A Reasonable Defense Denied?

The objective reasonableness standard embodied in Graham v. Connor has been the clear legal standard for evaluating all use of force encounters since 1989. This constitutional standard requires courts to view a use of force incident through the eyes of an objectively reasonable police officer. This vision gets blurry when officers find themselves charged in criminal courts. Some courts judge the actions of an officer through the same lens they view the actions of an average citizen. Rather than inquiring what a reasonable police officer would do, some courts ask what an untrained person would do. This disparity has created unpredictable results for officers. Has this inconsistent application of the law denied officers equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?