The Riposte target shifts the "center of mass" considerably higher, and into an area where hits are more likely to transect important structures.
LOL, there wasn't any shifting of COM, just a movement of the aim point. I know you put it in quotes, but when the aim point changes, then it really isn't center of mass anymore. The aim point is definitely better for hitting cardiopulmonary structures, no doubt.
I think that a huge part of the problem with most targets, flat or even many that are dressed up or 3-D, is the lack of understanding by the shooters that they are not actually interested in hitting particular spots on the outside of the target, but locations inside of the target.
Awerbuck spoke of instructors canting a target sideways some. I have seen this in classes. Students will still shoot for the target zone of the target (such as on Higginbotham's targets) when that is done, not realizing that the shots aren't going through vital structures intended. I even had instructors tell me that you want to practice shooting at canted targets because the target zone is smaller (perspective view angle), trying to get the students to aim at the same target zone. This is just plain wrong as they are having you aim at a place OUTSIDE of the target, not accounting for the actual location of the heart and lungs.
For a target canted away from you, say 45 degree, your front facing point of aim that would have been between the nipples shift way over to being is the area of the near nipple/pectoral and forward underarm area.
Bad guys just don't always present nice static targets. Here is a neat example. Note the video shows a fatal shooting with one cop also being injured.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/09/3389013/video-depicts-wild-shootout-that.html
Of course as noted with the OP example, rounds were apparently going through the perp's clothing, but not the perp. Why is that? The cop was sure some where hitting the perp, but he was shooting through his windshieild. No doubt some rounds were deflecting or his aim wasn't true for whatever reason.
This is a neat little description of just one of the problems of shooting through the windshield, assuming you get to shoot straight on through the glass (target directly in front) and not at an angle (target off to side).
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm
Nice discussion here...
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19547
In short, I don't care if you are a master firearms instructor or not. If you have not practiced shooting through your own windshield glass at the particular angle orientation of the perp for the particular distance, hitting the perp in the intended spot is going to be exceptionally difficult. Differences in bullet weights and cartridge loads, windshield compositions, windshield angles, firing angles, etc. will all change the amount of deflection and hence change the trajectory of the bullet.
So of those key real estate factors, location, location, location, in shooting it is just location and penetration, but also trajectory. You gotta have all 3.
As stated in the article, he was a senior weapons instructor and landed nearly a 50% hit rate, that's exceptional compared to most shooting statistics.
Hmmm, 14 out of 33 isn't nearly 50%. It is nearly 43%, but rounds closer to 42%. That is still a higher hit rate than most police involved shootings, but it isn't close to 50%.
Just because that is good compared to other officer shootings doesn't make it good accuracy. There is genuine reason to be concerned as to where those rounds will go. The classic example here is the Empire State Building Shooting. The perp, Jeff Johnson was shot seven times by police who fired 16 rounds. Now that is a bit closer to 50%, certainly better than the shooting of the OP percentage wise, but was just 43.75%. So that is pretty good, right?
Wrong. NINE bystanders were hit by police gunfire, at least three were struck by direct fire and the rest by ricochet fragments (shrapnel). Fortunately, none died, but all required a trip to the hospital.
That is why there is so much concern about where those other rounds will go. So carrying more ammo does not necessarily instill confidence in the public that they are safer when cops start shooting. Percentages don't tell the whole story, even when they are inflated.