Perhaps you should read it dumb ass.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
PLEASE READ THE BELOW QUOTE
So according to the above quote. A cop can use deadly force to prevent escape if the cop has probably cause to believe that the suspect he is pursuing "has committed a crime involving the infliction....of serious physical harm".
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
Without in any way disparaging the importance of these goals, we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.
The fact is that a majority of police departments
Page 471 U. S. 11
in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects.
Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.
PLEASE READ THE BELOW QUOTE
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where
So according to the above quote. A cop can use deadly force to prevent escape if the cop has probably cause to believe that the suspect he is pursuing "has committed a crime involving the infliction....of serious physical harm".