Instead of Töter (which does exist) you are more likely to find a participle construction Tötender, though not very likely either. And it still conveys a sense of subjective activity.
You'll only find "sterbender", hardly *Sterber, too, although nominalizations on "-er" are productive, e.g. "break-dance-r".
The reason that neither is likely to be found in a context where the difference is paramount is mostly the strong taboo around the topic. People would like to avoid thinking about it at all, and, if pressed to, will present a situation where the killer is not guilty of murder to any degree as if the killer was completely passive and the dier (the deceased, the victim of own making) ran into the knife.
Hence, the expression "in's offene Messer laufen lassen" (to let run into an open knife) is a two edged sword, that mostly denotes Arglist (wanton) or Fahrlässigkeit (neglect of responsibility; cp Gefahr "danger").
Whole books could be written about what's been dubbed double-speak or new-speak (news-speak?), see e.g. neusprech.org. So, common expressions are "Gefahr beseitigen", "ausschalten" or "unschädlich machen". I'm not sure, nor do I really care, what the Nazis used in official speeches, but glorifications like "Retter", "Held", "Richter", "Schicksalsbote" etc. are possible.
If it's a sad accident, then "Verantwortlicher", "Auslöser" and the like are neutral, "Schütze" (note "schützen" - protect), "Jäger", "Polizist" or any other kind of occupation that were factual may be applicable. But a generic term would have to be paraphrased.