There is a controversy right now in California that the bar for police to use deadly force is too low - currently the police officer needs to claim fear in a situation to justify use of deadly force.
http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article207741689.html
There was a Supreme Court case recently that gives law enforcement a pretty wide latitude to justify deadly force - the police officer in this case disobeyed a superior's order and also was not trained in the situation for which he decided to shoot.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-police-sho...
Again: that has nothing to do with effecting arrest. I realize that sworn officers have legal protections regarding their actions to protect others, including the use of deadly force.
Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?
That's not the discussion here. GP claimed that the law varied state by state. I'm asking to be shown such a law which gives police increased latitude to use force.
That's entirely the discussion here. If, when judged, cops are judged with one standard, and everyone else by another, then yes, they are given increased latitude to use force.
Well yeah, obviously. But that doesn't per se vary by state, it varies by jurisdiction / judge / jury, etc.
My point is simply that there are no state-by-state standards for this, which was GP's claim. States don't allow anybody, peace offer or not, to use any amount of force beyond what is required to effect an arrest.
Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?