At one point during the interrogation, the investigators even threatened to have his pet Labrador Retriever, Margosha, euthanized as a stray, and brought the dog into the room so he could say goodbye. “OK? Your dog’s now gone, forget about it,” said an investigator.
Finally, after curling up with the dog on the floor, Perez broke down and confessed. He said he had stabbed his father multiple times with a pair of scissors during an altercation in which his father hit Perez over the head with a beer bottle.
Perez’s father wasn’t dead — or even missing. Thomas Sr. was at Los Angeles International Airport waiting for a flight to see his daughter in Northern California. But police didn’t immediately tell Perez.
The tax payer pays up almost $1M and these scumbags remain employed. How predictable.
Also, just in case anyone isn’t aware: rule number one if you’re in the US and police ever bring you in and try to interrogate you is to shut down and demand a lawyer. Legally, the interview has to stop immediately until you have one present. If the officers don’t comply, then you know they’re corrupt and there’s no reason to believe anything they say from that point onwards.
Unfortunately, there has been precedent for the argument that the right to remain silent is one that needs to be continuously and positively invoked.
So if they keep interrogating you and you choose to start talking, that can be interpreted as you waiving your right to remain silent.https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-claiming-miranda.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html
Remaining silent is not enough, you have to articulate that you want to invoke your right to remain silent, unambiguously request a lawyer (no “I think I should have a lawyer for this”), and request a lawyer generally (no “I want a lawyer before I answer any questions about where I was”).
“I am invoking my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer” is basically all you should say.
The ACLU remains an excellent resource for being aware of your rights.
My father-in-law is a defense attorney for juveniles, he always said that the best thing to say is " I understand you guys are just doing your jobs, and I really would like to cooperate, but to do so I need a lawyer present".
Otherwise they can basically classify you as a combative witness, or claim that you are interfering with an ongoing investigation.
By saying that you really want to help, it puts the imperative of wasting time on their end. If you guys need the information that bad, you should be rushing to get some representation here as fast as possible.
Its kinda bullshit that to get proper treatment people need to know a bunch of little phrases to throw out like a secret password. Fuck cops for real
True, but, that’s kind of something you have to do for anyone in really any position of authority generally.
ACAB
I watched this video a few years ago. You can tell its age, but I found it very enlighting. In it a lawyer explains why you should never talk to the police even if you’re innocent:
I read this guy’s book, “You have the right to remain innocent”. Definitely reinforced my ACAB inclinations.
I was going to link that but you already got it covered!
It’s fun to mock sovcit whackos, but this is the sort of thing that gives them the idea that there are magic words they can invoke that let them wallhack through the legal system. The judicial system has spent literally hundreds of years working hand-in-glove with police and prosecutors to make it as difficult as possible for the everyday citizen to exercise the legal rights that protect you from them, and only by knowing exactly how to navigate the legal labyrinth set up between you and those rights can you actually use them.
A lot of it’s not intentionally for that purpose, but a side effect of hundreds of years of arguing over wording and what exactly the law means in different situations.
The cases that caused the “disagreeable” (most polite phrases I can think of) changes to Miranda protections happened only in the past few decades.
It’s still preposterous that the system, which is constitutionally pretty obviously slanted against the government, is so eager to find loopholes in protections for people to the advantage of the government.
Yeah, the police should be required to ask if you wish to remain silent and if you’d like a lawyer
Also noteworthy for visitors to the U.S.: The police are allowed to lie to you.
The police are trained to lie to you.
The police are allowed to lie to you.
They’re also allowed to just be flat-out wrong about stuff. Like, for example, the law. You’d think as enforcers of the law they would be legally required to actually know the law, but that’s a big nope.
The police are allowed to lie to you.
The pig is allowed to lie to you pretty much everywhere.
They can lie to you here or there.
They can lie to you anywhere.
Not only will they lie to you, they will tell you that lying to them is also a crime. Cops are not your friend.
They are not allowed to lie in court, under oath… but they will anyway. To protect their illegal searches, their planted evidence, their bullying and excessive force, or just to save another cop they don’t even like! It’s called “the Blue Wall” and they will kill you or send you to prison to defend their right to be above the law…
“Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law,”
Used AGAINST you, not FOR you. No attorney has ever said, “I’m so glad my client spoke to the police.”
Never speak to the cops without an attorney.
Full stop. Never ever talk to the police under any circumstances.
