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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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?
Making people read half of an article:
Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña were the ones involved
As @Kalothar@lemmy.ca said below:
Making people read half of an article:
Officers David Janusz, Jeremy Hale, Ronald Koval, Robert Miller and Joanna Piña were the ones involved
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
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
in cases where the burden of proof is too difficult and can cause problems
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.