It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
S T O P
Angel Perez sued Chicago and its police Officer Jorge L. Lopez in Federal Court.
Perez was working as a delivery driver on Oct. 20, 2012, when cops in an unmarked car pulled him over, handcuffed him and took him to the Harrison Street Police Station, he says in the complaint.
There, "Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street area," the complaint states. "Plaintiff responded that he did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer was never contacted and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an individual by the name of 'Dwayne' in his telephone."
"After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff's body while he was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the plaintiff's chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff's eye sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff's back and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at the time and did not intervene.
"Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one of officer's service revolvers, into the plaintiff's rectum, causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the plaintiff's rectum.
. . .
"Plaintiff began to cry and agreed to cooperate with the officers."
"In an attempt to contact the outside world, plaintiff agreed to make the call and he attempted to call a friend of his to inform him what was transpiring, at which time an officer took plaintiff's telephone and hung up the call."
"At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012, prior to plaintiff's seizure and torture, did the plaintiff commit a crime," Perez says in the complaint.
Perez seeks punitive damages for excessive force, failure to intervene and emotional distress.
Source (Emphasis by me)
After Chicago police repeatedly questioned Donny McGee about the murder of his elderly neighbor, a detective on the case asked him to "face the truth" and take a polygraph.
McGee was taken to the polygraph room but was never given the test.
Instead, polygraph examiner Robert Bartik later testified, McGee stood up as Bartik opened the door and began confessing — even before the examiner could say a word.
McGee denied he confessed. When the case went to trial, a jury found him not guilty in 90 minutes. DNA evidence would later exclude him.
(Source: Chicago: The false confession capital
Why would anyone confess to a crime they did not commit? It happens so often in Chicago, defense attorneys call the city the false confession capital of the United States. Chicago has twice as many documented false confession cases as any city in the country. One reason may be the way police go about questioning suspects.
CHICAGO — Chicago police adhere to a code of silence protecting fellow officers, a federal jury ruled Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by a female bartender whose videotaped beating by a drunken off-duty officer went viral online.
The civil trial in federal court in Chicago was the first of its kind to focus almost wholly on the question of whether there is such an ingrained code – with most of the 2 1/2 weeks of testimony devoted to that question.
A federal jury's judgment that a "code of silence" in the Chicago Police Department protects rogue officers will stand, the trial judge ruled Thursday, rejecting the Emanuel administration's attempt to erase the verdict from one of the department's most notorious scandals.
The ruling amounted to a second legal defeat for the city in the case of a drunken off-duty police officer whose video-recorded beating of a female bartender in 2007 went viral on the Internet.
Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by intrepid
It likely occurs (to some extent) all over.
A. The prescribed firearm for all sworn members hired on or before 01 December 1991 is a Department approved revolver or semiautomatic pistol. Department members hired on or before 01 December 1991 electing to carry an approved semiautomatic pistol as their prescribed firearm must first successfully complete a firearm transition process.
B. The prescribed firearm for all sworn members hired after 01 December 1991 is a Department approved semiautomatic pistol.
C. Department members may transition to a Department approved striker-fired semiautomatic pistol. A transition to a revolver as a prescribed firearm will not be permitted.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
.....Which was important to say because you caught something else which I wasn't sure about. I know most departments are over to automatics and glock type at that. At least most big ones. Still, I saw plenty of cops around the country who did have revolvers ranging to 1911's "locked and cocked" in holsters as well. (Texas and New Mexico on that last one...as if anyone wouldn't have guessed..lol)
So... Either they've been working cops since before 1991....(and would they still have a choice, this long after anyway?) or....something is fishy about the court filing, and I do have faith this was a real filing as quoted ..as explained above .. Or.... These cops had a gun or guns they shouldn't have technically had. All valid for investigation I'd suppose. The court has the mess to look at now.
Texas and NM? I thought we were talking about Chicago here? Is this a patchwork condemnation?
Faith? I'm sure that's not admissible in court. Well, the court of public opinion excepted. And as to the rest it seems that they are GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY..... of something. If I was a defense attorney I would excuse anyone with this type of mindset.