they had him restrained on the ground. See also Hemet Chief of Police, "Use of Force," Gen. Order No. U-102 (discussing "professional presence," "compliance techniques," and other "intermediate force" less likely to cause death or serious injury). A rational jury could rely upon such evidence in assessing whether the officers' use of force was unreasonable. See Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 635(9th Cir.1991) (as amended) (finding that testimony of "an expert on proper police procedures and policies" was relevant and admissible); Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 148 994) (same). In sum, Smith has submitted a substantial amount of evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the force used against him was excessive. C. Deadly Force Smit 1168 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 914-15 (9th
holding that an officer cannot use deadly force unless a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm holding that an officer did not employ excessive force in shooting a suspect who turned out to be unarmed because at the time of the shooting the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect posed a threat and was armed holding that deadly force was reasonable where a suspect who had been behaving erratically swung a knife at an officer holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon recognizing that deadly force is only justified where a suspect poses an immediate threat