All humor aside, shooting someone in a “vital part” in the torso is a weird accusation from a prosecuting attorney. Not going to shoot for the head (for most people you go for the torso, right?)
I mean, shooting through the heart would be a vital part, but most people wouldn’t aim for the heart, they would just be trying hit the person anywhere they could and consider themselves lucky to have made a torso shot that hit. (Most of us aren’t Special Forces people!)
I suppose the best thing would be a non-fatal torso shot to incapacitate the person if they aren’t actually coming at you with a weapon (which would be different...you WOULD want the person to go down for good so they can’t continue to attack you if they had a gun or a knife) in which case you wouldn’t have a dead body and police action might be different.
I don’t have any experience at this, but I do think about it. I don’t think it is a bad idea...not that it will certainly help in a crisis, but I would rather consider it in advance rather than doing it on the fly.
You cant win with lawyers.
they want to make something out of a hit to center of mass.
if not, they will try to say he shot to wound, which they would then say proves shooting the other person wasnt necessary.