[ranger_sxt]

I defy Spartan, or anyone else, to show me ANY "jurisdiction", or any reputable firearms training program anywhere--police, military or civilian--that recognizes the concept of "shooting to wound" as a lesser, or indeed a separate, offense or act than shooting to kill. You don't even see that error in bad movies any more.

I love a challenge

***THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS A PURE BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. THE LAW HAS MANY GRAY AREAS, AND WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT TO BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE SHOOTING TO WOUND AS A POTENTIAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, PLEASE SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY, WHO WILL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS AND TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.***

In Arizona, there is an offense called "Aggravated Assault" (ARS 13-1204). It builds on "Assault" (ARS 13-1203) adding circumstances, like serious bodily injury, or the use of a deadly weapon. If one were able to prove that he were only trying to wound the person, then he could not be convicted of attempted murder, as the culpable mental state required for an attempted homicide is intentionally.

He is correct, by an exact definition of the law, in Arizona. However, what the law says, and what is actually done, is usually very dissimilar.

***THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS A PURE BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. THE LAW HAS MANY GRAY AREAS, AND WHAT PRECEDES IS NOT TO BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE SHOOTING TO WOUND AS A POTENTIAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, PLEASE SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY, WHO WILL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS AND TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.***