Good Cops...DO something about the bad ones or accept the broad brush.

This

HAS

T O

S T O P

It's rare that I come across a case to really get my blood boiling, but this is just such a case. I thought for awhile about how to share this one because it really IS that bad. It reads like something out of a bad 50's movie of dark police interrogation rooms and sadistic cops getting their jollies on others brutalization.

A story like this can't occur without a culture and department at least half way tolerant. You wouldn't see some cop using a field telephone to shock the answers out of someone, because that would be too far even for this day and age. This however? The only way this could be done is for the cops doing it to feel certain the victim wouldn't be believed or fellow cops would either see it as amusing or, at worst, tolerate it and say nothing about it happening.

Warning: The following story does relate to vice unit and narcotics are part of what vice units do in a major city police department. This isn't a drug rant, it's about police administered torture to make a case. Any case it may happen to be.

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."

He didn't cooperate with them on that first contact and it must have really upset them because they apparently had future plans of getting compliance for their case. They suckered him out to meeting them on a false pretense, arrested him again and took him back to the station house. That is where it got rough.....

"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.

There are, quite literally, complaints against U.S. forces out of both Iraq and Cuba for mistreatment of detainees for doing LESS than that. It takes a warped and twisted turn after that though and what it took to break this one.

"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."

Source

Now this may not be fair to say in a department where nothing bad really happens as a pattern or known types of abuse. However, Chicago isn't among those. It's one where Illinois overturned their whole Death Penalty in no small part by DNA exoneration of cases that had resulted from confessions out of Chicago PD interrogation rooms.

Good cops need to DO something about these criminals with badges or turn in their own to seek life in a Department that isn't crawling with them.....lest the public have very good reason to say that a few bad apples really *DO* spoil the WHOLE bunch.

Rahm Emanuel needs to clean his own house. Badly. Skip the fancy new opening ceremonies of this or that and the stupid announcements of new programs and just clean the house he runs. It needs flushed like an overflowing septic tank!

This may be one of the best posts Ive ever read on this site. Im reminded of a scene from boondock saints:

So is Angel guilty then?

Infuriating... EVEN if he's guilty, it's disgusting they way they conducted themselves and should be fired plain and simple.

Reading the article, they physically assaulted him severely, refused to contact his lawyer and even sodomized him (?!?). All this because the cops wanted to set up a sting with this guy named "Dwayne" in the suspect's cellphone contact list? The suspect finally agreed to call Dwayne, but tried to call a friend instead:

"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."

Guess he should of tried to call his lawyer...

Disgusting! You're right too, good police officers MUST fight against this type of behavior. If they don't, they're just as bad as the officers doing it.

Sorry I see no proof to that. The guy is an obvious junky. Has a dealers number and dealer trusted him enough to not worry about a wire or anything. Maybe this is cooked up because he doesn't want to be killed for being a narc. I know cops do abuse people when they're no cameras around, but all that for one gram of heroine? I'm not to sure about that. No arrest either. Ahh also took him some time to call a paper and lawyer up.

I mean I grew up with some kids who became cops and they still enjoy their drugs. Of a drug doing cop let it drop to his drug dealer what happened then the snitch would need a good story real fast. When someone is looking for you on the streets you'll find out. The streets talk as they say.

reply to post by intrepid


Not according to him....

"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.

^^ The final lines of the reported court case from above. I could only find one reference which only might be him and Angel Perez is probably not the most uncommon name around, so there is no way to be sure it's the same guy. DEA announced this a few days ago:

Twenty-Three Defendants Charged with Various Roles in Supplying Heroin and Cocaine in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin

The name appears as one of a lesser included group of defendants on their overall case. I wouldn't want to speculate the connection tho. Just too much not known to say that.

Does it matter what he was guilty of though? I've heard of cops crossing the line on an occasional case I even quietly thought they probably did the right thing with. A kidnapping case years ago in the Miami area comes to mind and the lengths to find the kid. The cop knew what he was throwing away though, and rightly so as I recall. This? Well, whatever Angel Perez may have done? This couldn't have been justified.

This is either dark black Military levels of psychological game playing ......or twisted, warped people in authority in this particular case. Some may argue there is no distinction when it reaches this level of things. The problem, as I see it though is that they wouldn't exist in those positions without the passive surrounding culture.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Edit: Just to get to the point. We don't know if this guy is guilty or not. Unless he has already had his trial.

This on the other hand is guilt without a trial. Hell, without a hearing. You've painted these cops as guilty while saying that, "Does it matter what he(Angel) is guilty of?" Convicted these people in the court of public opinion. It'll go down well here with all the LEO haters. Hell the presentation damn near had me convinced that all cops should be slathered in blame for the few. Then I remembered. I'm like Vincent LaGuardia Gambini:



I'll stick with logic.

I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

I think for most cops they have accepted the broad brush...just like any other race who is given a bad name because of a few bad apples...the same can be said for the type of person who refuses the good that the men and women do...on the flip side of things some police don't care what they are called because they realize that public opinion seldom goes in their direction...get sick all you want but their is insanity all around us and in other countries that trump these issues...

Its a swell idea, but the police department doesnt work the way you're hoping. Just ask Christopher Dorner LAPD. By the time this becomes accepted interrogation practice in a department, the corruption is already well-established and any "good" cop who might take exception to the methods would do well to shut up about it. All he's going to do by blowing whistle is ruin his own career...or worse.

reply to post by intrepid


lol.... It's always a fair point of innocent until being proven guilty and the cops who allegedly did this have not been proven guilty. At one time, in public awareness if not reality, this sort of thing would actually have been disbelieved out of hand by the public.

