[Avshalom]

From Wikipedia:

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.

[molecule]

>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?

> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.

Which is to say: not legally.

[Avshalom]

If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?

Which means you're a criminal; which means you're probably a serious threat to others.

It's a bit of a toothless ruling because it's about the cop's state of mind at-the-time which is damn hard to disprove, harder when it's a cop's word.

[jedmeyers]

"If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" - Guilty or not is for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading the police".

"Which means you're a criminal" - you are not a criminal unless convicted.

"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." - 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".

[branchan]

Well I mean, it's kinda like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are running from a cop, then you are evading the police, which is a crime.

[skarap]

> the officer has probable cause to believe..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU