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.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Hey. Political campaign managers. Mandatory malpractice liability insurance for police officers in the United States would be a salient piece of legislation or executive order to advertise.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The problem with the modern police system is that there’s not a giant insurance company able to derive profit when courts rule police aren’t liable for their actions.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, that’s a fair point. So they’d probably allow an amendment that subsidizes the insurance company with taxpayer funds and makes the total cost of coverage tax-deductible for the cops.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          or maybe we just don’t have insurance, and we prevent this from even happening, or better yet, set up a fund for this type of shit.

          • brianorca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            The point of the insurance is to have a third party that can evaluate risk for each cop. Some cops with a prior incident will have to pay more for their insurance. Some will have to pay a LOT more, and others will be unable to get it. Putting it on the cop without insurance just means they go bankrupt without paying the victims.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              i can see that aspect of it being useful, but i’m still not sure that that would outweigh the drawbacks of it still being an insurance company.

              Like i said somewhere else, i think i would rather have what we have now, but with proper punishment procedures established.