Doesn't sound like it if the report you linked to is giving full and accurate details. The case you are talking about happened in Utah, so I'm not as familiar with their law. I used to work in California. We had the "Fleeing Felon" law that allowed police to shoot a person in the back as they were running away, but only if they knew he was guilty of a felony crime, other reasonable attempts to apprehend him had failed, and that his escape would most likely put other's lives in danger. It has to meet all of these criteria AS WELL as all the other criteria for a normal shooting situation. This is very rare. In my entire career I was never involved in a case that fit these requirements nor do I know anyone personally who was. However, one such case that fit the criteria was the infamous Hollywood bank robbery shootout that most everyone watched on TV.
But even if the law is the same in Utah, if the facts of this case as presented in the article you linked to are accurate and complete, they're gonna have a mighty tough time proving he fit any of the requirements of the Fleeing Felon law! Once again, this is a great example of a case where these uniform cameras would have been great to have. If the cops were indeed in the wrong, just the fact that they knew everything they did was being recorded very well could have prevented this from happening in the first place.
