https://abc11.com/post/city-fontana-reaches-900k-settlement-...
[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.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
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.
This crosses from lie to threat. Totally unacceptable.
Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.
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.
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 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.
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.
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”.
Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...
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.
Someone should be in prison. This will not end untill there are personal consequences.
> 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.
This is the hierarchy of competence I keep hearing about.
Crime goes down, the poors don't riot and that's all that matters.
I mean technically Russia does have elections.
Threatening to kill the dog is just plain cruel.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?