If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted.
This is incorrect.
Absent a riot where deadly force is permitted to defend a home or suppress the riot, an imminent threat to a person is absolutely required, and in the case of an escaping violent felon the threat to the life of others must be quite realistic and likely and not merely possible.
Note the California Castle Doctrine...
You are confusing castle doctrine with a stand-your ground-defense. Although related, they are different things.
Yes, that was my point in an earlier post, perhaps in a different subthread.
My statement, which you quoted, was regarding the stand-your-ground defense, which extends outside a residence.
The rules change outside your home.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”
Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.
Injury to a fleeing attacker may or may not be evidence to the contrary. The simply act of fleeing doesn't remove the imminent threat standard. Some scenarios: 1) The attacker is shooting at you while fleeing.
Now you are getting into Clintonian word games. Of course a weapon still being pointed at you trumps attempting to flee. A weapon so pointed constitutes a reasonable imminent threat.
2) The attacker could harm others while fleeing.
No not "could", not merely the possibility of a future threat to life. The danger to the lives of others has to be reasonable and realistic and likely in the case of a fleeing violent felon.
3) If you have a reasonable belief the attacker could immediately return after fleeing from you.
No, deadly force is not legal in such a circumstance as the threat is a possible future threat not an imminent threat.
You can pursue and use necessary and reasonable force to detain such a fleeing attacker but deadly force is not one of your options until we get into situations like in (1) and (2) where the threat once again becomes tangible not merely possible.