Police behaving badly

[NovaSaber]

Fontana pays nearly $900,000 for ‘psychological torture’ inflicted by police to get false confession

Detectives grilled Thomas Perez Jr. for 17 hours, deprived him of medications and threatened to have his dog killed if he didn’t confess to killing his father, who was actually alive.

www.sbsun.com

According to court records, detectives told Perez that his father was dead, that they had recovered his body and it now “wore a toe tag at the morgue.” They said they had evidence that Perez killed his father and that he should just admit it, records show.

But later that day, the truth derailed the detectives’ theory and their prized confession.

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.

“Mentally torturing a false confession out of Tom Perez, concealing from him that his father was alive and well, and confining him in the psych ward because they made him suicidal, in my 40 years of suing the police I have never seen that level of deliberate cruelty by the police,” said Jerry Steering, Perez’s attorney in Newport Beach.

Also:

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.

 

[Spin-Out]

Those pigs deserve to be fired... Fired upon with incendiary rounds, that is.

 

[Ironbite4]

Only one retired after this btw. And this kid is still suffering from the trauma of that night.

Ironbite-this is why ACAB.

 

[Ungnome]

Interrogation techniques like that should be illegal across the board.. It's not about actual justice at that point, it's about 'closing the case'. "Interactions in Real Time" from Babylon 5 is meant as a cautionary tale, not a playbook.....

 

[Pocket]

It's always about closing the case. Name any jurisdiction—hell, any country—where the cops get penalized if the guy they bring in doesn't end up getting convicted.

 

[Rhinox]

Absolutely disgusting. Just appalling.

 

[Ungnome]

It's always about closing the case. Name any jurisdiction—hell, any country—where the cops get penalized if the guy they bring in doesn't end up getting convicted.

Hate that you seem to be right on this.

 

[Rhinox]

It's always about closing the case. Name any jurisdiction—hell, any country—where the cops get penalized if the guy they bring in doesn't end up getting convicted.

I am curious as to how that would even work. Cops being penalized for arresting someone who doesn't end up convicted.
Not trying to digress, but do you realize just how many people are involved in an arrest decision outside of those cases where an on scene incident arrest takes place?

 

[KidTDragon]

Two? No, three! No no, two! Two! Final answer!

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

It's always about closing the case. Name any jurisdiction—hell, any country—where the cops get penalized if the guy they bring in doesn't end up getting convicted.

If I am interpreting this correctly,This is an incredibly illogical line of thought.

Are you arguing that cops SHOULD get penalized for for bringing in suspects that don't get convicted?

 

[wonko the sane?]

No, he's arguing for the cops doing POLICE work as opposed to meeting quotas.

 

[Ungnome]

Yea, and in the case in question they immediately went with using psychological manipulation techniques to coerce a murder confession without any real evidence the 'victim' was dead. There was no legitimate 'police work' here. They just wanted a confession so they wouldn't actually have to investigate.

 

[Sjogre]

Isn't there some kind of rule about declaring someone dead without a body? To prevent insurance fraud, if nothing else.

I know of at least one case where someone was tried and executed for the murder of someone that had just skipped town. You'd think that the police would also know about that.

 

[Rhinox]

No, he's arguing for the cops doing POLICE work as opposed to meeting quotas.

I am unaware of any quotas relating to potential murder investigations. (or lack of investigations, as this case is concerned)

Seriously, I am absolutely with everyone appalled at this behavior. What has me confused is what Pocket said. I do not understand what is trying to be said or implied. No, cops never get in trouble if the person they arrest isn't convicted. There's a million different things that play a role in criminal cases and a lot of hands go into decisions that the cops play no role in whatsoever. I cannot wrap my head around this thought that somehow cops can or should be (or should not be, I'm very confused) penalized because they arrested someone who wasn't convicted.

 

[abates]

Yeah, no, penalizing the cops who, for instance, arrested OJ Simpson simply because he wasn't then convicted would be an odd thing to do.

 

[Pocket]

If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it. Even if it were possible for cops who just want to close a case, and are willing to drag any old rando off the street and throw him in front of a judge to make that happen, to do so peacefully and politely, that's still an innocent person who's had his life upended for however long he had to stay in jail awaiting trial and also has to live with the consequences of a public record of an arrest and trial. There has to be some way to say "That sort of thing is completely intolerable and will get you kicked off the force for life."

 

[Ungnome]

Maybe having a public defender sitting in on police interrogations would be a good start. As it stands now police have too much leeway when it comes to post-arrest questioning. Having an advocate for the accused be in the room during the questioning even without the suspect asking for one might be prudent given the frequency these things seem to be happening.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Hell, taking control of the body cams and interrogation room cameras would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it. Even if it were possible for cops who just want to close a case, and are willing to drag any old rando off the street and throw him in front of a judge to make that happen, to do so peacefully and politely, that's still an innocent person who's had his life upended for however long he had to stay in jail awaiting trial and also has to live with the consequences of a public record of an arrest and trial. There has to be some way to say "That sort of thing is completely intolerable and will get you kicked off the force for life."

Am I crazy? I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying. Are you suggesting that as a solution for cops harassing and pressuring someone for a solution, you want them to be punished for arresting people that don't get convicted? That wouldn't disinsintiviz arrests, it would encourage them to try and coerce a confession even more.

Also the concept of punishing police for making an arrest on someone that doesn't get convicted and still having any workable justice system is so far disconnected from reality its baffling.

 

[Pocket]

Then we can stop accepting confessions or anything else said during interrogations as admissible evidence in court. Actually we should probably just do that anyway. What are the chances that a real crook will confess in a dark room but then clam up as soon as he's under oath, and have zero evidence they can use against him besides that?