I would agree with this, if we're talking about rounds that will penetrate adequately while reducing the risk for overpenetration, such as the rounds that Dr. Roberts recommends, or meet the FBI standards. The problem with stating that misses are more of a problem than overpenetration is that it comes across as saying, "Yeah, just hit what you're aiming at and you can use whatever round you want," or, even worse, "Why bother with JHP if you're gonna end up missing anyway?"

This is usually said by people who insist on using FMJ for self defense. There are a number of examples of FMJ rounds, which penetrate deeply and may outperform JHP in barrier penetration tests, exiting from the body of the intended target and injuring either bystanders or other officers. This was the reason NYPD switched from FMJ to JHP shortly after adopting the 9mm. I can think of a couple of incidents involving .45ACP FMJ. In one instance, a police officer fired on an attacker, hitting CoM. That round exited and struck another police officer behind the attacker just below his vest, causing a life-threatening wound. Another involved a LAPD SWAT officer who fired on a hostage-taker inside a car, with a hostage in the back seat. The round went through the windshield, hit the hostage-taker, exited, and ended up in the shoulder of the hostage.

Will a good JHP totally eliminate this risk? Of course not, but combined with adequate marksmanship as Doug M. suggested, it'll reduce the risk about as far as can be done. Fortunately, with the rounds available now, one doesn't have to overthink it. Pick a good HP, like the ones Dr. Roberts recommends, make sure it's reliable in your gun, and practice so you can consistently hit what you're aiming at.

Just my opinion.