City Pays $900k To Man Tortured Into Confessing Committing A Murder That Never Happened
from the thin-evil-line dept
Never underestimate the coercive power of law enforcement. Officers were so convinced Thomas Perez Jr. had murdered his “missing” father, they spent 17 hours torturing him into confessing to a crime no one had actually committed.
Perez Jr. initiated this. He called the police to report his father was missing, mistakenly assuming they’d help him, rather than hurt him. That initiated nearly a full 24-hour day of extreme coercion by so-called “investigators.” Perez was concerned because his father had taken the dog for a walk around 10 pm on August 7, 2018 but had never returned home.
Instead of searching for the missing father, the cops went after Perez. The details of this interrogation — as relayed by the excellent reporting of Tony Saavedra — are horrifying:
According to court records, detectives told Perez that his father was dead, that they had recovered his body and it now “wore a toe tag at the morgue.” They said they had evidence that Perez killed his father and that he should just admit it, records show.
Perez insisted he didn’t remember killing anyone, but detectives allegedly told him that the human mind often tries to suppress troubling memories.
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.
The officers not only leveraged the family dog against Perez, they ignored his medical and mental health issues. They refused to allow him access to medication to treat his high blood pressure, asthma, and depression. They actually laughed as they watched him suffer through immense anguish as they threatened to kill his dog and continued to insist he was a murderer.
This is from last June’s decision denying qualified immunity to the police officers:
At one point while they are telling him to confess, he starts pulling at his own hair, hitting himself, making anguished noises, tears off his own shirt, and nearly falls to the floor. During this episode, the officers laugh at him and tell him that he is stressing out his dog.
They also straight up lied to him. They told him his father’s body had already been found. But that would have been impossible because Perez’s father wasn’t dead. It was only after Perez’s sister located their father and informed the police of this fact.
Perez’s nightmare ended shortly after police got a phone call from his sister, who said their father was alive and well. He had actually walked to the train station in Fontana and rode the line to Los Angeles County to visit a relative and then took a bus to visit a female friend, Steering said. Perez Sr. later went to the airport to await a flight to Oakland to visit his daughter.
Police picked up the father at the airport and brought him to the Fontana station.
Somehow, that still didn’t end the cops’ interest in Perez. They obtained a warrant to search Perez’s house for evidence of an “assault” of an “unknown victim.” This was apparently justified by the discovery of blood during the execution of another warrant (the blood was later determined to be the result of Perez’s father’s blood tests for his diabetes” and the cops’ dog’s supposed “detection” of the odor of a “corpse” in the house).
Since cops like these ones tend to believe the first or easiest-to-nab suspect must be the guilty party, Fontana (CA) residents will now be paying $900,000 to cover the tab of officers — three of whom are still employed by the PD — who tortured a man into confessing to a crime that never actually happened.
And it’s not as though these cops ever admitted to doing anything wrong, despite the fact that the interrogation was captured on film, making it impossible to deny they did the awful things they did to Perez. Instead, they thought they should be allowed to walk away from this lawsuit because (in their own words) no reasonable officer would understand that torturing a man, accusing him of crimes that never happened, threatening to kill his dog, and denying him access to needed medication might be a violation of his rights.
From last June’s decision, which says things you’d think no one would actually have to say to law enforcement officers:
There is no legitimate government interest that would justify treating Perez in this manner while he was in medical distress, since the FPD already had two warrants to search his person and property, and he was already essentially in custody and unable to flee or tamper with any evidence.
[…]
Perez’s substantive due process right against psychological torture of this nature was “clearly established” at the time of the incident, to a degree that “every reasonable officer would have understood that what he was doing violates that right.”
That’s the only reason the city is paying. And it’s only getting around to it now, after managing to drag out litigation for nearly another entire year. But there was no way putting this case in front of a jury would have ended with an exoneration of the involved officers. So, to save them and their apparently ongoing careers, the city has graciously decided city residents should pay for the sins of city employees.
Filed Under: california, coercion, false confession, fontana, fontana pd, murder, qualified immunity, thomas perez jr.
Three days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and




Comments on “City Pays $900k To Man Tortured Into Confessing Committing A Murder That Never Happened”
More state torturers completely avoiding consequences for their atrocities.
Only $900K? Let’s add at least one extra zero at the end of it. For good measure, make those officers pay for it with ALL of their own money, and let the city’s police department cover the remainder.
both
AND
Could be taken as true.
…If you assume there are zero “reasonable officers”. I don’t actually believe that. But in some areas the count is probably close enough to zero that people can be forgiven for believing that.
Where are the bootlickers to tell us he should have just obeyed?
Re:
Or to post some statistics generated by people like this to convince us we need more of this?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
He wouldn’t have confessed if he didn’t have a guilty, dark heart.
Probably intended to do away with his father, or has already killed some hobo or something.
Shame that he’s getting paid for his emotional incontinence.
Re: Re:
People under extreme duress will confess to anything if they believe the confession will end that duress. Even the most innocent man alive could be made to confess if they were tortured in the way Thomas Perez Jr. was tortured. To believe that Perez Jr. confessed to—and this point of fact deserves special emphasis—a crime that didn’t actually happen because he “felt guilty” is to believe that the torture he underwent at the hands of police was both ethically sound and morally righteous. Do you really want to live in a world where a cop can accuse you of a crime that never happened, legally torture you for hours, coerce a confession out of you, and put you in jail on the basis of that coerced confession all because that cop thinks you “seem guilty”?
Re: Re:
Son, people here can see the stupid ass shit you are writing.
Re: Re:
You’re a parody of yourself.
Re: Re:
Actually, Perez was coerced into believing a crime had occurred that his mental illness had caused him to forget about. That’s the only reason he confessed. Fact-free diatribe from you in 3, 2, 1…
Re: Re:
The police had insisted that he blacked out and killed his father due to his medication. He had low IQ and mental health issues. People can—and have—been convinced that they are guilty when they aren’t; there’s a reason gaslighting is a thing.
And that’s setting aside the fact that people making false confessions in order to escape duress is incredibly well-documented and undisputed.
Finally, I assume you meant “incompetence” rather than “incontinence”, and the fact is that emotional incompetence isn’t illegal, and it’s no excuse for what the police did to him.
This is horrifying
$900k is not nearly enough. I’m horrified that anyone would suggest that this is “reasonable” behavior for a police officer or that they are still employed. Indeed, why aren’t the police officers charged with a crime?
Re:
They exist to protect the wealthy from the poor and working class. Apparently, this victim isn’t in the “people who matter” club.
Re: Re: And
the corps..
Why the cops cant enter a Large company even if they KNOW the top people have committed a crime. UNLESS TOLD to do so.
Re: Re: Re:
You don’t understand. Those corps have a lot of free speech.
Re: Re: Re:2 These corps?
Have gone against the law, and no one is arresting anyone.
They cant arrest anyone for being a monopoly or for Over pricing goods to the point of making everyone Poor.
They cant arrest any corp head for corruption, Without a Judge or major concern telling them to DO IT.
They are 90% traffic cops.
Re:
They took a settlement instead of going to trial which is why the amount was only $900K. The lawyer was worried that at trial the officers would claim qualified immunity resulting in a $0 settlement. (This is in the linked article.)
Re: Re:
That’s to forego a civil trial. These cops are criminals.
Hey cops. Next time you whine that someone doesn’t trust you, doesn’t like you, or shot one of you.
Remember that the ones you associate with tortured someone for their own pleasure and they still have a job.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Why would you put the credibility of someone who sold his story/allegations for a measly $900k, inclusive, ahead of our brave and admirable police?
Re: Re:
Because they wanted to murder an innocent animal.
Re: Re: Re:
Perez Jr. is not an animal in the context you’re using the word, you racist POS.
Re: Re: Re:2
While bad behavior should by all means be called out, I believe in this case they were referring to the actual dog the police were threating to euthanize.
Re: Re: Re:3
The word “murder” refers to intraspecies killings, and dogs are a different species to humans. So if AC did get confused, can anyone blame them given the lack of any provided context?
Re: Re:
Goddamn, you really will say any-fuckin’-thing to justify police brutality in the name of “order at the expense of the law”.
Re: Re: Re:
No, this is just a troll with emotional issues. There’s no genuine belief in anything here, just a desperate cry for attention.
Re: Re:
Hey davec you forgot to login bro
Re: Re:
Why would YOU put the credibility of sleazebags who have zero problem with lying to and torturing a suspect ahead of an innocent person who had done nothing wrong? I don’t see anything brave or admirable about them.
Re: Re: Re:
“Because I care about order at any cost more than I will ever care about the law.” — that bootlicking dickhead, probably
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s kind of how I feel about those who care about the law more at any cost than they will ever care about justice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Because our law enforcement professionals don’t target innocent people.
Re: Re: Re:2
You’re right! That was was obviously guilty of murdering his father.
Re: Re: Re:2
If you scroll to the top of the page, there’s an article demonstrating a reality that contradicts your assertion here.
