With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we are not compelled by either logic or existing precedent to accept that proposition. As explained below, if the jury found, as it could, that Officer Wyatt was in the passenger seat of a slowly rolling vehicle, it could conclude that he did not face an immediate threat to safety sufficient to justify the immediate use of deadly force. Our decision simply identifies a disputed issue of material fact. If, as Chief Judge Kozinski's dissent bemoans, that gives plaintiffs "a bludgeon with which to extort a hefty settlement,” id., it will only be because the defendants are concerned that a jury might not view the evidence as the dissent does. 3 . The constitutional standard for using force less than deadly force is lower. See Gregory v. County of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Because it is undisputed that Gonzalez did

A: holding that an officers single use of a taser was reasonable where used to subdue an arrestee who had failed to accede to repeated police commands to stop his retreat into his home
B: 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
C: holding that officers had substantial grounds for believing that some degree of force was necessary where suspect was possibly under the influence of drugs acting bizarrely trespassing and refusing repeated commands to drop a pen
D: holding that the decision of a police officer to preserve public safety and order through use of commands backed by threat of force or actual use of physical force is a matter of discretion
C.