Dash Cam Catches Cop Lying and Falsely Arresting Veteran

Cop really falsely accused someone because he got honked at, then rear ends them, Then strips their rights away, and causes a traumatic event. What a lovely display of justice

I love how he admitted he had seen someone doing somthing wrong and then stopped perusing the person speeding because his ego was hurt, these the kind of people we let “police”

OMG, he started off with a lie. Telling dispatch the driver slammed on his brakes in front of him. Did the lying ass trooper forget he’s being recorded. He needs to be fired immediately!!

Detainee: invokes his right to silence
Officer: “he wants to continue to yell at me!”

It so creepy how comfortable the officer seems while spinning this lie. Hes a professional at it. Sad that we have these dirty officers out there. When an officer lies like this they should be fired immediately.

This is why we must start looking at hiring practices of officers. As a therapist that deals with clinical psychology, there are many personalities that do not belong in the police department. I question that he is one of those people. He is about power, he had no qualms to lie immediately to get his way. This is a bad Officer. Police need to hire professional to deal with the psychology of hiring an officer, or this is what you get. Very sad and very dangerous.

“I’m just doing my job”

Obviously…this dude is the reason why people have a hard time trusting cops. I understand that traffic stops are the most dangerous for police officers, but this guy put people’s lives in danger.

When police officers do stuff like this I understand why some people are afraid of cops

It honestly terrifies me to think about what has been done in the past WITHOUT cameras recording.

I feel so bad for the chick in the car that has to sit through this officer’s bs and even more that shes is apologizing to him and even more that she should know to plead the 5th to not give the cop any ground in court

This makes my blood boil. The cop literally lied by saying “he’s still back there yelling and cursing” fucking unbelievable. I don’t think I could’ve remained so calm

This cop put people in danger over his ego, plain and simple. Departments really need to do better sociological evaluations. The fact this this guy carries a gun is scary.

“This guy was exercising his fourth amendment right to express his frustration at me so I had to put him in cuffs.”

“This is yet ANOTHER encounter where an officer attempted to criminalize behavior that their EGO could not tolerate”
Well said, and the amount of these i have watched where a cop’s ego is a major factor in the encounter is very disturbing.
We don’t just need the bad ones weeded out, but a better job done in the screening process to determine if people like this should be given the job in the first place.

Who knew these “brave” cops were so fragile and could be threatened by curse words. Pathetic.

When a retail employee is expected to have more emotional control while dealing with belligerent people than cops, there’s a problem.

This is exactly the kind of person that will end up wrongfully shooting someone and trying to blame it on them. He should be fired, sued and never allowed to carry a badge again. I support all good cops but this is not one of them. I’m very curious to see what happens with their lawsuit and I hope you will do an update about it.

This cop is a clown. Rips a guy out of his car and then says he needs to start acting like a human being. Constantly interrupts the wife to tell her she’s interrupting then says nothing.

This is soo sad that you still have cops that clearly just joined the force to be a bully .

“When he wants to calm down and act like a human being…” I will attack another person physically if my feelings are hurt and I’m trying to force them to accept my authority but they are the ones not acting like a human being!

This is a classic case of why cops having dash cams and body cams is so important. The video was able to provide proof the officer was lying. Also the victim got citations when he did nothing wrong. But honk of course. Not sure if there is a fine for honking at a police officer who makes an unsafe turn in front of you. I don’t think a police officer lying to fellow officers and on the police report to railroad a citizen who did nothing wrong but honk at him is the conduct of a good officer. I hope he can get his citations taken off his record, get his money back he had to pay. Also have this officer held accountable for his actions. If he is not held accountable and gets away with lying, then he will continue to do so. Future citizens will suffer as a result as well as making his fellow officers and police force look bad by association and for covering up for him.