It’s my turn to share it again! The most important video for any American to watch:
Is it Shut The Fuck Up Friday already!?
Every day is Shut The Fuck Up Friday!
The money should come from police department retirement money
It should come from malpractice insurance police officers should be required to have.
Bad cops will weed themselves out of the system, when they can’t afford the premiums, if they continue having incident after incident where they are responsible for damages.
Good cops won’t have to worry about high premiums or negative sentiment from the public about bad cops. You’d probably see cops clamoring to wear body cams to back their stories up if they were actually held accountable for their transgressions.
I think it should come from the union, and directly from the pensions.
Why?
This is about changing culture. It’s not one bad cop in isolation; this is a system of bad cops in league.
If a 30 year officer is hiring having their ability to retire threatened by a rookie cops behavior, that sr. officer WILL not be accepting any bullshit from the rookie.
If you want to change the culture it has to come from within the institution and their needs to be a forcing function to do so.
I agree with the sentiment but then we get into the moral issues of collective punishment. I’d rather the individuals at fault suffer the financial hardships along with anyone who tries to help them cover it up.
Punishing the entire group incentivizes the entire group to help hide it.
The money should come from municipal funds. What’s that? Can’t afford parks and other basic services anymore? Too bad, maybe you should pay attention and vote.
Am I under arrest?
No -> goodbye
Yes -> lawyer -> STFU
So what you’re saying is a simple law proposal of “you cannot ask questions without a lawyer present. Any interview done without legal representation is illegal and inadmissible.” Would do wonders for civil rights?
They’ll just have an in-house “lawyer” present in the room. Boom, law complied with, abuse continues.
See, this is why I’m not writing the full text of the law right here. That would be up to legal experts. I figured “The official legal representation of the person being interviewed” would have been a given, but here we are…
But if they’re corrupt and don’t care about your rights, then that’s more reason to fear them. They threatened to kill his dog, that’s what broke him. And they probably would have.
Then you know the fun is just beginning
There wasn’t even a crime and they got a confession.
This should make every confession they’ve ever received inadmissible.
These cops will never testify in a case again without being asked about this.
Which cops? Do we have their names?
Making people read half of an article:
Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña were the ones involved
As @Kalothar@lemmy.ca said below:
Making people read half of an article:
Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña were the ones involved
The idea that they may continue being cops is insane. They should be locked up in a cell with no doors. I don’t trust them in any position in society, much even less one where they have authority over others.
Anyone who works for that police department should get asked about it when testifying. That kind of behaviour doesn’t come out of thin air. It’ll be a product of organisational culture and will be systemic.
they generally aren’t. Unless related information is proven, for example the location of the body.
From my understanding these types of cases are usually hit with a plea deal, which would somewhat nullify this factor of it, though it’s still fucked up.
But how can it nullify a plea deal that was met because of all the “proof” they had from a tortured confession? If I knew it was fake but could stop the torture sooner I’d immediately confess and plea for less time if I’m having to serve it anyways.
because a plea deal is literally defined as “admitting to the crime regardless of whether or not you did it, in exchange for lighter sentencing” which is often done in cases where the burden of proof is too difficult and can cause problems.
Still doesn’t make it a just case here, but that’s just how plea deals work. Regardless you could still sue the state to appeal, you have these options, and people have exercised them before, and they will continue to exercise them into the future.
A standard plea deal is an admission of some form of guilt, usually less than what the prosecutor would charge for trial, in exchange for a lighter sentence. You (defendant) are not admitting you did it regardless of whether or not you actually did it. You’re just admitting guilt.
What you’re describing is called an Alford plea. This is where, in making the plea, you maintain innocence but acknowledge the prosecutor has enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. There’s an excellent documentary called
Tap for spoiler
The Staircase
that results in one.
fair enough, but for all intents and purposes it’s basically the same thing to everyone who isn’t in law actively lol
in cases where the burden of proof is too difficult and can cause problems
Wasn’t there like “innocent until proven guilty”? I know that isn’t for every crime, but for murder it is iirc
This is so fucked up 😰
Plea deals are basically you just accepting whatever comes your way regardless of your actual culpability. They aren’t concerned with actual fault so much as being a steam release valve on the system to concerve the effort police need to prove actual fault. As far as civil case law is concerned I think they have value in terms of conserving the limited resources of court time as well as personal hastle and the resources needed for regular disputes to gain resolution… But I personally think that plea deals pushed by persecution in criminal case law should be flat out illegal. If you want actual justice then relying on a system that exploits power imbalances between the individual and the State we need to see a commitment to actually giving people a full shake of presumption of innocence by the system and maybe consequences for cops who waste court time with poorly evidenced charges.
