Sorry, I can't agree with that. You shoot someone in the butt, and they in turn shoot and kill several innocent victims and then let's see how a grand jury reacts! That is, if you're lucky enough that he doesn't turn around and shoot and possible kill you!
It's called 'deadly force' for a reason, and if you employ it you had better do so with the understanding that you most likely will kill the person it is being employed against. You must also understand that when someone is using a firearm during a crime, they are also employing deadly force whether they shoot someone or not. It is what gives someone the justification to employ deadly force in their own defense.
I am well aware of the variables involved in any situation, many years of being briefed on the Laws of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement has hammered that into my thick skull. Given the limited scenario information provided (armed robber in a pizza shop), if I had a clear shot of the robber without endangering others, I would take it. And it would be with the intent to kill, as his use of a firearm in the commission of a crime demonstrates his intent to use deadly force as well.
And, on a somewhat related issue, this follows international rules of war. The reason the Hague Convention of 1899 does not allow military forces to use hollow point bullets is that they are more likely to cause pain and suffering over conventional rounds ("The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions").
