> 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.
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.
"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".
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.