Haven't the courts already decided that: if you're thinking about shooting to wound, the situation is not serious enought to be shooting AT ALL?
Yeah boy, the paper pushers have some great ideas don't they? How would this theory have worked out recently in the situation of the poor dear who was trying to kill the girl w/ the kitchen knife? Incapacitate 'might' be possible if the weapon is a knife or other cutting instrument that can't be thrown and the distance is greater than say 20 ft. If the bad one has any kind of firearm, I want them shot till they stop moving. We have all seen/read about plenty of instances w/ the bad one on drugs who managed to keep going even after absorbing multiple hits. One other problem I see w/ this stupid idea is that I suspect that the more of these incapacitating shots that are attempted, the more there will be innocent bystanders shot.
Or you do what I do...look up the word in google, and then copy and paste it with the fancy ass accent mark.
There's nothing civil about this war.
That's a good point. The need to provide aid accelerates and a death from an attempt to wound is a legal nightmare. Multiple shots into the shoulder or leg will severely cripple and mutilate someone, or will it be limited in number of shots also?