No.
However, I DID say (as you quoted) think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is a bad idea. In other words, having a policy that covers 99.999% of cases is not a bad idea. For that last 0.001%, sure, the person who violates the policy can argue that it was the right thing to do in that particular case, and why.
Being against "zero tolerance policies" does not mean being against policies that prohibit certain actions; it does mean that you want each alleged violation of policy is looked at individually, including looking at the presence of any unusual circumstances. In a "zero-tolerance policy", all violations are treated the same, regardless of circumstances.
So: a marksman with great conditions and a still target, who "shoots to wound"--or even better, shoots the gun out of the suspect's hand, just like on TV!--thus saving the suspect's life? Fine by me. She or he can explain the reasons for the policy violation (or the senior officer who authorized the shot can explain why he or she violated policy). Doesn't mean that a policy against such shots is a bad idea.
"Shooting to wound"--if it RESULTS in a stopped, not-mortally-wounded suspect--is not bad at all; I'd be happy to authorize that result!
The problem is that the "technique" of "shooting to wound" does not guarantee that result. Shots fired away from the usual "center mass" target area are LESS likely to stop the attacker quickly; and stopping the attacker is the goal. If the attacker is not stopped quickly because you "shot to wound", now what? If you keep shooting, your probability of getting the result you wanted is decreasing with every shot.
Add to that that shots that shots aimed at legs and arms can hit "more vital" areas (by bad aim in an emergency, or if the suspect moves); and even hits on arms and legs can produce rapidly fatal injury, while STILL not stopping the threat: he's already dead, but he hasn't stopped fighting yet; the public and the police remain at risk as long as he's active.
And of course limbs move more quickly than does the chest, so your likelihood of missing is higher when you target the limbs--thus endangering innocents downrange.
All that sounds like good rationale for a policy to me. JMO, explaining MO stated earlier.