If a criminal uses violence to escape the law, then yes, violence is usually permitted against them (and they have now committed a violent crime). Physical for

If a criminal uses violence to escape the law, then yes, violence is usually permitted against them (and they have now committed a violent crime). Physical force is permitted against nonviolent criminals so they can be apprehended, but lethal force is usually not permitted unless the criminal has used or is about to use violence. Yes, there are of course instances where nonviolent criminals have been killed, with that act of killing being legal under that framework. For example, if a criminal is escaping in a vehicle recklessly and putting the lives of others in danger. Or cases where enforcers are given overly broad latitude in determining what constitutes a threat of violence. Or tyrannical regimes that authorize lethal force for minor infractions. But it is not the case that most legal systems say “a criminal can be killed if they refuse to submit to punishment, regardless of the severity of their crime”. That is a misconception. People don’t get killed for not paying fines, they get killed for trying to shoot the person that comes to take them to jail for not paying the fine.