It's interesting that your tone almost indicates an indignation on your part. A case? A fleeing man was shot in the BACK. Even in the Old West, that was the pinnacle of cowardice.
Originally Posted by WombRaider
Not even the U.S. Supreme Court has taken than position. The case is ...
Tennessee vs. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), which was based upon the "reasonableness" of the "seizure," which is how the SCOTUS evaluated the 4th amendment application to the shooting of a fleeing child by an LE officer.
To assert such a hard and fast rule or conclusion ignores all possible explanations.
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. .....
"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or 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, and if, where
[12] feasible, some warning has been given."
There are circumstances when shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is justified.