Evictions are usually analyzed from a single perspective: that of the person losing their home. This is, by far, the most urgent perspective and the one that should be least overlooked. However, in this report, we focus on those who are called upon to participate in the physical execution of evictions and what consequences it has for them to be forced to intervene in actions that may conflict with the values that guide their profession. At the Sira Center, we have prepared Tighten the rescue line, an investigation that systematically documents for the first time the legal, physical, psychological and psychosocial impact on firefighters when they are mobilized to assist in the execution of evictions.
The context
For years, the Firefighters Against Evictions Platform has been highlighting a tension that rarely finds its place in public debate: the tension between the social and humanitarian function of emergency services and the use of their technical capabilities to facilitate actions that can lead to situations of serious vulnerability. This is not a minor labor dispute. When professionals whose mission is to protect lives question an order because they consider it incompatible with that mission, the conflict ceases to be internal and has both individual and collective impacts.
The methodology of the report
The report combines two approaches. First, a comparative regulatory analysis of regional legislation governing the functions of fire departments, to determine if there is any legal basis for assigning them the power to carry out evictions. Second, a survey of 116 professionals from different regions of Spain—24 with direct experience in evictions and 92 without—regarding their perception of their roles, the information they receive, the physical and legal risks involved, and the emotional and professional impact.
The results
The first finding is regulatory: none of the regional laws examined expressly assign the physical execution of evictions to firefighters. The general duty to cooperate with courts and tribunals falls within the scope of each agency's own responsibilities; it does not create a new responsibility nor does it transform the technical capacity to open an access point into an obligation to guarantee the outcome of the eviction.
This regulatory gap translates into very concrete figures. 95.61% of non-mobilized personnel believe that evictions fall outside the scope of the force's duties. 70.81% of those who intervened were not informed beforehand that their deployment was linked to an eviction, and 75% received no information on the matter from their superiors. Legal ignorance is equally widespread: 79% do not know if there is a right to conscientious objection, and 72% are unaware of the consequences of refusing to intervene.
The personal impact is equally clear: 70% reports a high or extreme impact, with anger, shame, stress, guilt, and helplessness as the most frequent emotions. Weeks later, 42% still feels guilt often or always. And despite all this, 95.8% has not received any institutional psychological support; peer support appears to be the main buffer available.
The report interprets this data as a chain reaction: the lack of explicit legal coverage creates ambiguity about the role of firefighters; this ambiguity is combined with an institutional expectation of collaboration that the authorities fail to clarify; the resulting conflict clashes with the professional identity of rescue and protection; and, without an institutional response, it becomes chronic as a psychosocial risk. The specialized literature has a name for this: moral damages, the suffering that arises when a person is forced to act against their own ethical code.
Some recommendations
The report's central conclusion is not that conscientious objection needs better regulation. Focusing the debate there would shift the responsibility for resolving what is, in reality, a collective problem of defining roles onto each individual professional. Therefore, the recommendations are organized around three lines: expressly excluding firefighters from the actual execution of launches; guaranteeing prior information and clear legal advice regarding each activation; and establishing institutional psychological support and systems for monitoring long-term impacts.
You can download the full report, with the detailed methodology and complete regulatory analysis, at https://centrosira.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Tensar-la-linea-del-rescate-online-v3.pdf