[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's wrong to kill and unarmed man, but its right to shoot a dangerous person in the leg to incapacitate them.

There is no such thing as "shoot to wound."

There is no part of the body that does not have arteries. Sever an artery, and you have killed the person.

Doesn't matter that your intentions were pure.

[Tailgunner Joe]

True, he should have shot to kill, as is his right if he believes he's threatened.

The fact that he only shot to wound show that he is a good person who mercifully spared someone's life.

[Kevmo]

There is no such thing as “shoot to wound.”
***Is that a well known legal position? I’ve heard of the Castle Doctrine, but I haven’t heard of this.

There is no part of the body that does not have arteries. Sever an artery, and you have killed the person.
***Are we expected to know this when we are trying to apprehend someone who just attempted to break into our house with ill intent towards our possessions and perhaps our daughter?

Doesn’t matter that your intentions were pure.
***I think it matters to juries. If you’re a little pipsqueak and you’re trying to detain a 300 pound criminal, the only leverage you would have would be your gun. Take away that leverage by insisting the victim not be able to shoot to disable, and you’re handing the advantage to the criminals.