Damn this cop is screwed even admitting on camera he arrested him for cussing. Biggest issue with police in the US is utter lack of knowledge. Honestly my AIT was 9 months in order to work on aircraft but in a few weeks time you can have a gun in order to enforce laws you have no knowledge of. I would require at least a BS in law in order to become a police officer. Think it would greatly reduce the criminal in blue aspects of so called law enforcement

For anyone who missed it, the second trooper asks Wingo “Are you hot?” to see if they are being recorded. He knew it looked bad and his primary concern was covering for another officer.

Just another example of “one bad apple spoiling the bunch”, or a “thin blue line” culture that protects criminals in uniform over law-abiding citizens?

The officer asking “Are you hot?” is a clear indication that their conversation would have gone ENTIRELY differently had there not been any recording devices active. This conduct is indicative of a blatant disregard for the truth in favor of using their power irresponsibly to fulfill personal agendas.

First off, I’m not a cop. The thing that most everyone seems to overlook is the fact that our US supreme court passed a law in 1974 that states that an officer of the law may lie to a perp in order to get the perp to admit to a crime and there will be no charges or anything at all brought against the police officer for lying. So essencially our supreme court has made every police officer in these United States a LIER!! The only thing that can be done is abolish that law and make all policemen accountable for their actions and make it against the law for them to ever lie to the “PERP”!! There will be no trust in our police force until this law is changed and enforced.

This cop needs to be fired and get sued for falsifying evidence to arrest veteran.
Abolish Qualified Immunity.
You can clearly see the cop hit the veteran.

“There’s no need for the 5th” is easily the slimiest shit a cop can ever say.

Cop who just hit there car: “I’m trying to get him to calm down he’s yelling at me for no reason”

Guy who’s relatively calm for someone who was just rear ended: “i want your name and badge number”

Can you imagine the amount of dirt that was swept under the rug when they didn’t wear cameras and didn’t have a camera phone in every pocket?

This cop is completely out of touch with reality. He says this dude needs to calm down and act like an adult human being. Meanwhile, this cop is a childish bully. Another dangerous mental reject with a badge.

He gets mad because someone honked at him, just imagine how mad he gets in other situations. Absolute egotistical controlling maniac.

I love how the coo keeps stating,”he want to keep yelling and cussing me out” all he said was “you f’ing hit my car” once and never swore after and didn’t even yell after that

Another police officer believes he can do anything to a citizen. We do not need these men in law enforcement.

Wow i can’t believe how blatantly he’s ling even though he knows the dash cam is rolling. Just imagine how they treat citizens when there is no video going. What a joke.

As a veteran, this idiot’s brush off of the wife telling him her husband had PTSD makes me want to send my whole VFW membership after him. This guy is a terrible cop 5x over, and anyone that wants to argue the other things he did were worse, I’d be willing to agree.. but man that pisses me off

It’s so disgusting how the law enforcement officers can lie so easily and think nothing of it. Thank God there is video evidence that spoke the truth of what really happened. And if this officer feels he has the right to pull someone out of the car like that handcuffed them and throw them in the back of the car because his feelings are hurt he needs retraining his feelings count for nothing it’s the law that counts for everything

The word of the year is “accountability”. The guy that got pulled over was holding his officer accountable right there on the spot and the officer didn’t want to hear it.

“He wants to continue to yell at me for no reason” – after he calmly asks for badge number and name – thank goodness for cameras – finally catching some of the BS that goes on out here

As an Arkansan, I can fully verify that this, as well as the many other videos of Arkansas law enforcement posted here, is exactly how Arkansas law enforcement acts on a daily basis. Sense of superiority, flagrant abuse of power, shaming citizens with whom they interact, rarely reprimanding their own. It’s systemic and deeply troubling.

This hits a nerve with me being I’m a fellow disabled combat veteran with PTSD. Mr Donner was super chill compared to what he could really do when actually upset I’m sure.

“you gonna let me talk or interrupt me the entire time?” after the wife explains his severe PTSD. this cop is appalling.

.. I would like to see how this story unravels. They definitely have a case if they pursue it properly.

It’s hard to seek justice when the same people who are suppose to exercise our faith in justice are actually the people destroying our trust in it.

