Victim reports his father missing. Police instead interrogated him for 17 hours, said they killed his dog, and withheld his meds from the victim. Victim tried to commit suicide in the room.
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.
1180
Comments206
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.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
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.
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 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:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
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
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
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?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-24/police-pressured-him-to-confess-to-a-murder-that-never-happened-now-fontana-will-pay-him-900-000
Making people read half of an article:
Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña were the ones involved
As @[email protected] said below:
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.
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.
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
::: spoiler 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
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
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.
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.
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.
Knock yourself out, sweaty.
that's not all cops, not even close.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There should absolutely be legal consequences for the officers involved here. How much do you want to bet there won't be?
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.
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.
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.
This should have got people fucking rioting in the streets or protesting like George Floyd.
The fuck os wrong with Americans.
Americans don't have meaningful protests like other countries because they're so indoctrinated into thinking they're bad
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.
Americans don't have meaningful protests like other countries because they're so indoctrinated into thinking they're bad
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.
Removed, racism.
Wtf? Lol
Play victim? Pick up a history book sometime bro. Like, covering any year from the 1700s to like...last week
Fuck the police.
Since The Sun is cancer... Here's a way back machine link.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240524121802/https://www.sbsun.com/2024/05/23/fontana-pays-nearly-900000-for-psychological-torture-inflicted-by-police-to-get-false-confession/
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.
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
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
When shit like this happens, we need an armed mob outside the department the next day.
dare I ask why they should be armed? what good do you think will come from that?
In the US cops routinely beat up unarmed peaceful protestors while being pretty respectful to armed but still ostensibly peaceful protestors.
Tis but a coincidence
For legitimate self defence
Peace would be ideal. But the reality is that with the manageable sized protesters that show up, they would probably order the crowd to disperse and when they don't, you're likely to be beaten, tear gased, and arrested by some militant armed thugs in riot gear despite being peaceful. It might make rounds in the news for a couple of days then everyone would forget about it before long and nothing will change as usual. All the while the ones who sit above the law (you know, the class that cops protect) are laughing away while sipping fancy wine in their gilded towers with private security, looking down at the entertaining misfortune of the poor batteries that power their money printing machine.
Those fucking bastard pigs are already an armed mob and they're more armed than we'd ever be. There's no winning against them in any "fair" fight.
ACAB - but don't advocate killing ANYONE.
Can I report comments that promote meat eating for promoting killing?
Oh, people have tried, they get laughed off and ignored.
Well that seems like a double standard. What makes a cop's life worth more than an innocent cow? Some kind of supposed biological supremacy?
It is insurance, in case the cops respond with force.
and you think you'll just get away with shooting a cop?? even if they were guilty you'd be gunned down by their buddies in your sleep.
If the protesters outnumber the cops and are all armed, the cops would likely fall back or be outgunned, even if the protesters take losses.
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.
I remember seeing this on a crime channel or something a while back. Horrifying
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.
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
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.
Disgusting.
Almost as disgusting as the fact that they'll likely keep doing this with no repercussions.
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).
Link to the article since I didn't see it posted.
https://www.sbsun.com/2024/05/23/fontana-pays-nearly-900000-for-psychological-torture-inflicted-by-police-to-get-false-confession/
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.
Not sure who you're listening to but no one has suggested using tax dollars for the insurance. The cops have to pay for it, if they do shit and get sued, the insurance company pays out. They like their profit, so they drop the cops that lose them money. Cops can't get a job as a cop if they can't be insured.
Lawsuits against cops punishes the community since they are the ones paying out, not the cop. And typically cops see little to no repurcussions. If there are it's just off to the next town over and get hired there. You can't fix bad behavior with no consequences.
I work in police professional liability claims / litigation. The general public has no fucking idea how much money is paid for shit on the daily. Only the few that hit the media cycle. It’s truly absurd and it’s in every state and every city town Burrough etc. It should make people’s blood boil way more than it does
remind me again who pays the cops salary?
or they just don't pay out claims, because not paying out claims, and raising premiums is an even better way of making money.
i fail to see how this punishes the community any more than paying cops tax dollars, to pay insurance companies, who would then have to deal with problems, which not only adds more bureaucracy to the problem, but less efficient cash flow.
We should be creating a legal solution to this problem, rather than a private sector solution to this problem. Cop does something reprehensible? Bar them from working law enforcement for life. Pay out with tax dollars, because it's going to be more accessible, and much more efficient than traveling through an entire insurance and claims system. I don't really mind paying tax money if it means people who were wronged by previously spent tax dollarly doos. I have a problem with a dysfunctional system that does nothing to remove the dysfunction.
Putting insurance in the mix here does nothing to remove the problem, it just disincentivizes it, while making the whole system vastly more bloated and bureaucratic.
genuine question, how is this any different from forcing cops to pay for insurance, which is paid out of pocket. Why is a for profit industry, which then leads to less state money getting to the people who need it. If we actually punish cops while benefiting the offended party, this would solve the problem.
Yeah what we need is criminal incompetence laws for police, and they need to be consistently enforced. This was a serious crime the police committed and they need to be punished for it criminally
exactly, we need a more strict system, which forces proper etiquette to exist, as well as the surrounding legal structure to enforce it.
ACAB
Removed, advocating violence.
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.
A man needs a name
Jesus Christ. I'd like to think I'm aware enough to know the police lie and to not talk without a lawyer present if I were to be in a situation like that. But if they were to threaten to kill my dog then I'd very likely do whatever they asked.
I wouldn't, just because I'd assume they'd be just as likely to kill my pet anyway even after I confessed to something I didn't do.
Exactly and if they did "they took away what I loved most. Now I am the most dangerous" Those cops should never get a single night of sleep again.
Maybe the cops need euthanized
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.
