until the suspect was tackled and thereby stopped. See 499 U.S. at 629, 111 S.Ct. 1547. In Vaughan, on which Mr. Brooks also relies, a passenger was struck by a bullet fired by police in an attempt to stop him and the driver in a speeding vehicle. 343 F.3d at 1326-27. After the passenger was struck, the driver of the vehicle continued evasive action before losing 1406-07 (9th Cir.1994) (determining no seizure occurred when officer grabbed suspect, a struggle ensued, and suspect fled, as he “was not seized because he never submitted to authority, nor was he physically subdued” and further holding “[a] seizure does not occur if an officer applies physical force in an attempt to detain a suspect but such force is ineffective”); Cameron v. City of Pontiac, 813 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Applying these legal principles concerning
holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure holding the use of deadly force standing alone does not constitute a seizure and absent an actual physical restraint or physical seizure the alleged unreasonableness of the officers conduct cannot serve as a basis for a  1983 cause of action holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force  or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority