You keep constructing your own scaffold. I may need some sleep but you need a lesson in grammar and reading case law.
“The Garner case allows the police to use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon, but it conditions the circumstances.”
Go read my initial comment where I wrote: You cannot use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.
Of course, if the circumstances change (where the fleeing suspect becomes a deadly threat, as where he turns back and confronts his pursuer) then the initial equation changes. This is much is obvious even to a fool that is does not require a thesis.
The moral of this exchange is that in future don’t go running around accusing people of their credibility and making a fool of yourself unless you get your facts (and law) correct.
Of course it does. But so what? The Garner case allows the police to use deadly force against a fleeing felon, if the police believe allowing the escape will put the public at risk. That the fleeing felon turn to put the police at imminent risk is not required, in order to justify the use of deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed felon. That is what the case says.
-- The moral of this exchange is that in future don't go running around accusing people of their credibility and making a fool of yourself unless you get your facts (and law) correct. --
Well, I'll say it again. Your credibility sucks, and so does your reading comprehension.