Somebody needs to study TN v Garner. The USSC rules exactly opposite of what you think. Are YOU really a cop? Reads more like some college LE freshman.
"Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. "
You also might want to reread O'Connor's opinion. Hers was a dissenting opinion. I assume you understand what a dissenting opinion is but apparently not. She did not agree with the majority of what the USSC held. While her opinion might be nice reading it is a dissenting opinion and therefore holds no bearing on what the court's final finding.
Yes, you should study
Tennessee v Garner. The court held that deadly force cannot be used to deny escape of
NONVIOLENT fleeing felons. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, which, translated for non-cops, means she disagreed with the court's opinion in
Tennessee v Garner.
Tennessee v Garner had absolutely nothing to do with using deadly force to deny escape of VIOLENT fleeing felons. Zero. Nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. Nada. Goose eggs. Cops can and do use deadly force to deny escape of violent (dangerous) fleeing felons.
Were we to follow your logic (it's devoid of logic), the Castle Doctrine, which CA has, would be void. Using your logic, a resident would have no defense to using deadly force against a suspect or suspects invading his castle. In essence, your logic would obliterate the Castle Doctrine.
I'll interpret your lack of laws of arrest as lack of knowledge of criminal procedure.
Because it's the way I roll, I'll again help you out:
California Penal Code Section 197. (2) (
Justifiable Homicide):
(2)
When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.
California Penal Code Section 198.5:
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
California Penal Code Section 196.3. (Peace Office use of Deadly Force to Prevent Escape of Dangerous Fleeing Felon):
When necessarily committed in retaking [violent] felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with [violent] felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.
Here's a recap for you: the majority opinion of the court applied to NONVIOLENT fleeing felons. It did not apply to violent fleeing felons. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, which means she disagreed with the majority's opinion.
ispcapt, were cops forced to abide by YOUR imaginary (it does not exist in law) law of criminal procedure, you'd have allowed Charles Manson to escape. It's a darn good thing that you're not in position to foist your imagination upon professional law enforcement officers. If you are, you are in dire need of remediation.
I can write for an absolute fact that the agency from which I'm retired shot dangerous fleeing felons. In fact, I've known only one agency that had a policy of not shooting dangerous felons, and that info was given to me by a cop of that agency. I have no idea of the veracity of that info.
Again:
Tennessee v Garner applied to
NONVIOLENT fleeing felons. It did not apply to violent fleeing felons.
BTW, if you are a cop, what is your agency's policy covering dangerous fleeing felons? Do you allow them to escape so that they can prey upon more victims of your jurisdiction? If that is in fact your agency's policy -allowing dangerous fleeing felons to escape- how would you explain to the parents of their raped and murdered daughter that you were de facto good as accomplice to his previous marauding by allowing his escape?
My advice to you is to KNOW your agency's shooting policy. You've had adroitly exposed your lack of knowledge of laws of arrest.
Call Devallis Rutledge. He will help you...if you're a cop.
If not, please enlighten us. Some case law citation(s) would be quite useful. 
