Not generically bad, but bad for you. The plaintiff in Acosta v. Hill, case no. 05-56575 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2007), claimed in her Section 1983 case that the force used by city security guards and police while ejecting from a San Diego stadium violated her civil rights. Indeed, she claimed she had been subjected to deadly force, and that the trial court erred by giving an instruction on excessive force under a reasonableness standard without giving a separate instruction on deadly force. She had a shot. Ninth Circuit precedent at the time of her appeal drew a distinction between instructions for excessive force and instructions for deadly force. Her…