Court Grants Qualified Immunity To Cops Who Set A Man On Fire By Tasing Him

WELCOME TO AMERICA

By Nick Sibilla…

Two Texas police offi­cers who ignit­ed a man by tas­ing him, even after they saw him douse him­self with gaso­line and were warned, “If we tase him, he’s going to light on fire,” were grant­ed legal immu­ni­ty last week when a fed­er­al court tossed the sur­viv­ing family’s civ­il rights law­suit against the offi­cers involved.

STEWART, CARL E.

On July 10, 2017, Gabriel Eduardo Olivas threat­ened to kill him­self. Panicked, his son dialed 911. Three offi­cers from the Arlington Police Department — Jeremias Guadarrama, Ebony Jefferson, and Caleb Elliott — respond­ed and quick­ly found Olivas in his bed­room, hold­ing a red gas can. Elliott warned the oth­er offi­cers: “If we tase him, he’s going to light on fire.” To try and immo­bi­lize Olivas, Elliott pep­per-sprayed him. It blind­ed but didn’t stop, Olivas. Instead, Olivas doused him­self in gaso­line and yelled that he’s going to burn the place to the ground.
Thinking he saw a lighter in Olivas’ hands, first Guadarrama, then Jefferson, fired their Tasers at the sui­ci­dal man now drenched in gaso­line. Olivas burst into flames, just as their fel­low offi­cer had warned.

JOLLY, E. GRADY

Several days lat­er, Olivas died in the hos­pi­tal, with more than 85% of his body cov­ered in burns. Outraged, his fam­i­ly filed a civ­il rights law­suit in fed­er­al court, assert­ing that Guadarrama and Jefferson vio­lat­ed Olivas’ rights when they tasered him amid con­sid­er­able explo­sive hazards.
The two offi­cers respond­ed that they were shield­ed by “qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty,” which pro­tects gov­ern­ment employ­ees from any legal lia­bil­i­ty, unless they vio­late “clear­ly estab­lished” rights. Last year, a fed­er­al judge denied qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty to Guadarrama and Jefferson, rul­ing that “more fac­tu­al evi­dence is need­ed.” It set the case for tri­al that spring, but those plans were quick­ly derailed by the offi­cers’ appeal to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. As the Fifth Circuit explained, “qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty is an immu­ni­ty from suit, not mere­ly a defense to lia­bil­i­ty,” and so “it is effec­tive­ly lost if a case is erro­neous­ly per­mit­ted to go to trial.

OLDHAM, ANDREWANDY” S.

Unanimously sid­ing with the offi­cers, the Fifth Circuit declared that “nei­ther officer’s con­duct was unrea­son­able, nor was the force they employed clear­ly exces­sive,” and so, “there was no con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tion.” In over­turn­ing the denial of qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty, the court empha­sized that Olivas was threat­en­ing felony arson and “posed a sub­stan­tial and imme­di­ate risk of death or seri­ous bod­i­ly injury to him­self and every­one in the house.” Tasing Olivas was to “pre­vent Olivas from light­ing him­self on fire,” the court added.
Read full sto­ry @https://​www​.forbes​.com/​s​i​t​e​s​/​n​i​c​k​s​i​b​i​l​l​a​/​2​0​2​1​/​0​2​/​1​9​/​c​o​u​r​t​-​g​r​a​n​t​s​-​q​u​a​l​i​f​i​e​d​-​i​m​m​u​n​i​t​y​-​t​o​-​c​o​p​s​-​w​h​o​-​s​e​t​-​a​-​m​a​n​-​o​n​-​f​i​r​e​-​b​y​-​t​a​s​i​n​g​-​h​i​m​/​?​s​h​=​2​d​b​c​b​a​c​f​c​ff7