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.
Looks like you need an elementary class in English 101. I take it you had an public high school education in Compton or in the Bronx. How else would you continue to write this stuff:
“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.”
Damn, it, for the 1000th time, in such a case the fleeing felon is now threatening lethal force and any one with an ounce of intelligence knows the answer to that. So you shift you stand by positing an obvious circumstance to which the answer is a given. Nice try. This ain’t so much about credibility but a lack of reading comprehension on your part.