The law you quoted contains two statements.
Each statement is true and stands on its own.
The first statement says, basically, that IF you're sure the person has committed the crime because they committed it in front of you or otherwise within your immediate knowledge, THEN you can arrest the person! This part of the law does not say only if it's a felony, nor does it say "only if they stay there and let you arrest them."
This law does not say "only if they run." This law simply says you can arrest them ; therefore you can chase them if necessary. Therefore you can use physical force to overcome their resistance, if necessary.
The second statement of this Code section says that if the crime in question is a felony, and IF the bad guy is attempting to escape / flee, THEN you can arrest based on less certainty, and the crime need not be all that recent, and it did not have to unfold in front of you. All you need is probable cause, not to know for sure because you saw it happen.
[You might get your probable cause from talking to the victim or an eyewitness to the crime, which happened a few minutes ago, and the eyewitness / victim asks for your help in finding the suspect, believed to be nearby.]
So what I'm hearing is that if you see them commit a misdemeanor, and they try and run away you're OK to chase and use 'reasonable' force. If you just hear about the crime from a 3rd party, but it's a felony, the same is true.
Got that.
I'll still say that this is a liability trap for anyone who goes down this road though. Asking someone who isn't a lawyer to determine whether a crime is or isn't a felony may be a stretch to begin with. Asking them to determine whether they have enough probable cause to go after 'that guy in the red shirt' sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.