When he said “until he can act like a human being” I almost threw up. This man had a full blown temper tantrum because he was gonna get in trouble for hitting someone’s car, and took it out on innocent people. This man has no place in civilized society

The only thing I can conclude is: These type of officers never had any “control” in their life. All seem to have mommy issues, rough relationships/no relationships, and get a “high” at work when they get to use their powers. Most of these people- look forward to coming into work. Sheesh. They all need help.

As someone who lives in a free country in Europe, I can’t imagine what it must be like to constantly live under this kind of corruption and tyranny. I hope one day Americans can become actually free, rather than the make believe freedom they live in now.

I use to support the police. However, when I realized that videos like these are uploaded more then once per day and lawsuits are filed daily as well. These lawsuits, if ending up in the victims favor, will not effect the officer one bit as it then becomes the responsibility of the tax payer.

Qualified immunity has got to go, until then law enforcement officials will feel like they can do anything they want.

In addition, being able to plunder people’s treasures during a highway robbery committed by police who simply only need say “this person, whom I know nothing about, shouldn’t have this much money or valuables, they are drug dealers even though I have zero evidence of this” has also gotta go and it’s embarrassing that I even have to say this.

This is insane to me. How does these officers get away with that stuff? I wonder what happened before cameras? Bc if they’d do this on camera? I’d hate to see what they’d do off camera

It’s amazing how many officers seem to take the sound of a car horn personally even when they block the road or drive recklessly. Road rage is not exactly what you want in a police interaction.

This state trooper has zero integrity and all his cases should be reexamined. Willing to blatantly lie on camera and to fellow officers is sickening.

The way the officer opened his door just because he cussed is an immediate sign that he has anger issues and a fragile ego. These people CANNOT be in law enforcement. This is the problem

The audacity he has to say “calm down and act like a human being”. Wow. Just wow. After he pounced on that man like he was some wild animal and wrestled him out of his car to put him in handcuffs and then throw him in the backseat.

Republican Congressman Caught Running ‘Shadow’ Investigation Into Capitol Riot

Records have revealed that Republican Representative Jim Banks has been conducting his own version of a January 6th investigation, in spite of the fact that he was kicked off the Select Committee before it even began. Banks has been writing to government agencies and even tech companies, claiming to be a “ranking member” who needs access to the same materials these groups handed over to the Select Committee. This seems like a lot of fraud, as Farron Cousins explains.

Link – https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-rep-jim-banks-booted-off-jan-6-panel-is-running-a-shadow-probe

Don’t forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalanced

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

A member of the house of representatives on the Republican side has apparently been conducting his own little shadow investigation into the Capitol riots and this individual Republican representative Jim banks, who actually was chosen by house minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, to serve on the January six select committee before Nancy Pelosi said, absolutely not. You cannot have him on there. And of course you can’t have Jim Jordan, neither because they think the whole thing is stupid. And that’s what sparked McCarthy to be like, well fine. I’ll take all my Republicans and leave, but Mr. Banks didn’t think the job was done yet. So what Mr. Banks has been doing is sending letters to all of the governmental groups and to Facebook, at least demanding access to the same materials that these groups have turned over to the January 6th select committee. That includes the department of justice, the department of defense and the department of Homeland security.

And of course, several social media companies of which we know for a fact, he is sent a letter to Facebook. Now here’s the problem in these letters, which the daily beast has seen. He refers to himself as ranking member. Now ranking member implies that he is a ranking member on the January 6th select committee, because that’s how you become a ranking member. If you’re not on the committee, you’re not a ranking member. You just a member of the house of representatives, not of the committee. So it would seem based on what I’m reading here in daily beasts, that Mr. Banks is the frauding. These people.

Now he claims he is totally not defrauding anybody because you know his as member of the house representatives, the Republicans are entitled to the same playmate information, except you’re not, you’re not, you’re absolutely not. If you’re on the committee, you get your hands on this. That doesn’t mean that literally just anybody else in the house of representatives can say all sweet. Hey, give me a copy of that. That’s not how this works. 100% not how this works. If it were, you would have all of the other Republicans in the house as well, requesting the same information. And most importantly, what the hell do you think you’re going to do with it? You’re not on the committee. You’re not actually investigating anybody. So the best I can assume here is that you want to get your hands on this information, strategize with all your other little Republicans who are also not on the committee, then take your case to the American press and try to disparage the information before the Democrats.

