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.
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.