489 U.S. at 596-97, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (emphasis in original). In addition, “there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Lower courts have found that based on the foregoing Supreme Court precedent, “one can reasonably conclude a ‘seizure’ requires restraint of one’s freedom of movement and includes apprehension or capture by deadly force.” Brooks, 614 F.3d at 1219. “However, [those cases] do not stand for the proposition ... that use of deadly force alone constitutes a seizure. Instead, clear restraint of freedom of movement must occur.” Id. See also Reeves v. Churchich, 484 F.3d 1244, 1252-53 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403,
holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot holding that even though police officers pointed their weapons and made verbal commands because one plaintiff ran away and the other pushed the officers gun out of her face they never submitted to the assertions of authority and therefore there was no seizure holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that police seizure of weapon in plain view even though appellant was handcuffed and under the control of the officers was lawful because there were other occupants in the house who were not handcuffed and who would have had access to the weapon holding that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her arrest for assault under  290313 was unlawful or that her prosecution was malicious when she grabbed the officer from behind the officer pushed her away and she then grabbed the officers shirt