In any case, if you were shooting to kill, you’d shoot at the same targets (center of mass and maybe head); the difference is when you’d stop shooting. And as regards that, it often takes more damage to stop someone quickly than it does to be lethal, so if you stop shooting when he gets stopped by bullet damage he’s quite likely to die. (An exception I’ve heard of is a bullet to the head which doesn’t penetrate but instead just delivers a knockout blow like one a fist could deliver; but how common is that?)

Now, there is also the case of someone who abruptly changes his mind about his misbehavior when he feels bullets ripping through his flesh, rather than being stopped in any mechanical fashion by those bullets. Such people can save their lives by collapsing early when shot. Perhaps there are enough such cases to make a big difference between “shooting to stop” and “shooting to kill”?

I’ve read cops attacking him personally, or saying that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But I’ve never read a cop with a good sense of civil rights go through and review what he gets right and wrong. The best I’ve seen mostly harp on his misuse of the term “SWAT” for any dynamic entry team with rifles.

If you were interested, it could be a real contribution to the continuing debate about police militarization and use of force.