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.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This should have got people fucking rioting in the streets or protesting like George Floyd.

    The fuck os wrong with Americans.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Americans don’t have meaningful protests like other countries because they’re so indoctrinated into thinking they’re bad

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Americans don’t have meaningful protests like other countries because they’re so indoctrinated into thinking they’re bad

      • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        We have meaningful protests but they’re crushed and counter-protested with impunity. People are so dejected and alienated and yes, indoctrinated and turned against one another that it’s fucking hard to get any progress.

    • RinseDrizzle@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Tbh, I think a big part of the 2020 protests was Covid acting as a pressure cooker. All we had was time and anger. Much harder to get gatherings like that when folks are busy working. Healthcare being tied to jobs makes all my friends raising kids pretty shit for the protest scene too. Much harder to be a revolutionary when you have something to lose.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I feel like if someone threatens to kill your dog for literally no reason other than they want to hurt and scare you, than it is unreasonable to expect that person won’t attempt to use lethal force to stop you. It is also unreasonable to label that person as a dangerous, unhinged person for reacting in this way.

        What do you think they hate their dog?

        Sure if it came to me choosing between my dog’s life and a human’s life I feel like I am going to choose the human probably right? Even if they are a stranger, honestly it just wouldn’t feel right to pick my dog idk… but if the human is just casually telling me they are going to murder my dog for no good reason, than I think one has ethical permission to use any action necessary up to and including ending that person’s life in an attempt to stop the unnecessary murder of the dog (assuming again the dog is just chilling, existing, not hurting anyone). That is fundamentally an act of non-violence though on security camera footage it will look like an act of unhinged violence without context.

        It really doesn’t matter how credible the threat is, if someone makes a threat to murder your dog with a straight face they should expect the owner of the dog to attempt to use lethal force to stop them because the dog’s owner/human friend is completely 1000% justified in doing so no matter the context of whether the murderer supposedly represents a “justice system” or not.

        The only ethical expectation on the dog owner/human friend is to escalate their violent response in a reasonable way that allows for de-escalation at every step (i.e. don’t jump straight to the most extreme response unless you have to)… which is kind of hard to suss out when you have two extremely large men threatening you in a small room within a building brimming with bigots and guns that is wrapped up in a brutally cruel justice system you might never escape if you piss the wrong cop off on the wrong day.

    • jaschen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

  • stembolts@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Disgusting.

    Almost as disgusting as the fact that they’ll likely keep doing this with no repercussions.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pretty much this. Since the taxpayers are footing the bill and, from what we can tell, the officers have had absolutely no discipline placed upon them, they’ll keep doing this. Because they know it works. It doesn’t matter that they tried to get an innocent man to admit to actual murder, all they want is that confession - not necessarily the truth (because the truth is hard and simply threatening or beating a confession out of someone who’s been arrested is much easier).

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • PoopDelivery@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        But they are police officers, that’s the problem. And there are still others doing this and worse, and they’re all protected.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean it sounds like they tortured this man for fun. Absolutely harrowing. ACAB holds true.

  • Zess@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You are a fucking shitty investigator if you have to threaten to kill a man’s dog to get him to talk. I’m surprised this guy still has all of his fingernails.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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

      • Thrashy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

      • eltrain123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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…

      • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The police are allowed to lie to you.

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

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • something_random_tho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          0
          ·
          1 month 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…