The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
This to me means a person being arrested would be justified in using force if the person never resisted arrest and the police officer uses force greater than necessary to make the arrest. Does a car chase constitute resisting arrest? I often see police officers throw the suspect on the ground and pull the arms up high at the end of the chase, even when the suspect is giving up. From my untrained point of view, it appears like the arresting officers use force greater than necessary.
On the other hand, it seems odd that a person being arrested would be justified in using force against the arresting officer. Weird.
I doubt that what police do after that kind of car chase would constitute greater than necessary force. In most of those cases, the driver has just put a lot of people in jeopardy including the officers. Moreover, because the driver fled, the police have every reason to believe he or she is dangerous.
Many times, officers do use excessive force when making an arrest at the end of a chase, especially when looked at by the strictest interpretation of the law. Part of the reason is that their adrenalin is flowing from the chase and that the criminal usually does not seem to cooperate very well when they do lose the chase. Officers are human and do make mistakes too, including being able to calm down and shut off the adrenalin that quickly. I am not syaing it is right or excusing it, just explaining it. Most of the time, you will find this among the younger officers who still take things personally on duty. We try to train it out of them, but it is very hard to overcome human nature when combined with youthful enthusiasm.
Secondly, while the law on resisting arrest defines the law one way, the section on justification defines it differently. Note that it does not says resists arrest but offers resistance. Evading arrest can be a form of resistance, as can passive resistance. Neither one will justify the charge of resisting arrest though, as that requires force used against the officer. Thus, some force can be justified in chase situations, such as tackling the guy or throwing him to the ground. I don't think it justifies the hits and kicks some see on TV, but the forceful takedown and cuffing is probably legal.
The flight of a suspect causes the pursuer's adrenalin rush, which in turn often causes harsher than necessary action when subduing a suspect. But having willfully been the originator, a suspect who took flight is somewhat precluded from making an effective legal claim of excessive force until it gets grossly out of proportion to the resistance offered by the suspect.