Then we had cases like Abner Louima where precisely this same thing happened and for even less reason than this would appear to have had involved.

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 (Emphasis by me)

That one is not uncommon, I'm afraid and even among those who would naturally look to side with Police, Chicago is a city and department with a reputation that stands slightly apart from the rest.

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.

(Source: Chicago: The false confession capital

You might say they are known for it. Which makes my rant and strong feeling of how badly it needs to stop all the more relevant in this specific case. It's not just a heinous case by nature of what happened (allegedly) but that it doesn't seem that far out of line in that specific department for abuse.

So this is a verified story? Here's the issues I have with the allegations;

1. This happened last year? Since when do leo's carry revolvers anymore? I have been a cop for a decade and I have never seen anyone carrying a revolver.

2. If this guy was sodomized a simple medical examination would show tearing in the anal cavity. Was a medical examination completed? If not why?

3. Is there video of the incident?

There are bad cops out there that need to be punished. However there are more good cops that are treated like scum by the public just for who they are. The public is just as guilty at being prejiduce against the police as are the police against the public. Everyone is a freaking hypocrite. It's a viscous circle. This is something that both the police and the public need to fix together.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So this is just Chicago cops you're talking about then?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree that this (if true) is flat out wrong and the officers involved should be put in prison themselves.

But seriously, does this incident and the hundreds of other bad cop stories really make the hundreds of thousands of cops all bad? Or is the rage blinding your judgement just a bit?

Bad people do bad things. Unfortunately, some bad people are put in positions where they can abuse their power. But Karma will fix everything in time.

Are all Chinese kids good a math? All blacks good a sports? None of them can swim right?

Don't be that guy.

reply to post by intrepid


It likely occurs (to some extent) all over. When I used to work at a local lockup many years ago there was certainly a code of silence. As others sometimes say - the bad ones were in the minority. But the good ones wouldn't do anything about it most of the time. It was one of the reasons I got out of there..

Anyway, keeping with the Chi-town theme.

You may remember this bit of human waste and Chicago cop...



This one went to trail and the finding was...

Chicago 'Code Of Silence' Trial Verdict: Court Rules Against City, Anthony Abbate

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.

As far as Rahm goes - he tried to get that verdict changed, but thankfully he didn't have any luck there.

'Code of silence' verdict stands in Abbate case Judge denies city's request to erase jury's finding

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.

I'd say there is pretty good evidence for a "blue wall". I'm sure its worse some places than others. But, it does exist.

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by intrepid

 

It likely occurs (to some extent) all over.

That is something I would never debate. Said so myself. The ingenious thing is comparing all cops to Chitown cops. If you're in LA you might have a point. Otherwise it doesn't stand to logic. And for those that will post something from here and there I already said it happens elsewhere. Nowhere near the extent of Chicago.

reply to post by intrepid


Chicago is certainly the focus of the story and seems to be one of, if not the worst example of it being systemic. Given those death row cases that were exonerated by DNA but had been convicted on Chicago confessions, it's hard to have much but a hard set of feelings in general on that. Any any reduction of a death sentence can still be argued for guilt, right? Maybe he did it... maybe he didn't... but he's never getting out. However, DNA clearance just kinda yells the offense that had to be committed for it to have gotten that far. Chicago PD ranks strong with such 'confession' history.

The permissive culture is something that I think needs acknowledged and turned against by cops themselves everywhere, though. My Father had remarked on having seen low levels of it on less meaningful things during his career. John Wayne was not to be ticketed for traffic, ever, period. A judge's kid is expected to slide (one he refused to do once as he loved to tell it). Small stuff like that.

What was done here and starting to be heard about more often is just.. well.. a small warped subset of cops, IMO. This is like a 'bad southern Sheriff' in a movie treatment. They should be most uncomfortable around good cops though, not passively protected by them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


'Every' rung of that city ladder is corrupt. Anything is possible, I reckon.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig

It's a 'verified story' in so far as Courthouse News is what it sounds like. It's an industry type legal news service for lawyers and legal industry workers for the most part. The links on the bottom usually link to the literal photocopied court filings and that is what they want a membership to see. California also charges them or anyone in the public a fee to see the same things in many cases, so not that unusual. I just don't subscribe. I've yet to catch them wrong on anything in background checking stories first seen there though. Not even something minor in how they present their end of something.

.....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 and other variety ranging to 1911's lcocked and locked" in holsters as well. (Texas and New Mexico on that last one...as if anyone wouldn't have guessed..lol)

So I went to check what CPD regs are...and you have a real interesting find there. Just how old are these cops?

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.

Source

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.

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)

Texas and NM? I thought we were talking about Chicago here? Is this a patchwork condemnation?

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.

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.

reply to post by intrepid

Texas and NM? I thought we were talking about Chicago here? Is this a patchwork condemnation?

I'm confused? I mentioned those two in the side issue of having seen a variety of duty weapon types carried by law enforcement and those being where I'd seen actual 1911's carried cocked that way. It happens to be how I carry mine at times too, for what it matters.

The point that post was making was that there is something a bit strange about the filing for specifically using the word revolver. Then, to think about it, the charge would make a revolver necessary, without getting too graphic about it ....and so where did that come from? It's a valid point of doubt to my own OP. Valid to acknowledge, I figure.

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.

Now I'm really a bit confused? Faith was in that Courthouse News as a website, accurately reports the content of the court filings they post. At least in my experience. Particularly since, for that fee they charge for people who want it, the connected link at the bottom of most are the literal documents from the Courthouse / Case file itself. I just have no reason to think they misrepresent 'just the facts' sides of anything, as it seems their business to supply the raw side of it? The rest is what is in a current filing of a case just submitted to the courts....