And couple of Republicans on that committee have a chance to fully explain it during the committee hearings. That is what I think is happening right now. But if Mr. Banks is in fact, as the reports say he is, and they’ve seen the documents, if he is referring to himself as ranking member, that should be grounds for expulsion. And I know, oh, they could censure him. Oh, we could do this. We could do that. Then none of that matters. He needs to be expelled from Congress. That is an abuse of power. It is fraud, and he should be kicked out plain and simple. But of course that is also never going to happen because you’re not going to get enough Republicans to go with. The Democrats got to have two thirds in order to kick somebody out. So of course, yeah, that’s not going to happen, but we need to know that you tried folks. That’s the point of this. Sometimes knowing that you put effort into this is enough, but what Mr. Banks is doing here is deeply sinister. It needs to be stopped. And the only way to do that is for Democrats to get out ahead of the issue, make their case to the press, expose all of this horrendous behavior by Mr. Banks, get the public on your side and discredit him before he tries to twist the information and discredit you.

Doing the Health Care Two-Step

Medium-size reform creates the conditions for bigger things.

Recent state elections — the Democratic landslide in Virginia, followed by Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Louisiana — have been bad news for Donald Trump.

Among other things, the election results vindicate polls indicating that Trump is historically unpopular. All of these races were in part referendums on Trump, who put a lot of effort into backing his preferred candidates. And in each case voters gave him a clear thumbs down.

Beyond offering a verdict on Trump, however, I’d argue that the state elections offered some guidance on an issue that has divided Democrats, namely health care. What the results suggested to me was the virtue of medium-size reform: incremental enough to have a good chance of being enacted, big enough to provide tangible benefits that voters don’t want taken away.

Remember, there was a third governor’s race, in Mississippi, in which the G.O.P. held on. True, Mississippi is a very red state, which Trump won by 18 points in 2016. But Louisiana and Kentucky are or were, if anything, even redder, with Trump margins of 20 and 30 points respectively. So what made the difference?

Personalities surely mattered. Louisiana’s re-elected John Bel Edwards was widely liked, Kentucky’s defeated Matt Bevin widely disliked. Demography probably also mattered. Urban and especially suburban voters have turned hard against Trump, but rural voters haven’t, at least so far — and Mississippi is one of the few states left with a majority-rural population.

But there’s another difference among the three states. Kentucky and Louisiana took advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid, leading to steep drops in the number of uninsured residents; Mississippi hasn’t. This meant that voting Democratic in Kentucky and Louisiana meant voting to preserve past policy success, while the same vote in Mississippi was at best about hope for future reform — a much less powerful motivator.

Back in 2010, as Obamacare was about to squeak through Congress, Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This line was willfully misrepresented by Republicans (and some reporters who should have known better) as an admission that there was something underhanded about the way the legislation was enacted. What she meant, however, was that voters wouldn’t fully appreciate the A.C.A. until they experienced its benefits in real life.

It took years to get there, but in the end Pelosi was proved right, as health care became a winning issue for Democrats. In the 2018 midterms and in subsequent state elections, voters punished politicians whom they suspected of wanting to undermine key achievements like protection for pre-existing conditions and, yes, Medicaid expansion.

And this political reality has arguably set the stage for further action. At this point, as far as I can tell, all of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are calling for a significant expansion of the government’s role in health care, although they differ about how far and how fast to go.

Which brings me to the latest development in intra-Democratic policy disputes: Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a two-step approach to health reform. Her idea is to start with actions — some requiring no legislation at all, others requiring only a simple Senate majority — that would greatly expand health insurance coverage. These actions would, if successful, deliver tangible benefits to millions.

