It’s not BS. The very hypothetical scenario you give illustrates a case of the use of deadly force, and in which case deadly force may be used. For example, the cops can’t use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon.
You said: “The use of deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack violates the due process clause of the constitution.”
Try sticking to your own statement and not switching topics. And, yes, a person, cops included, is justified in shooting a fleeing felon in certain circumstances. You should get to know the law before you continue to say stupid things about the law.
Yes they can.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.-- A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.