There are way too many people who take plea deals basically because they are poor.
yeah, and that’s why plea deals explicitly negate that right. That’s kind of the entire point of how they work. You have to accept a plea deal.
What I meant is if they have a hard time proving guilt that might be because there is no guilt.
well yeah, that’s why plea deals are plea deals. They aren’t meant to be a 100% guilt. The entire point is that you accept a lesser charge, in exchange for a lesser sentence.
They don’t publish the names of the bad officers in this story or any others because of fear of retribution. But it wasnt always this way. Police unions put pressure on media to remove the names because the officers felt threatened. Imagine being a bully and then demanding protection for it? That’s the police. They are cowards and should be exposed to the public as a matter of safety. It will keep the police polite.
Until the police union releases the names of the officers who did this, their community should treat the entire department like they were all collectively responsible, and act accordingly
They are collectively responsible because they are still employed there and none of their other officers refuse to work with them, pressure the department, or do anything about the situation.
And I find it unlikely no one else at the station knew what they were doing for all that time. ACAB.
How do you know any of that is even true?
How are these cops not under arrest by the FBI and why aren’t they on trial??
How is it they’re not treated like the criminals they are?!
Different orgs, same cartel
Because all cops are bastards. The system is working as intended.
There was a case here in Sweden where the Swedish police was tipped off on a potential paedophile by an American agency that had trawled through Yahoo email and found suspected CSAM. Swedish Police essentially swatted this man, assaulted him early in the morning, while he was in his bed sleeping, took him away without telling him what was going on; he thought he was being kidnapped. Eventually when it was made clear that the materials were private photos of him and his 30 year old boyfriend getting it on, they faced no repercussions.
The reasoning behind it? The police were masked so they couldn’t single out who was responsible for the assault. Of course they knew who was present, but since they didn’t know the actual perps it’d be unfair to investigate properly because that’d put them all under unfair suspicion, and it obviously wouldn’t be reasonable to punish all of the police present.
But it’s perfectly okay to beat the shit out of someone they think is a paedophile, and honestly it’s probably because he’s of middle-eastern descent.
I’ve tried and failed to find an article telling this story. Do you have a link?
It honestly wasn’t as covered as it ought have been. SVT has a couple of articles, as well as an outlet called Kontext Press.
- Article about the event on SVT
- Article on how the officers were never questioned
- Article on how video evidence (and the lack thereof in this case) is often critical when it comes to punishing misbehaving cops
There’s also three articles on Kontext. I hadn’t heard of Kontext before, and was thus rather suspicious of the whole thing; it all sounds too American to be true. SVT however is a very reputable source.
- Article about the event on Kontext
- Article on how cases like these often don’t lead to any sort of punishment
- Follow-up with a chief of police on the event, who tries very hard to say that the thing didn’t happen without outright stating that the victim is lying
It’s all in Swedish. I’ve tried and failed to locate sources in English before. This event wasn’t reported on nearly as much as I personally would’ve liked to see. My impression of Swedish police has always been a positive one, but this kind of thing is beyond unforgivable.
Please don’t spread misinformation.
- Article about the event on SVT
- Article on how the officers were never questioned
- Article on how video evidence (and the lack thereof in this case) is often critical when it comes to punishing misbehaving cops
- Article about the event on Kontext
- Article on how cases like these often don’t lead to any sort of punishment
- Follow-up with a chief of police on the event, who tries very hard to say that the thing didn’t happen without outright stating that the victim is lying
Knock yourself out, sweaty.
that’s not all cops, not even close.
All cops participate in a system of state-sponsored cruelty, racism, corruption, and violence. Their purpose is to suppress minorities and the poor in the interest of capital. Any cop who participates in this system is culpable for its outcomes even if they personally did not engage in unlawful or cruel behavior.
So yes, all cops are bastards.
I’m not sure by now but I used to think that some of fresh cops may be all right and they usually get removed from cops soon.
At least, I can imagine how one can want to do good until they’re shown and/or involved in the actual crap on their first day or month of work.
