep the discussion.
I suppose I should have added a third point to my original post. In popular defensive calibers (.38 SPL, .357 Mag, 9mm, .40, .45, etc), the choice of round isn't that important, as long as you are using a JHP bullet, and the round is made by a well known manufacturer of defensive ammo. Performance, while not identical, is close enough that the end result isn't going to be much different.