I will be even more specific. As far as reasonableness and the whole subjective versus objective debate go, I want to pick up on the last question I asked you on Tuesday. It appears in the blues and reads as follows:
Last question, further to the first point I raised with you, about reasonableness and the subjective-objective distinction, would it not behoove us to specify that the perception of reasonableness is precisely on the part of the person who used the force. Would that give rise to a problem or, on the contrary, eliminate a problem by sending a clearly defined message, one that is more or less already being delivered by the courts, at least to settle the matter once and for all.
Ms. Klineberg gave the following response: Generally speaking, that is how the courts deal with it. It is a matter of taking the perception of the accused into account, but insofar as that perception is reasonable.
In her opinion, it is acting reasonably in the circumstances. We attempted to bear in mind what various groups and department officials told us and then clarify certain points. If you don't want us to make any amendments, tell us at the start, instead of letting us waste our time bringing in witnesses and discussing the issues with them. Unless the answer is no longer the same today, this amendment is entirely in keeping with current case law. If we do not include it, the case law will once again serve as the sole basis for analysis.
I can tell you that, as a lawyer, when I argue a case, I much prefer basing my argument on a law rather than on decisional law that is easily distinguishable in terms of the facts. If a law stipulates the test to be used, I do not challenge it.