> They the said that they would kill his dog

Someone should be in prison. This will not end untill there are personal consequences.

I’m curious why you chose to draw the line there.

Are you really? Ever heard the line “dog is a man’s best friend”? Or seen that Jon Wick movie?

I reckon that once the police start trying to frame a man for the imaginary murder of his own father, threatening to actually kill his dog sounds like the most drab of offenses Especially on account of that coming into play later.

Your “trying to frame a man” is their “trying to get him to confess to something he did”. It’s intellectually lazy on their part to jump to that conclusion without any sort of due diligence, but it’s not necessarily evil per se.

Threatening to kill the dog is just plain cruel.

I’ll try to keep this in mind in case you and I cross paths while I have the upper hand and I happen to be feeling an intellectually lazy sort of way.

Whatever happens shouldn’t be attributed to malice. I won’t hurt your pets. My superiors ought to award me for it. I was just being stupid.

> Your “trying to frame a man” is their “trying to get him to confess to something he did”.

This is not a valid activity. Either you have proof or you don’t.

A proper hardened criminal will never confess.

If you have a confession, it’s >70% chance for perversion of justice:

A terrorist will confess because they want fame

In Russia you pay someone to ‘confess’ for your crime and go to prison instead of you.

The naive, mentally infirm will confess, often to things they didn’t do.

Or you managed to torture a confession out of someone, like they did here.

Confessions lead straight to Spanish Inquisition type of justice

The reason John Wick did that is because "man murders hundreds of people, but its ok for us to admire him for it because they deserved it because they killed his wife /girlfriend" is entirely overdone.

People do of course care about their pets, but John Wick used the death of a pet as its instigating event because it was different, not because it was a remotely usual way to respond to a pets death.

Cops routinely kill dogs as a matter of course, and say whatever they want to the arrested. Personal consequences for it are laughable, especially in the current political climate.

Pets are considered mere property damage by the law. I think that's pretty out of line with how most pet owners would feel about anyone hurting their pets.

well, that depends. your pet? just property.

harm or kill a police dog however? youll do 45 years in prison because thats not property, its a "K-9 cop"

https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/man-who-killed-police...

double standards like this are how Rome burned.

I don't mind that being the punishment there so much as I mind that not being the punishment for someone who murders my pet.

Anything someone doesn’t like becomes a reason Rome burned.

Water pipes made of lead? Rome burned.

Invasions by barbarian tribes that I’m going to liken to modern immigration to push my anti-immigration stance? Rome burned.

Adoption of Christianity by Theodosius in 395AD? Believe it or not, Rome burned in 410AD.

“Double standards”? Rome burned.

This only works on people who’ve never opened a history book in their lives. Why would you try it here, where people are much more likely to be familiar with Roman history?

I read it more or less as hyperbole, but I have seen a lot of people mad over such things as double standards in policing lately.

It's sad that for some people animals are still just property

The article says the officers got promoted.

I'm not sure why this comment was killed. A heading in the ABC 11 article is literally "Officers involved were later promoted". The text of the article later goes on to say

> Months after the interrogation, Guthrie was named a 2019 Employee of the Year for the Fontana Police Department.

> Guthrie is now a sergeant. So is Janusz.

> And Michael Dorsey, the lieutenant who Guthrie says told him and Janusz that officers believed Perez Jr. had killed his father, has been promoted to captain and is now chief of police of Fontana, overseeing 188 sworn officers, according to its website.

The system working as intended.

This is the hierarchy of competence I keep hearing about.

The underlying thing folks miss is - competence in what. Near as I can tell, they were quite competent in what city leadership wanted.

The Chinese have the right to complain about their leaders. We don't because we choose them willingly.

Crime goes down, the poors don't riot and that's all that matters.

> We don't because we choose them willingly

I mean technically Russia does have elections.

Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!

That’s shocking, and sounds like psychological torture. That police officer should be criminally prosecuted (though it’s difficult to get a prosecutor to go after the police).

> They the said that they would kill his dog

This crosses from lie to threat. Totally unacceptable.

Why is lying acceptable?

Because it’s legitimate in some cases. Obvious example is when you have an accomplice to a kidnapping in custody and time is limited.

Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.

No it isn't. People have imperfect memory, and if the police can knowingly lie to you, then they can also convince you to admit something which never happened, effectively coercing you to fabricate evidence against yourself.

Yes, it may lead to some bad guys getting caught who otherwise wouldn't have been. But that is not an excuse if it also compromises the rule of law for innocent people.

Yes, great, so if neither of you were actually involved in the crime and they tell you that the other guy gave you up, you can fabricate something that implicates him instead so they take the rap because you’re scared of being blamed.

This isn’t a hypothetical, people have literally gone to prison for decades before some new DNA evidence exonerates them and the ‘accomplice’ admits they lied…

To be clear the vast majority of folks who get cleared based on “new DNA evidence” or whatever actually don’t have their innocence proven. Instead in most of these cases, there is shown to be some problem with a piece of evidence relied on at trial.