I know of non-US corrupt police practices that boils down to “order something illegal to be done in a group with a newbie”. If ey refuse it’s goodbye immediately, if ey agree however reluctant ey is already a criminal and if something happens ey can get accused and get a jail. This makes every cop a possible target and they are very loyal out of fear, it seems
This wasn’t a bug, it was a feature.
When I see this, I don’t only see this man, I see every man, woman, and child who interacted with this police precinct.
How many current prisoners were put in prison by this type of psychological torture?
How many of those prisoners weren’t as lucky as this man to have undeniable evidence of innocence?
How many citizens going about their day pull off the road when they spot a police car in their rear view mirror due to terrifying encounters shared by neighbors?
Fascist morons. Morons seem particularly useful to fascists, they love being the boot and they are too stupid to look up and see an even larger boot ready to crush them when they step out of line.
Pretty much this. Every interrogation or arrest these fucks were a part of SHOULD now be suspect. Every single one.
The attorney is the hero of this story, suing the cops for 40 years 💪❤️
The sad part of this is that the tax payers have been the one funding this without any improvements in police behavior.
Didnt see one thing about cops being charged or the chief being fired. FUCK THE POLICE!
Fascists take care of their jackboots what can we say
You wanna know how to make me a murderer? Make me believe you’ve killed my dog and make me say goodbye.
Its cunts like this that make me want to bring back public punishment’s, let’s see how fun it is yo be a psychotic prick when you gotta face actual public repercussions.
I hope some shred of humanity sparks in the person’s mind who had that idea, of bringing in this poor guy’s dog… Maybe on his deathbed, maybe in the middle of the night ten years from now for no reason, just the full fucking impact of realization that they’re the bad guy of the story, that they’re evil, that they did evil things that hurt people very badly and they cannot undo the harm they caused unfairly.
I don’t think I’ll hold my breath that humans are particularly inclined to self-reflect nowadays or especially as time goes, but I can dream.
John Wick please stand up
I don’t even have a dog and I’m already planning my revenge / last stand.
None of those cops received any punishment and the taxpayers covered the bill. God bless America.
‘Merica!
Doing my part!
Somebody has to pay taxes around this here country.
Sadism. The pigs enjoyed watching him suffer. It’s the simplest and most obvious explanation, and all that bullshit about smelling blood is a lie designed to cover their tracks.
In a slightly more just society, that $900,000 would have come out of the bastards’ malpractice insurance, their careers would be destroyed, and they would face investigation by an independent civilian oversight committee & face harassment / abuse charges.
A society that was slightly better still would see them afraid to show their fucking faces in that town ever again.
Perez was not released until after the end of the three-day psychological observation period. He then retrieved his dog from Riverside County Animal Services, tracking her down through an implanted chip, Steering said.
They didn’t even give his fucking dog back!!!
As a responsible pet owner, that makes me unbelievably angry. Bad decisions would follow. I would likely go to jail for my actions and argue that I can’t be held fully responsible on account of my reasonable and extreme rage.
To be honest, were I in that guy’s position and they threatened to euthanize my dog and brought him to me to say goodbye, that likely would have been the ultimate end of my stint in free society right there. Zero chance I don’t try to kill them with my bare hands when my sanity is already hanging by a thread. In my opinion this fully qualifies as psychological torture, and no person has any duty to suffer it quietly or otherwise.
malpractice insurance
i like the romanticism of insurance companies somehow wanting to pay out people who are being fucked over by the police.
Bro they’re literally only here to make money, what makes you think an insurance company backing the fucking police of all things, is going to pay out victims lmao.
Also this is kind of a stupid take, because these people are literally paid by tax money, if they had to pay for insurance, that would just be covered with tax money, that has been taxed, so we get like a little bit of return on it. This doesn’t even solve the tax payer problem fully lmao, plus now we have an entire business who’s entire existence is making money, and actively employs a shit ton of private sector people, which also means now we’re paying private sector employees doing a job that arguably shouldn’t exist, with fucking tax money.
The insurance company doesn’t get to make that call, the courts do. The insurance company gets to dictate the premiums each cop has to pay.
i guess so, but why even have an insurance company at all at that point, just institute proper punishments for offending officers, and pay out a case using tax payer money directly.
Unless we’re suggesting a realm where this insurance company is state run i don’t see this saving anybody money anywhere.
