Officer Guadarrama admitted in his statement that Mr. Olivas was in close proximity at the time, and was further a “safe distance away from his family members.” Officer Guadarrama further wrote something in the statement which was a blatant inconsistency, and which was not true. He wrote, “The female family member was right next to the suicidal male . . . .” He further falsely wrote, “I was afraid that if I fired my firearm a bullet from my service weapon could possibly strike the female family member due to the close proximity that she had next to the suicidal male.” Mr. Olivas could not be a “safe distance away from his family members” and at the same time be right next to a female family member. In fact, the truth was that Mr. Olivas was not right next to either his son or his wife – the only two family members in the room. Instead, the three police officers, Mr. Olivas’s wife, and Mr. Olivas’s son were generally in line facing Mr. Olivas at the time police officers chose to Tase Mr. Olivas. Neither Mr. Olivas’s wife or son was in such proximity to Mr. Olivas, such that there would have been any risk of either being shot had Officer Guadarrama chosen to shoot at Mr. Olivas with his firearm.
The call text allegedly further indicated that Mr. Olivas was threatening to burn down the house and was pouring gasoline in the house. However, there was no indication that Mr. Olivas was threatening to harm his wife, his son, or anyone else in the home, or that he had trapped and/or otherwise put any such persons in a position that they would be harmed if Mr. Olivas chose to kill himself.
Mr. Olivas did not threaten to harm his wife, son, or anyone else at the home, and he had not trapped, injured, harmed, or put anyone in his home in a position that such persons would be harmed or injured if Mr. Olivas actually chose to commit suicide.
[...]
Once again, this description as to how to access the bedroom in which Mr. Olivas was located, and which was now on fire, showed how easy it would have been for Defendant police officers to have removed family members from the residence using the open front door (thereby avoided Tasing Mr. Olivas).
[...]
Mr. Olivas’s wife and son backed to the doorway, and then moved back into the room. However, they then remained generally in line with the three police officers and not adjacent to Mr. Olivas. Upon information and belief, Defendant officers did nothing to physically remove the family from the situation. It would have been reasonable to do so at that time, and before any interaction with Mr. Olivas had occurred.
etc.
