[Glenn E. Meyer]

The idea is that if you use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that you think is not lethal, then you didn't have justification to use an instrument of lethal force. Shooting someone is definitionally lethal force. Shooting in the leg is no guarantee that it wouldn't be lethal. Watch all the excitement if your femoral artery is cut.

Shooting COM is doctrine as it offers the most reasonable probability of hitting and stopping someone.

If you want to argue that a situation might arrive where you want to stop someone and lower the probability of lethality, that is something that should not be said for supposed legal reasons - even if you did it. One can argue the leg shot was just a panic flinch - there are plenty of videos of LEOs shooting round way in front of someone. I've seen a lot of low shots in FOF as the shots were rushed.

Someone will post that you should never engage in the strategy of trying to stop with a peripheral hit - you should maximize the stop with the COM if you can hit it. It's doctrine.

We once had a heated debated about this on THR, IIRC. However, I came up with the crazed relative theory. You are attacked by a beloved but crazed relative with a knife. You do have time to draw and shoot but don't want to go for the most lethal probability shot. Thus, you shoot the leg and take the chance that it might be lethal or you get sliced. An unlikely event but it's a thought question.

To go back to the original thought - it is not current doctrine to deliberately shoot the leg (or if you did it deliberately, say that you did it - you always say you were in fear of your life and shot because of that). No one will hold you to being William Tell or Annie Oakley under stress.