The point is that the cost of lawsuits would come out of the police officer’s pockets due to higher premiums, instead of out of tax payer’s pockets which means the officers don’t care.
institute proper punishments for offending officers
That is a fantastic idea I whole heartedly agree with. Who is in charge of assigning the punishments? Police unions refuse to have civilian oversight.
The point is that the cost of lawsuits would come out of the police officer’s pockets due to higher premiums
man, it’s a good thing police forces are private institutions funded by their own dollar.
Surely nothing bad could ever come of this arrangement.
That is a fantastic idea I whole heartedly agree with. Who is in charge of assigning the punishments? Police unions refuse to have civilian oversight.
legally, it should be the court, and a jury. Though we should also institute some protections against criminal enterprising, because it could be very easy to stack a court against them.
man, it’s a good thing police forces are private institutions funded by their own dollar.
That’s the entire point. Police stations are tax funded. They torture someone into a false confession and the station gets fined $900 000, which comes from taxes, so they don’t fucking care.
What I said was: the cost of lawsuits would come out of the police officer’s pockets, not the police precinct’s. The Officers would be paying the insurance costs out of their paychecks. Each lawsuit means the officer ends up with less money. If a specific precinct keeps having lawsuits against it that will result in higher rates for working in a “high risk precinct”. Lawsuits should result in financial consequences for the people involved, not for tax payers.
legally, it should be the court, and a jury.
There should absolutely be legal consequences for the officers involved here. How much do you want to bet there won’t be?
That’s the entire point. Police stations are tax funded. They torture someone into a false confession and the station gets fined $900 000, which comes from taxes, so they don’t fucking care.
the problem here is that they aren’t reprimanded or punished, they need to be, not that the tax payers pay someone who was abused by an institution funded by tax dollary doos.
the cost of lawsuits would come out of the police officer’s pockets, not the police precinct’s. The Officers would be paying the insurance costs out of their paychecks. Each lawsuit means the officer ends up with less money. If a specific precinct keeps having lawsuits against it that will result in higher rates for working in a “high risk precinct”. Lawsuits should result in financial consequences for the people involved, not for tax payers.
a decent trick here would be forcing the police dept to represent itself, or the officers more specifically. That would come out of the budget fund, and then be an immediate problem.
There should absolutely be legal consequences for the officers involved here. How much do you want to bet there won’t be?
yeah, we literally run this country though, so i don’t know why you’re sitting here trying to argue something that isn’t actually legal punishment, and then sitting here and complaining about the fact that there won’t be, even though you’re literally steel manning your own argument there.
Fuck the police.
Since The Sun is cancer… Here’s a way back machine link.
So taxpayers are paying this right?
The cops responsible should be forced to give every penny they have to their name. Cash, property, investments, 401k, the clothes on their fucking back. Then they can go work in those prison chain gangs for 8 dollars a day picking up trash on the streets to pay off the remaining debt. Unironically.
Hey. Political campaign managers. Mandatory malpractice liability insurance for police officers in the United States would be a salient piece of legislation or executive order to advertise.
The problem with the modern police system is that there’s not a giant insurance company able to derive profit when courts rule police aren’t liable for their actions.
Yeah, that’s a fair point. So they’d probably allow an amendment that subsidizes the insurance company with taxpayer funds and makes the total cost of coverage tax-deductible for the cops.
Honestly that would still be an improvement
or maybe we just don’t have insurance, and we prevent this from even happening, or better yet, set up a fund for this type of shit.
The point of the insurance is to have a third party that can evaluate risk for each cop. Some cops with a prior incident will have to pay more for their insurance. Some will have to pay a LOT more, and others will be unable to get it. Putting it on the cop without insurance just means they go bankrupt without paying the victims.
i can see that aspect of it being useful, but i’m still not sure that that would outweigh the drawbacks of it still being an insurance company.
Like i said somewhere else, i think i would rather have what we have now, but with proper punishment procedures established.
States are slowly removing qualified immunity, so we have that going for us
Tbh, I don’t consider these officers to be human. They don’t really deserve human rights.
I mean it sounds like they tortured this man for fun. Absolutely harrowing. ACAB holds true.
I mean, they’re not officers. They’re criminals in blue, hiding behind a badge.
To these people, making sure everyone knows they’re ‘police’ is important to them, it’s they’re entire identity. So strip then of that.
But they are police officers, that’s the problem. And there are still others doing this and worse, and they’re all protected.
Any officers
