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!