While these ethics questions are interesting and thought provoking I wonder sometimes what the poster is looking to discover.Are they trying to come to terms with what they would do in these circumstances,or are they looking for support of their own actions.These are hard questions in the sense that I don't think "most" people want to break a law,they are trying to do what to them is morally right.
Some have made it seem like violating a game law is different than violating any other law,why is that? If you break a law,you break a law.To place game laws above any other comes from some form of justification.The person I trust the most is the one that looks back at me in the mirror in the morning.When circumstances arise (situational ethics) I am going to do what I feel is right and will have no reservation about it.
I would like to think in the situation described by WH I could call a CO and have them have a rational response,like let's get this animal out of it's suffering and let's get the meat to a needy family or soup kitchen or whatever.Our local Co recently retired,he is a friend and a client and would still be the guy I would call for advice.Personally I would not call a CO who I didn't know because I don't have the faith that they would do the right thing.I will be darned if I was to be put through grief for attempting to do things correctly.
The bottom line for me is that the animal is not going to suffer any longer than it has to and it will not be wasted.To me that is the committment I made to the animal when I chose to shoot it.