That's why you aim at [i]center mass[/i]. That's why the concept of center mass exists, and why bulletproof vests are at least somewhat effective. Also, another [url=http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound]link[/url].

Please read it, you two. It's talking about a law in the states, sure, but the concept still applies (I'll try to find something from Canada). Also, I will accept your opinions on how difficult it is to shoot a gun (in Canada, Germany, Niger or otherwise) once you've both joined the police and gone through basic firearm training. The reality is, if you aim to wound in a dangerous situation, your chances of death (EDIT: and the accidental death of others) increase exponentially. I would be willing to bet money a Canadian cop will tell you the same.

EDIT: The point becomes, "should the cop have shot at all?", not "why didn't he just wound the kid?"

Was Michael Brown dangerous enough for the officer to discharge his firearm? He certainly must have thought so. That's the "crime" in this case. A police officer creates a situation with an unarmed young man, the young man is momentarily uncooperative, and not long afterwards, the young man is dead on the street. If either of them had handled things differently, he'd still be alive. This is an absolute tragedy, for everyone involved.