To be clear, the prosecutors should be held to a high standard, and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also be a little more cautious about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic. In case that evidence had been excluded on time, it is possible that the prosecutors could still have built a solid case that relied on different evidence.

> about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic

That's literally how innocence works though. From the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial ...". If they weren't proven guilty they are presumed innocent.

Yes but it’s a presumption rather than something that is proven.

If the guy who done it was blonde, 6’2”, driving a red Mercedes, and he wrapped the body in a green rug, and it turns out that the bloodstains on green rug of the 6’2” blonde guy with the red Mercedes that you arrested for it are only actually 70% likely to be the victim’s rather than 99.5%, while LEGALLY the guy in prison now can benefit from the presumption of innocence, I’m not sure I’d be comfortable if he moved in downstairs.

Proven innocence would be “oh we have irrefutable video evidence that this guy was two states away at the time”.

This seems like a stretch. As far as I know, usually DNA evidence in exonerations is more along the lines of, "The DNA is 98% match for a known killer who was arrested for similar crime a few years later."

Even that is problematic. A 98% match means there’s a 1 in 50 chance that the sample is not from the person that it’s been matched to. How many cases do you have to cross match with how many felons before you get a false positive? It’s probably not as many as you think, but I don’t have the numbers to do the maths with.

Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...

It has nothing to do with 'proving', since your ability to prove is always suspect. It's basic civics.

That’s sort of what I’m saying, these convictions getting overturned does not prove innocence, it just means that guilt is not proven adequately.

Interestingly enough this only works in countries where the police is allowed to imply they can get punishment lowered by talking to the prosecutor, something that's impossible in most western countries.

It unfortunately has a side effect, the reciprocating "my friend did it" defense works really well in those places - Scandinavia, I'm looking at you.

Given two murder suspects, but no witnesses, and no evidence of who actually delivered the final blow, it doesn't matter if both would be covered in the victims blood. As long as they point blame at each other and shut up, chances are they will get away with murder.

They would still very likely go to prison of course, but for some "lesser" crime like assault.

The police in other countries manage without doing this.

Lying is wrong, but murder is wronger.

great, if you can figure out how to lie to only murderers we wouldn’t even need police to investigate

He was talking about the dog.

the dog didn't lie

occasionally when it was told "down".

The police do both. So are they wrongest?

And killing a dog is wrongest.

Because cops must operate from imperfect knowledge. Being totally open and honest with suspects gives them control over the situation, at least to the guilty suspects who by definition know more than the police ever can. Ever wonder why cops ask you how fast you were going before they pulled you over? Its because they are unsure and want you to admit your mistake. It is trickery but not evil.

> Being totally open and honest with suspects gives them control over the situation, at least to the guilty suspects who by definition know more than the police ever can.

This fails to account for innocent suspects, who are already having a bad day and are all too often convicted despite their innocence. The police not knowing means that they should be careful, not reckless. You cannot presume guilt in order to justify lying or psychological torture.

> Ever wonder why cops ask you how fast you were going before they pulled you over? Its because they are unsure and want you to admit your mistake. It is trickery but not evil.

It’s also not lying.

Sure, but just asking you is different than lying to you, such as claiming the radar gun clocked you at 98, subject to something like reckless driving, when it was actually only 82, a speeding ticket.

The city is locally referred to as Fontucky, evidently for good reason.

I believe it got that name because of the KKK chapter that was based there.

And cops wonder why people don't trust them.

I dont think cops wonder about that at all

I am from India where we have jokes about our police and how extreme the corruption is and how bad our police is compared to the ones from other nations[1]. But then I often read about USA and police corruption there, brutality, and virtual immunity (strike virtual out maybe) they enjoy and I feel that definitely trumps Indian police in this aspects by a crazy margin. At least we can technically hold them accountable here and we often do.

[1] One of them is that there was a tiger set free in a dense forest somewhere and police from Germany, Japan, and India were tasked to track it down each time as a challenge. Japan found the tiger in 4 hours, Germany in 12 hours. Indian police party was nowhere to be seen. Hours passed, days passed. Finally after the end of the 12th day the Japanese and German police banded together and went to find/rescue the Indian police party. They saw the police party had set camp deep inside the forest and they had a monkey hung upside down from a tree that they were taking turns beating and telling it to confess that it was the tiger.

Simply in India, anything told to the police is not applicable as evidence in the court of law.

Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.

Simply in India, anything told to the police is not applicable as evidence in the court of law.

Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.

To be clear, what they did to Tom Perez was ALREADY illegal. Which is why he was able to sue and win $900K.

If you want to prevent these sorts of things from happening in the future, adding another ban on this behavior isn’t going to do it. There needs to be consequences for the officers that do this. It’s not the officers paying $900K, it’s the city. And they aren’t getting fired, the officers that did that to Tom Perez even got promoted! The system of accountability needs to be reformed. Maybe that means reforming qualified immunity, maybe demoting and firing officers for misconduct, maybe prosecutors need to start indicting officers when their behavior gets to the point of criminality.

Personally, I think if you could sue, say, the police union rather than the city when there is misconduct, things would turn around fast.