[Steelfish]

In all instances it was a reference to a FLEEING felon. First read the whole case and then you’d understand my point instead of plucking quotes and breezily accusing people of carelessness and hosing their credibility. This kind of rhetoric is something that can be easily tossed around just as one can empty that credibility pail on your self after throwing out a statutory provision that was not in point. The touchstone for the use of deadly force is (and this from your own quote): “there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.” Emphatically, that was not the scenario I was referring to. But having dug a hole, you are now trying to twist things around and shoehorn scenarios to accommodate a FLEEING felon or suspect and one who actually has threatened serious imminent harm or someone who is armed and dangerous as a means of justifying credibility for your assertions.

[Cboldt]

Steelfish: For example, the cops can't use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon.
Steelfish: Not [use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon] unless the cops are themselves in danger of life or in danger of serious physical injury. See Tennessee v. Garner
Steelfish: You cannot use deadly force against a FLEEING felon.

None of those contentions is supported by the Gartner case.

-- In all instances it was a reference to a FLEEING felon. ... --

Yes. That's what the Garner case is about, with the slight difference being that deadly force may be used against a fleeing suspect, who may or may not be a felon in fact.

-- But having dug a hole, you are now trying to twist things around and shoehorn scenarios to accommodate a FLEEING felon or suspect and one who actually has threatened serious imminent harm ... --

I don't know why you put FLEEING in all caps, but that was your initial premise, that is the situation in the Garner case, and my remarks have been limited to that circumstance.

The disconnect is between what you say the Gartner case stands for, and what the Garner case actually says. The Garner case allows the police to use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon, but it conditions the circumstances. In contrast, your assertion, quoted above was "the cops can't use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon." Your own cite, Gartner, contradicts your assertion.

Maybe you need sleep or something. Others may feel free to take you at your word, but I won't. Your credibility stinks.