Read on Twitter
Horrifying new 5th Circuit decision: Police officers tased Gabriel Eduardo Olivas while he was suicidal and soaked in gasoline. This set him on fire, burning him to death and burning down his house.
The court held the officers' actions were lawful. /1 https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-10055.0.pdf
The court held the officers' actions were lawful. /1 https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-10055.0.pdf
This began when Mr. Olivas' son called 911, reporting that his father was threatening to kill himself and burn down the house. Five police officers responded. /2
Note: In most cities, police—not mental health providers or even paramedics—are the first responders for mental health crises. We shouldn't have to expect the patient to have to communicate with, work with, and navigate help from law enforcement, especially armed officers. /2
But this kind of law enforcement response is the default in America, even though the presence of armed officers can rapidly escalate crises, and such officers generally lack the comprehensive training and skills needed to provide the safest, most appropriate responses. /3
So, what did the armed officers do at Mr. Olivas' house? They smelled gasoline, and Mr. Olivas' wife directed him to the bedroom where Mr. Olivas was leaning against the wall holding a gas can.
One officer warned his colleagues: "If we tase him, he is going to light on fire." /4
One officer warned his colleagues: "If we tase him, he is going to light on fire." /4
At this point, it's not clear that the officers attempted to speak to Mr. Olivas—even though the 911 call was about his suicidal intentions.
Instead, their next action appears to have been to shine a flashlight in his face and immediately pepper-spray him. /5
Instead, their next action appears to have been to shine a flashlight in his face and immediately pepper-spray him. /5
At some point before or after being pepper-sprayed (the record is not clear), Mr. Olivas doused himself in gasoline from the can he was holding. The court's decision does not make clear whether this was intentional or if the can slipped when he was blinded by the spray. /6
Upon seeing a lighter in Mr. Olivas' hand, Officer Guadarrama, followed shortly by Officer Jefferson, fired his taser at Mr. Olivas.
Mind you, this was shortly after Officer Elliott had warned the two of them that this would set Mr. Olivas on fire. /7
Mind you, this was shortly after Officer Elliott had warned the two of them that this would set Mr. Olivas on fire. /7
As Officer Elliott predicted, the electrical charge from the taser set the gasoline-soaked Mr. Olivas on fire. The fire spread throughout the house, burning it to the ground as the officers evacuated Mr. Olivas' wife and two children. /8
The court's decision focuses on the two officers' decisions to tase Mr. Olivas, because that caused his death. But before we talk about that, it's important to note what was omitted from the decision: /9
Shining bright lights and pepper-spraying a person without trying to talk them down is NOT an appropriate suicide prevention strategy. How might this have played out if, instead of cops, 911 had been able to dispatch a team of mental health providers? /10
We will never know, because Mr. Olivas got Officers Guadarrama and Jefferson instead—and all that's left to determine is whether they are liable for their decisions that killed him and burned down his family's house. /11
The court considered their decision to tase Mr. Olivas under the Fourth Amendment's Graham standard, an elastic standard that too often gives the benefit of the doubt to officers. /12
In its analysis, the court found that because setting himself on fire was felony arson, and because setting himself on fire would put everyone in the house at risk, there were strong factors in favor of using significant force against Mr. Olivas. /13
And, notwithstanding the officers' apparent failure to take ANY de-escalation steps, the court concluded that the officers really didn't have any other option available besides tasing Mr. Olivas. /14
For Officer Guadarrama (who fired first), the court found that preventing Mr. Olivas from setting *himself* on fire was a reasonable justification for tasing him—even though the taser set Mr. Olivas on fire, as Officer Elliott had warned. /15
For Officer Jefferson (who fired second), the court found that since Mr. Olivas was "already engulfed in flames" from the first tasing, there wasn't any harm in tasing him again, in order to immobilize him as he burned alive. /16
It's hard to overstate the perversity of this decision, which explicitly cites the risks that Mr. Olivas would set himself on fire in order to justify two police officers setting Mr. Olivas on fire themselves. /17