They would not, however, amount to the full Bernie, eliminating private insurance and going full single-payer. Warren still says that this is her eventual intention, and has laid out a plan to pay for such a system. But any legislative push would wait three years, giving time for voters to see the benefits of the initial changes.

Sanders supporters are, predictably, crying betrayal. For them it’s all or nothing: a commitment to single-payer has to be in the legislation from Day 1.

The trouble with such demands, aside from the strong probability that proposing elimination of private insurance would be a liability in the general election, is that such legislation would almost certainly fail to pass even a Democratic Senate. So all or nothing would, in practice, mean nothing.

But is Warren giving up on Medicare for All? After all, what she’s offering isn’t really a transition plan in the usual sense, since there’s no guarantee that Step 2 would ever happen.

The lesson I take from the politics of Obamacare, however, is that successful health reform, even if incomplete, creates the preconditions for further reform. What looks impossible now might look very different once tens of millions of additional people have actual experience with expanded Medicare, and can compare it with private insurance.

Although I’ve long argued against making Medicare for All a purity test, there is a good case for eventually going single-payer. But the only way that’s going to happen is via something like Warren’s approach: initial reforms that deliver concrete benefits, and maybe provide a steppingstone to something even bigger.

Looks Like the Trump Administration Lied About the Census

The administration said it needed citizenship data to protect voting rights. New documents tell another story.

A trove of documents brought to the attention of the Supreme Court on Thursday makes it hard to see the Trump administration’s efforts to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census as anything but a partisan power grab.

The court will decide before the end of June whether Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, was justified under federal law in adding the citizenship question — a move that would nearly certainly lead to a serious undercounts of Hispanics and in immigrant-rich communities. During a hearing on the case in April, it appeared that a majority of the justices was prepared to allow the administration to include the question.

But the explosive new evidence disclosed by the plaintiffs in the case ought to give the justices pause about the ruling they’re about to issue. This is one of the most consequential cases before the court this term. The decision on it will have far-reaching effects on the distribution of political power and federal funding across the country for the next decade and beyond.

According to the plaintiffs who brought the New York challenge to the citizenship question, Mark Neuman, a key adviser to Mr. Ross on census issues, and John Gore, a Justice Department official who oversees voting rights enforcement, gave false or misleading testimony during the course of the litigation about why the Trump administration was so intent on including a citizenship query in the decennial count.

The files show that he wrote to President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census and helped to write a draft Justice Department letter claiming that the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That was the pretext the administration later used to justify its decision to include it — and which Judge Furman rejected.

Judge Jesse Furman of Federal District Court, the first of three judges to strike down the citizenship question, has asked the Justice Department to respond to the charges and has scheduled a hearing for next week.

Lawyers challenging the citizenship question told Judge Furman on Thursday that, according to a 2015 study written by Mr. Hofeller, adding a citizenship question would create “a structural electoral advantage” that would benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic whites. The documents were unearthed last year by Mr. Hofeller’s estranged daughter, who found them among his effects on four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives.

The files show that he wrote to President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census and helped to write a draft Justice Department letter claiming that the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That was the pretext the administration later used to justify its decision to include it — and which Judge Furman rejected.

Mr. Neuman admitted in a deposition last year that Mr. Hofeller was the first person to suggest the addition of the citizenship question. The plaintiffs accuse Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore of providing false testimony in their explanations for this whole charade.

“The new evidence demonstrates a direct through-line from Mr. Hofeller’s conclusion that adding a citizenship question would advantage Republican and non-Hispanic whites” to the rationale advanced by the Justice Department, the lawyers wrote.

In a civil rights case, this would be powerful evidence that the Trump administration took the action for the express purpose of disadvantaging minorities. This, however, is a case dealing with administrative rules, which require officials to act in good faith and offer legitimate reasons for advancing a particular policy goal.

An accurate and fair count of everyone in America isn’t just any policy goal. There’s much at stake with the 2020 census — from the future of the next redistricting cycle to how billions of dollars in federal funding will be allocated. The Supreme Court should see this new evidence for what it seems to reveal: A blatant attempt to rig a constitutional mandate.