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.

  • aleph@lemm.eeEnglish
    367·
    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.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1571·
      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.eeEnglish
        95·
        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.worldEnglish
        381·
        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.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          171·
          6 months 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.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        241·
        6 months ago

        The police are allowed to lie to you.

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

      • Stupidmanager@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        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.nlEnglish
        101·
        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…

    • something_random_tho@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      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.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldEnglish
          262·
          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.

          • CileTheSaneEnglish
            7·
            6 months 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.worldEnglish
        115·
        6 months 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.

    • CileTheSaneEnglish
      19·
      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.worldEnglish
        121·
        6 months ago

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

        • CileTheSaneEnglish
          15·
          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…

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      6 months 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.