Of course, shot placement depends a great deal on intention. Skill is only part of the equation.
A person who does not intend to kill is unlikely to aim for the center of mass.
Do you really think differences in intention produce random results?
Not sure I understand the question. It is my hypothesis that differences in intention are carried out by people with different skill sets, and it is the differences in skill sets that result in different lethal results.
For example, few law enforcement officers would be counted in the intentional assault category, and few gang bangers would be counted in the legal intervention category.
But I will take exception to the notion that somebody is able to "shoot to wound" under any stressful incident.
Many times when there is a shooting of a civilian by the police, there are always questions, posed by uninformed individuals, of why the police didn't just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. Or why they didn't just shoot them in the leg.
No, if you deem the situation dire enough to require you to shoot, you aim for center of mass.
I suppose if you are a fan of the movie Pulp Fiction, then there does leave open the possibility that the shooter intentionally shot out the kneecap of a delinquent gambler, thereby chalking one up for intentional assault that was also intentionally not lethal.
I think that is more Hollywood than Hood.