Okay, then, given that his motives might be complicated, does it follow that he
1.) Shot the BG in self defense.
-or-
2.) Shot to inflict pain.
In other words are these mutually exclusive in terms of trying to obtain a jury verdict?
IMHO, as long as it can be said he was shooting in self defense, as a member of said jury, I'd vote "not guilty." A prosecutor would have to convince me that self defense was unnecessary -- and given the situation in question I don't think that is possible.
Look, this is, as I said, a TV show. If I found myself in Crane's situation, would I shoot kneecap and both feet?
No @#^$#% way.
I would shoot center of mass.
I am not a TV show and there is no director to yell, "CUT! PRINT!" in real life.
And the reality is, aside from whatever personal feelings and/or beliefs I have with regards to this issue, mljdeckard has one good valid point buried in his argument as I see it; in a real world scenario, there are juries in America who would find Denny Crane guilty in this because they would ignore the self-defense angle, and despise the seeming onanistic glee Crane expressed in shooting the BG ... and we all "know" guns are evil ... and bad guys are "misunderstood."
It would be simple self-protection to shoot COM, nothing less, nothing more.