Re: Re: Re:2
[citation needed]
And it better be a good citation, given the fact that the U.S. criminal legal system has a documented history of arresting and/or convicting people who didn’t commit the crimes with which they were charged—or, as it was in this case, didn’t commit a crime that never actually happened.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
e.g. Trump
Re: Re: Re:4
Only when he was still below the age of criminal responsibility, very likely.
Re: Re: Re:2
Either you missed out a sarc mark, or you don’t believe in the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
Re: Re: Re:2
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Let’s see, what would the criminal charges be if a couple of mob leg-breakers did exactly this same thing to someone? Make the cops face those same charges in a criminal trial. NO immunity because no reasonable officer could believe that their actions were within the scope of their official duties.
It is indefensible that this has not lead to criminal charges. Apparently it is all completely legal and qualified immunity is not even needed. It’s disgusting.
You can beat the rap, but can’t beat the ride …
and subsequent kidnapping, abuse and torture. I imagine the jack booted ass clowns are having wet dreams about this shit.
Re:
Accordingly, whenever a generic dirtbag wastes a blue dirtbag, I will applaud, until this crap ends and police are accountable to the law they claim to enforce.
Re: Re:
It’s entirely reasonable for one to fear for their life when approached by a police officer.
Unfortunately, juries don’t see it that way. Yet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
How do you figure?
Annually, more than 50 million people in the U.S. have contact with police during a traffic stop, street stop, arrest, traffic accident or resident initiated contact. How many of them end-up dead as a result?
(A vanishingly small number, that’s how many!)
Re: Re: Re:2
So you don’t understand why many people fear the cops?
That there are 50 million interactions annually with the police doesn’t tell us how many of those interactions are good or bad. How many bad interactions do you think are needed before people start being afraid of those interactions?
Just so you understand the scope here, according to a Gallup report from 2023, 77% of people think their interaction with the police was positive which leaves 23% thinking what? And if you happen to be hispanic or black the percentage for positive interactions drops.
Lets say that 10% of the interactions are considered neutral, that still leaves 13% (or 6.5 million out of 50) that are considered bad. How do you think the public perception is shaped by those 6.5 million people? Don’t you think that amount of bad interactions may cause people in general to feel fear for interacting with the police?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You said:
I asked, of the 50 million-plus people in the U.S. who have contact with police during a traffic stop, street stop, arrest, traffic accident or resident initiated contact, how many die as a result of the interaction?
You wouldn’t answer that directly, since you know the # is vanishingly small, like 0.001998%. Meaning, it’s UTTERLY UNREASONABLE “to fear for one’s life when approached by a police officer.”
Stop spreading disinformation and anti-police hate speech, communist!
Re: Re: Re:4
It only takes one when that person is you or close to you.
If you are unable to understand this, then that perhaps would explain the ignorant ranting you are engaged in.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, I know what you asked for and it is totally irrelevant except for people like you who want to make excuses for cops that behaves like thugs and criminals.
And here is your utter stupidity on display, even though I told you the facts. That you willingly debase yourself as an idiot publicly is kind of telling what a waste of space you actually are. That you don’t understand what drives public perception that results in fear of interacting with cops is entirely a problem you have since you seem bereft of all reason and logic.
Since you have proven that you suffer from self-inflicted stupidity I’ll just put the above in the “stupid man screeches incomprehensibly” and it brings me some joy that you will most assuredly continue having a shitty life of your own making.
Re: Re: Re:4
1,329 in 2023. And now I’ve answered your question, do you have an actual point to make?
Re: Re: Re:4
0.00266, actually. But when have violent cop apologists like you ever cared to know the facts before putting the resultant disinformation out there?
Re: Re: Re:2
And they all have the authority to do that same shit.
If I gave you a bowl of M&Ms and told you a vanishingly small number of them were poisoned, how many would you eat?
Re: Re: Re:3
“If I gave you a bowl of M&Ms and told you a vanishingly small number of them were poisoned, how many would you eat?”
Just the sexy ones!
– Cucker Tarlson probably
Re: Re: Re:4
Or davec.
Re: Re: Re:2
Risk is probability times impact.
You want to look at probability alone and disregard impact.
You actually are just too uneducated to be involved in this discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2
The end of every insurance company.
The end of every complaint about “illegals”, criminals, teh ghey, or anything else some people fear. Because the negative effects of anything are so vanishingly small – or, you know, non-existent.
i guess it’s time for you to STFU about everything, since all fears are clearly unfounded.
Re: Re:
Violence won’t save, redeem, or fix the system. If anything, it’ll make the system less hesitant to use violence in its own defense.
Re: Re: Re:
“The system” is a patchwork of half-measures built on slavery. The right of self-defense is independent of “the system.”
Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, the “system” already uses violence indiscriminately and leaves others who need to depend on them high and dry.
Re: Re: Re:2
That still isn’t a good enough excuse to start killing cops and effectively start a war that you cannot and will not win.
Re: Re: Re:3
There aren’t enough cops to win. They’ve all for names, addresses, and neighbors. They’re just people in our society. One way or another, they do need to be reminded of that fact.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do you really believe starting a war on cops that escalates to the level of mass murder would result in anything less than the U.S. military joining the fight on the side of the cops? Because if you believe you can start a nation-wide war on cops and not draw the federal government into the fight, you’re a fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Don’t rise against your masters, slaves. They’ll call someone with a bigger whip.”
Re: Re: Re:5
American cities and towns are better “regulated” than the Warsaw Ghetto was, in any event.
Re: Re: Re:6 Say What?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/daily-life-in-the-warsaw-ghetto
California Preposition #1, “passed” by a sliver of a vote, or not, turns the State from Mental Health arbitrator to a Life Style arbitrator.
https://locator.lacounty.gov/lac/Location/3178255/los-angeles-county-superior-court—central-district—mental-health-courthouse
Germany in the 1930’s scraped mis-fits off the streets, renting the people placed in work camps to the Municipalities to clean streets… Now misfits are seen every week here in South Central, exiting contract vans, bagging refuse & weeding this city, silent and Zombie-like, or they will be pushed out homeless again.
Eventually, Germany started killing off their useless eaters, English workhouses (created after the Industrial revolution “enclosures”) were emptied by death and emigration to America https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Victorian-Workhouse/
Re: Re: Re:5
In any event, how many cop killers you reckon would need to get acquitted/jury hung to get to that point? We honestly wouldn’t even need to do anything overt. Just extend presumption of innocence to the defendant, and question whether the cop was an angel.
Reasonable doubt comes in many forms. The involvement of a police officer in a given situation, frankly, raises a lot of it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Do what you’re told or get whipped.” Dude’s treating cops like slave masters. While an appropriate categorization, there are actually competing schools of thought on how to handle slave masters.
Re:
I am with you here. The least you’d have expected from the DA after getting teed up with a confession is pretense of a crime.
All that hard police work going to waste.
Re: Re:
DAs are cops too. Worse than regular cops in a lot of ways.
Payment is Not Justice
Because the state has paid money it is still not OK. The govt is saying it is OK bevavious for whst they let their enforcers do, this is not accountability, it is farcical. The cops themselves need to feel the full weight of the court and justice system and one hopes they would receive long prison sentences. If this does not happen then one needs to take law out of law enforcement hands. Govt and its human actors must not be allowed to treat citizens like this and then wash the matter away.
Re:
It is not accountability as much as “when you are making omelettes, you are going to break some eggs”. The city is covering incidental costs of the officers operating to their overall satisfaction.
It would need quite higher costs to consider gently nudging their overmotivation into working less hard on snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Re: Re:
Ding ding ding!
re:
Still say the fastest solution to these problems is having the payouts taken from the PD retirement funds; watch the “thin blue line” get shredded in short order if it means these guys’ pensions are being affected.
Re:
It may suffice to do this like one does with cars: mandatory private insurance. If your history makes it impossible to get coverage, you are out of a job option. If your history is problematic, you’ll have to pay premium rates.
A free-for-all like Qualified Immunity provides no incentives to do better. Like with any system, one would have to design and maintain the details such that no systemic loopholes are routinely exploited. Which might be tricky.
But as a starting idea it seems to be better fixable than QI. And putting this out of the hand of people who are not going to feel any penalty seems like a necessary condition of getting anywhere.
Re: Re:
Mandatory insurance
afaik, in the US and elsewhere, Doctors are required to carry malpractice insurance in order to obtain a license to practice. Seems the same logic could be applied to law enforcement. In the end the peon pay regardless.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a great idea actually. Corruption is the only answer why this hasn’t already happened. Even pharmacists actually are required to get liability insurance. And they are far less likely to cause harm than the actual doctor.
Also this story: What the actual fuck. How is it these guys still have a job and how the hell do you sleep at night?
Its almost like this made up QI thing just makes them want to violate citizens rights to make sure it covers any kind of torture & abuse they want to dish out to alleged perps rather than do the job they are paid for.
Re:
How do you not yet understand that the “job” of police is to protect private property and (when they haven’t yet been overrun/infected) keep communities safe from undesirables?
Re: Re:
Well they are still letting you run around so they are very shitty at their jobs.
The only Fontana residents who should be paying that $900,000 is those three cops, but that’s not the current idea of justice in the States right now.