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.

    • jaschen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The sad part of this is that the tax payers have been the one funding this without any improvements in police behavior.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • something_random_tho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      “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.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • Thrashy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not only will they lie to you, they will tell you that lying to them is also a crime. Cops are not your friend.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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…

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The police are allowed to lie to you.

        The pig is allowed to lie to you pretty much everywhere.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        They’ll just have an in-house “lawyer” present in the room. Boom, law complied with, abuse continues.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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…

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

  • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Absolutely horrifying. I’m sure this has already been said here, but it bears repeating over and over and over again: If the police bring you into an interrogation room and read you your Miranda rights IMMEDIATELY REQUEST A LAWYER. This is true even if (ESPECIALLY IF) you have done nothing wrong. Don’t give them any of this “should I have a lawyer?” or “I think I might need a lawyer” bullshit… they have and will twist that; continue to question/manipulate you. You need to state it EMPHATICALLY “I will not talk without a lawyer present, I want my lawyer present.” Legally, the police are allowed to lie to you, deceive you, and a limited amount of bashing you around verbally. There are no police badges that say “this is a good cop who is not trying to manipulate you” and never for a moment think you’re smarter than an investigator… you might be smarter than some people at some things, but these folks whole job is to manipulate people. You need a legal expert on your side.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, they aren’t going to cut you a deal or show lenience that they can’t show later. Lawyer up immediately. Fuck that “we’re on your side” stuff. They are not on your side as long as they see you as a potential criminal

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Watch the “Pot Brothers” video clips that deal with traffic stops. Not exactly the same situation, but the rules are similar. Don’t talk to the cops. Cooperate, but stick to your rights, and shut the fuck up.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This exact thing was done to me, sans the “we killed your dog” bit.

    The Finnish authorities see nothing wrong with having a person paint a cell in their own blood. They tried charging me with vandalism for it. They denied me my prescription medication, ffs.

  • stembolts@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Pretty much this. Every interrogation or arrest these fucks were a part of SHOULD now be suspect. Every single one.

  • dumbass@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Boy its a good thing rule 4 is here to make sure no one calls for being done to the officers involved what they did to that poor kid. 🙄

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • sarmale@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Soo fucked up, and not alone. In 2006 they interrogated a man that they suspected for murder of his girlfriend while he was visibly SHOT IN THE HEAD, and denied him medical care even tho he has a victim. He died 10y later from brain damage. Ryan Waller.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    There wasn’t even a crime and they got a confession.

    This should make every confession they’ve ever received inadmissible.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • Smk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t understand what’s the point ? Why would the police even do that ? I mean, unless they are psychopath of some kind ? Why would they lose 17hours of their time like that ?

    That’s unbelievable.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    to all the people talking about malpractice insurance here.

    Please stop, like seriously, what the fuck are you blabbering on about? You’re arguing that we should pay a private sector company, who’s entire goal is to make money, using tax dollars, to then use those tax dollars they got (but only some of them because we make profit, remember?) and then give that money to people who win cases against insurance.

    This is an objectively worse solution. The current system with lawsuits against the state is much more efficient, and has this cool little thing where we don’t randomly decide to give money to a fucking insurance company of all things…

    you are literally suggesting we create a state funded extortion company.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.