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.
I thought the Finnish police system was supposed to be more progressive than America's
Not exactly a high bar. The system itself is probably more progressive, but authority will always draw those who seek to abuse it no matter the overarching ideology if the institution.
Yeah. Ditto.
Gentle reminder, in many places, "I'd like a lawyer" and similar statements do not actually invoke your right to have an attorney present and have been judged too confusing by the courts to count.
Look up the actual phrase required in your area.
And don't use any slang. In one case, they said "I want lawyer, dawg". The police later said that they thought he wanted a lawyer dog and since such does not exist they didn't comply.
The judge ruled in favour of the police.
Sorry, your argument that you asked repeatedly for your lawyer does not mean your rights were impeded. You see, our cops are idiots, and not only is that your problem, it's also your fault
What phrase should we use then?
According to cases settled by the supreme court, you have to be clear, unambiguous, and express you're invoking your right in a way that "the average police officer can understand the person's intent to actually invoke their rights".
In practice, this means no slang, no "maybe" or "possibly". It's best to be direct and simple. Something like "I am invoking my right to remain silent and I am invoking my right to an attorney". IANAL and have not been arrested though, but this is advice I've been given from cops in the family and seen reiterated before.
I am invoking my right to an attorney, and my right to remain silent.
Then STFU.
What a bunch of cunts.
ACAB
Watch "Power" on Netflix and one get the gist. Society needs the police, but there are plenty of sick sadistic mofos in their ranks.
So why the fuck aren't they held to a higher standard than the rest of us?
This is what I don't get. I'm a nurse, and since I (ostensibly) have people's lives in my hand, we are checked and double-checked, have to do continual education, and literally everything we do needs to be documented and audited.
And our goal is always to prevent harm to the patient. Why do people who can legally end someone's life not have the same, or much more strict, standards (I'm asking this rhetorically, I don't really want an answer).
It seems like adapting medical licensing and reporting requirements would help get us on the right track, or at the very least help hold police accountable.
Same here. I'm in a position where I'm liable for over a thousand people if any become hurt or die due to my negligence. If I fuck up badly, I could do serious jail time and never work in my industry again. Plus I had to attend university for eight years.
People can waltz in with no education, complete a training course of just a few months, and become police officers, able to kill or harm others with significant impunity.
Says who?
It’s funny - I live in a neighborhood where I routinely need to call the police. They don’t show up.
Have you tried donating a few hundred thousand dollars to your local police union?
If you need to call the police and they don't show up, but somehow you made it out of that situation, it sounds like you didn't need the police.
Yeah - I’m not sure if the homeless woman thats being abused by my drug dealer neighbor who’s screams wake me up at 3 am is going to make it out though :)
worst take I've read all month
Hilarious that the parent comment https://lemmy.world/comment/10245666 was overwhelmingly supported and offers essentially the same message.
that is my experience with both lemmy and reddit. it's a coin toss as to whether the same message is supported positively or not each time you bring it up.
If there are bad people in the police, there would be bad people without the police.
Some people are bad. Why give any of us more power and less oversight than the rest?
Well that's the real issue, the oversight. It's not that they exist, that's retarded. It's that they have very little oversight, training, or personal accountability. Those things need to be added to the police force.
How anyone wouldn't see that "no police" would lead to either complete chaos, military controlled or a bunch of tiny dictatorships being controlled by the citizens who already owned guns before the police got defunded, which is pretty damn close to chaos, is baffling. The only argument for how getting rid of the police could be a good thing relies on the assumption that only good people will have guns.
Centralized, overwhelming military power makes the formation of alternate military power structures impossible.
The idea of a police force is to prevent the formation of a gang with enough violent power to control others.
Sooo... the police exists to prevent the existence of police?
I think you mean the formation of a different violent gang. One that doesn't extrajudiciously represent the owner classes interests.
People think the police do a lot of things they don't actually do, and aren't required to do.
Police don't -- and don't have to -- protect anyone, prevent crimes - even if they can see someone committing a crime and can stop it - Chase down criminals running from them, go find criminals that have been reported, bring criminals for court dates, and more.
Basically all police are genuinely required to do is file a report when someone reports a crime. And I think that society could get away with not having that.
Basically everything about the justice system that you probably care about and that supports society is done by someone other than a cop, or just isn't actually done at all and people presume it is.
I was standing on a corner in downtown Seattle and someone standing next to me wanted to sell me crack. I crossed the street and a cop pulled up to a red light. While crack dealer still standing there, I tell the cop and point at the guy. He tells me to call 911 and then drove off.
That's the time it dawned on me that they don't really care about crime happening in their face
Assuming that being in the police doesn’t make people worse.
Assuming that that's the only way people become worse.
It doesn't make them worse - the police just gives the worse people a gun, training, and next-to-complete immunity from the law.
So mob rule. Got it.
Well I do for a start. I imagine I’m not the only one.
You do? Unless you're a capitalist... no you don't.
The history of policing is no longer hidden from us like it was in the days before the internet. It's not society that "required" police - it's capitalist parasites that required police to protect them from society.
Society may need law enforcement, but not what we have today.
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. 🙄
it's lemmy.world, the majority of users are terrible people
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.
Jesus fucking shit.
don't they have any law enforcement there?
Last Week Tonight on this.
I'd love to see a JCS episode on this.
Me too, though, while I've seen him be critical of tactics, admittedly I've never seen JCS do an entire episode about crimes committed by the police themselves.
Damn. Why'd it have to be the IE?
It's everywhere, this is just the one that made the news this week.
True, but there is rarely good news coming out of the IE. Just kinda exhausting sometimes.
I felt this. IE represent
Ayyy! I was hoping to find my IE Lemmy users .
There are tens of us!
Fucking awful, never call the police
humans need to go