It is not protected, but it can be protected.

I believe you meant to type a phrase that indicates that the action of killing a fleeing suspect may be protected if certain criteria can be proven.

You accused IFightClouds of over simplifying, yet I only read circular reasoning in your posts.

I rarely post anything, but I had to counter your arrogance. An arrogance which is just as bad as the media outrage on all sensitive topics. Disclosure, I'm not a cop basher, nor am I part of the blue wall.

Why do the public believe they understand anything about an investigation or police procedure designed to protect the public and the officer?

To be honest, a lot of the animosity comes from the lack of transparency. But, the public once again fails to recognize the logic behind many of the procedures. Police agencies could compromise and be more forthcoming and honest, but many parts of an investigation must still be held behind the curtain. Honesty would also only exacerbate their exposure to financial liability. One would think that the public would not like the police department paying out large amounts of tax dollars for their incompetence. Also, just like any investigation outside of a police environment, an investigation requires confidentiality to undermine collusion and conspiracy. The general public also does not factor in the public safety and officer safety variable into any harmful rhetoric towards law enforcement.

Why do officers of the law believe they have a comprehensive understanding of constitutional law?

Most may have basic understandings of the local and state statutes plus the Miranda case, but I doubt even a small minority have any legitimate knowledge about the evolution and reasonings behind the constitutional challenges that have molded their profession. to name a few: balancing test, strict scrutiny, lemon test, endorsement test, coercion test, Miller test, Sherbert test, neutrality, reasonable observer standard, etc.

You may be in the small minority who have studied law at a local college, maybe preparing to go to law school, or a SCOTUS junkie who loves reading case books. Based on the requirements of the Tenn/Garner ruling and the conflicting evidence, are you able to say yes to all three requirements?

1-Did the fleeing suspect pose a threat of death or serious physical harm if allowed to escape? 2-Did the subject commit a crime involving the infliction or threat of serious physical harm? Either to the public or to the officer. 3-Did the officer issue a warning?

Will the officer be able to present evidence that he was representing the state's interest in public safety, and that it was greater than the suspect's interest in his own survival?