was not carrying a gun, thereby considerably reducing the severity of any threat that Wilkey might have presented to Argo and Cranfield or to members of the public. Argo’s search of Wilkey, however, did result in the discovery of an object that Argo believed to be an ASP baton. Because Wilkey refused to confirm or deny Argo’s accusation, but instead claimed that he had a right to carry the object and placed it back into his pocket after briefly displaying it, Argo was justified in taking some form of investigatory action to determine whether his suspicion about the object was correct. But we believe that a jury could reasonably conclude that Argo’s actual reaction to Wilkey’s placing the flashlight back into his pocket was not an objectively reasonable response. Santos, 287 F.3d at 854 (<HOLDING>). This court has recognized that even where
holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable holding that under  521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied holding that because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the third person would have been justified in using force the trial courts finding of guilt was supported by substantial evidence holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded