A cop charged a man with multiple crimes, but the video tells a different story

A small-town police department in Milton, West Virginia, is facing more scrutiny after another troubling video surfaced of a questionable arrest. The newly obtained video contradicts the sworn statement of a Milton police officer who said the man who was arrested resisted arrest and tried to escape. PAR investigates the case and delves deeper into the finances of the town, which has nearly doubled its collections of court fines and fees over the past decade.


Read the transcript of this video: https://therealnews.com/west-virginia…

Police Scatter After They Realize they Violated Cameraman’s Rights

That escalated quickly, just because of some hearsay that there’s a suspicious person in the area.

Those cops scattered like roaches…once they realized they had been caught violating his rights. But NOT before trying to explain away their reasoning for their blatant rights violations. Imagine how this would have went down had the cops not been videoed. Makes one wonder how cops treat people who are NOT videoing. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Police answer to his question about if he was detained for committing a crime was “no”. They then proceeded to remove everything from his pockets after determining there were no weapons while this victim was restrained with handcuffs. There was no probable cause of a crime! In frame 6:10 you can see the victim’s cash thrown on the patrol car hood with the other belongings. That is the last time anyone saw that cash. After violating the victim’s 1st and 4th amendment rights apparently everything grabbed by this armed gang was returned EXCEPT THE CASH! Remember that there was no search or seizure consent so all that was allowed was a pat down for weapons, the 4th amendment bars the police from going into the pockets. I suspect that along with the money which went away the “qualified immunity” should also be gone!


“When we get a call….” Yeah, when you get a call, why not ask the caller what, exactly, he has seen and what crime he thinks he is reporting. “Hello 911? Like, there’s this guy and he’s walking down the sidewalk and he’s BREATHING and holding a phone and stuff. ” “Don’t worry, a SWAT team is on the way.”

Can we define Hypocrisy?
Police officers, who handcuff and detain a man because someone made a phone complaint, later tell the person they handcuffed to not accuse people of things they didn’t do!?!
The purpose of these videos is so that cops realize to stop responding to Karens and crybabies calling them for nothing and they can educate the public too.
FOR MY SAFETY I LOOKED INTO YOUR POCKETS” -> let’s take a second to analyze this. THE POLICEMAN went BAREHANDED into his pockets WITHOUT asking if he had something that can puncture him or needles that can INFECT him. COMPLETE FABRICATION. They were looking for his ID
They searched his pockets,stuck their hands all over him without the use of gloves. At least one had his mask on. This guy could have had dirty needles on him and they just said they were concerned about their safety? Stupid cops.
This is what Qualified Immunity has done to the Constitution of the United States. Police do not fear violating anyone’s rights now. Police can legally perform a Terry frisk on anyone they encounter, which is a simple pat down for weapons, they CAN NOT do any kind of search. That IS a violation of his 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. But notice, these cops don’t even blink, they regularly violate people’s rights so they think it is normal for them to do it.
A man with a camera is treated like the most dangerous criminal today. Very scarey for cops who’ve never had true accountability.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, this is the quality of officer you end up with when you do away with standards. These officers actually think what they did is perfectly legal, because they were scared. Wow, bring back minimum standards, please.


The auditor fails. He kept talking. He spoke to the cops. He failed.


Yeah do your job and investigate first then detain. Why don’t these cops understand they need a crime to detain someone not a call about a suspicious person! Watch the person and investigate before going for your gun and violating his rights because you “ thought” or “assumed” he was a criminal. Absolutely no proof but a hearsay phone call about acting suspicious which is not a crime.

You need to give the cops a break. They are doing what they have been trained to do and how they were trained to do it. Every police officer involved in a shooting is told to (even after the shots are fired) yell the command drop the weapon or show me your hands repeatedly. That way they can testify under oath that they gave the command multiple times. In some cases witnesses said the officer made the command 11 times AFTER the shooting and then when asked in court if he gave the victim commands he said he told him eleven times to show me your hands. They are trained to lie and violate rights. What do you need to be a cop? A driver’s license and a GED. Until we raise the bar we will continue to get total crap for cops.

so if someone is just “suspicious” how about walking up to them and asking them politely what they are doing.. not surrounding them, guns drawn, screaming.

You don’t go threw there pockets unless you feel a weapon which I’m sure you didn’t plus you had him handcuffed
When your Police Department is SO CROOKED that you can’t leave them a google review… Its time to shut them down, fire and strip away the police license of EVERYONE THERE, and Start over from scratch.
Easy lawsuit. They searched and pulled stuff out of your pockets that couldn’t be mistaken for a weapon. Tell them they will get your ID on the intent to sue letter you send them. For them to demand you get on the ground first proves that that woman is too weak and scared to be a law enforcement officer.

Officer safety, for your safety and mine. Red herrings! Cops do not say these things because their afraid, they say them as a pretence for them to violate your rights to assault you with legal standing. Same with “Get your hands out of your Pockets”. They don’t care if your hands are in your pockets or not. It’s a power play. They tell you to take your hands out of your pockets, you do, now your conditioned to follow their further directions. Suspicious is just an official sounding word that cops use to impress you when they don’t really have a reason, little own a good reason to stop and question you and in the hope that you will be intimidated enough to play by their rules and not the law nor the constitution. As seen here! When to really worry though is when cops say “stop resisting, relax or he’s going for my gun”. That’s when the cops are really going to hurt you or worse. Another nicely completed social experiment that these cops failed miserably at Floyd. Armchair Auditor out.

So the officers can go up to anyone in public and say you look suspicious and start digging in your pockets??
Auditors need to start saying I don’t care you got a call I’m not doing anything illegal. Go the F away and leave me alone. Continue to say only this until they go away.

They didn’t do a pat down for weapons, they emptied his pockets hoping to find drugs. These thugs need to all be suspended and re-educated. Bring this to court.

She gets a call that you were acting suspicious and so she detained you because acting suspicious is lethal

You don’t have to go in his pockets to check for weapons , anyways your only allowed to Pat him down .

The fact that the Police claim “they got a call” or claim to be “investigating”, still gives the Houston Police no authority to order someone on the ground, or illegally search and detain a citizen. No crime was committed and both the 1st and 4th amendments were violated. When they want to get rid of a camera operator, the safety they refer to is their job safety. Not the personal or public safety.

The fact that the Police claim “they got a call” or claim to be “investigating”, still gives the Houston Police no authority to order someone on the ground, or illegally search and detain a citizen. No crime was committed and both the 1st and 4th amendments were violated. When they want to get rid of a camera operator, the safety they refer to is their job safety. Not the personal or public safety.

Oh my crap… an anonymous caller can ruin someone else’s life! Cops can use “ call” as an excuse to violate every amendment of the constitution. And this is duplicated from town to town!!!

Cameras saves lives. The police changed as soon as he started talking about it rights

It’s hilarious how they always want to violate your rights “FOR YOUR SAFETY”

I never knew that I had the power to have someone assaulted just by making a suspicious person call.

I keep watching, trying to find the exact moment the cop knew he screwed up! I think it was definitely while illegally emptying his pockets!

LOL the cop at the end, before you start accusing someone…….so they literally accused him of ‘acting suspicious’ and hand cuffed him……wtf……then they searched him without a warrant or any reasonable explanation as to what law he had broken

The way they approached him I thought he was open carrying an AR-clear over reaction.

That woman has no business being a cop if she is THAT AFRAID of a man walking down the sidewalk.

“Officer safety” is cop slang for “Officer cowardice”.

As soon as their fingers went into the pocket, it was no longer a pat down. So clearly it is a 4th Amendment infringement. Especially after saying that you don’t consent to being searched.

We don’t have any rights. That’s what they don’t tell you. It’s call qualified immunity, which is an absolute immunity. Cops can twist you up in a pretzel for no reason at all and the judges protect them.

“For our safety”!!! You cops are the ones armed!!! Those thugs in uniform will never honour the first or fourth amendement. I hope the guy lodges a complaint and files a lawsuit against the cops. I hope they loose their qualified immunity, this is ridiculous.

The female cop keeps saying someing about ‘we don’t know what kinds of weapons you have on you’. So that is a legal reason to violate a persons rights?

Should have stuck to the story of them stealing that money, they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t steal his money even if it is in his pocket. At this point they should have to pay even if the money was put back this man is completely within his right to accuse them of stealing even if they put the money back because there’s no proof. Is it the job of the police to put back your stuff nicely the way they found it? That would be a joke within itself.

If a cop rolls up and says they got a call about a suspicious person, just tell them that if you see one, you will give them a call.

They always want to search somebody for weapons when they’re the one that has the weapons. Who should be afraid of who


The lady knew they had messed up that’s why she went silent then at the end tried being nice

14:52 What you need to do with your money is: always expect police harrassment and configure your cash for imminent civil rights violations.

I hope that they guy who took this video does NOT consider himself a First Amendment auditor, mainly because he appears to be woefully unprepared for the task. I understand that he has a right to public photography, but that is not the issue. When a cop blocks your path and tells you to stop advancing toward her, then it’s in your own interest to do so. Further, by not complying with her instructions, you have provided them with a pretext to escalate the situation. It’s not right, but it is the reality, and if you don’t know that then you should not put yourself in these situations. If you’re going to do something, then do it right.

Show less

A Crypto-Mystery: Is $140 Million Stuck or Missing?

Gerald Cotten launched Quadriga in December 2013. The exchange claimed to be one of the largest in Canada, allowing customers to trade a handful of cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin and ether.

On Jan. 15, the company announced on its website that Mr. Cotten had died on Dec. 9 from complications related to Crohn’s disease while building an orphanage in India. He was 30 years old. Two weeks later, the exchange filed for bankruptcy protection in a Nova Scotia court.

.. While those suspicious of Quadriga acknowledge the public transactions don’t provide certainty, some say there is a way to determine if the exchange’s money is indeed trapped. A crypto developer named Amaury Sechet suggested Quadriga should publish the addresses of the cold wallets. This would allow anyone to see how much cryptocurrency is in them, even if they couldn’t access it.

Poloniex said it identified accounts that could be related to Quadriga, and is working with appropriate authorities. Bitfinex did not immediately reply to a request for comment. ShapeShift declined to comment.

“Over time trust will build as the coins remains (sic) untouched,” he wrote on Twitter. “If they cannot do this, their story is not credible.”

Only a Country Like Canada Could Produce a Guy Like Jordan Peterson

There is a certain image that Canada projects to the world, one that is particularly compelling to Americans. It’s the image of Canada as a tolerant, progressive, kind and humanitarian nation, populated by mild-mannered and polite people.

.. The idea of Canada the Good — a Scandinavian-style socialist democracy, with the added bonus of multicultural harmony — is an attractive one, helpful in providing Canadians with some kind of national identity, and left-leaning Americans with a handy rhetorical device for political arguments: Look at what’s possible, right next door!

.. But it’s worth remembering that this image of Canada, currently personified by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is a relatively recent construction, largely put forth by Mr. Trudeau’s father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Before that — and for most of the intervening years, between Trudeaus — the public face of Canada has looked a lot like, well, Jordan Peterson.

.. Canada is home to many more Jordan Petersons than Justin Trudeaus.

.. Mr. Peterson is — to use one of his favorite terms — something of a national archetype, the default setting of the Canadian male: a dull but stern dad, who, under a facade of apparent normalcy and common sense, conceals a reserve of barely contained hostility toward anyone who might rock the boat.

.. those who make a fuss are bothersome and ignorant at best, and probably dangerous and destructive too.

.. This is how “peace, order and good government” came to be the Canadian answer to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

.. Charisma is suspect here, and when Mr. Peterson uses that word to describe Mr. Trudeau, it’s not a compliment.

.. Suspect, too, is any whiff of revolutionary spirit. Pierre Trudeau might have technically been a liberal, but he was the kind of liberal who declared martial law in 1970 when a bumbling handful of Quebec separatists were deemed enough of a threat to justify suspending civil liberties en masse.

.. Our politics reflect our sense of unease with anything radical.

.. Liberals who think of Canada as a lefty haven should look to our most recent federal election: the New Democratic Party, ostensibly the major party farthest to the left, ran its last campaign on a platform of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. Not even the Green Party dares to suggest divesting from Alberta’s oil sands.

.. On every issue, from peacekeeping to pipelines, carbon targets to Indigenous relations, Mr. Trudeau has largely continued the policies set by his predecessor.

.. Canadian conservatism is not brash. It not belligerent, it is not loud. It is not Fox News. But our most popular columnists all deliver the same message: Things are the way they are for a reason. Those who agitate for change are stepping out of line.

.. He reserves particular ire for young activists. I tell 18-year-olds: Six years ago you were 12 — what the hell do you know? You haven’t done anything,” he says. “You don’t have a degree, you haven’t finished your courses, you don’t know how to read, you can’t think, you can’t speak.”

“It’s just not right,” he says, “to tell people in that situation that they should go out and change the socioeconomic structure of the culture!”

.. Delivered as a fiery sermon, this impassioned plea for humility and self-improvement gets laughs from Peterson fans. But in practice, it’s actually an argument for submission to the status quo that would have prevented any number of people, from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Emma Gonzales, from ever speaking up.

.. Americans are raised to believe that individuals, even flawed ones, can indeed change the world, and sometimes should. Canadians, for all that we’ve managed to construct a society that Americans sometimes envy, lack this ethic.

.. The resulting mind-set, disdainful of idealism and suspicious of ego, is one we are now, evidently, exporting.

.. Jordan Peterson is considered a heroic figure of historical importance, the man who finally said “Enough!” to political correctness run amok, to mobs of rabid Social Justice Warriors, to an ideologically driven “leftist-Marxist” movement hellbent on destroying Western civilization itself.

.. Mr. Peterson can be more accurately described as a previously obscure Canadian academic who believed, erroneously, that he would soon be forced by law to use gender-neutral pronouns and who refused to bow to that hypothetical demand. The proposed human rights policy that made Mr. Peterson famous is now Canadian law, and no instance of “compelled speech” has occurred as a result of it or resulted in criminal charges, as Mr. Peterson feared. On the issue of legal requirements for pronoun use, things remain the way Mr. Peterson wanted them — the same.

.. Mr. Peterson was taking a stand not against power in that instance but on behalf of it. His acolytes, some of whom might consider themselves to be walking in the tradition of rugged American individualism, should note that they are in fact taking marching orders — “Rules for Life,” no less — from a line-toeing Canadian, preaching a philosophy not of American defiance but of Canadian deference.



George Papadopoulos is the ‘John Dean’ of the Russia investigation, his fiancee says

He has been mocked by President Trump as a “low level volunteer” and “proven to be a liar.”

But the fiancee of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty in October to lying to the FBI about his Russia contacts and is cooperating with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, says he is being miscast.

“I believe history will remember him like John Dean,”

.. she indicated in an interview that she believes he ultimately will emerge as more than a bit player in the Russia probe — and that his decision to cooperate after he was arrested getting off an airplane at Dulles International Airport in July was a key turning point.

.. Without offering specifics, Mangiante said there is much more that has not yet been told publicly about Papadopoulos’ 10 months as an informal national security adviser to Trump and his interactions with a London-based professor who told Papadopoulos, according to court filings, that the Russians had “dirt” on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

.. Mangiante said she has been extensively interviewed by Mueller’s team, who asked about her own brief stint working for Joseph Mifsud, the same London professor who offered to connect the young Trump aide with the Russians.

.. Mangiante accepted in July 2016 but said she only worked for the group for three months, quickly concluding that it was “a facade for something else.”

She said she never heard Mifsud discuss Russians but quit when she was asked by his partner to attend a secret meeting to discuss Iraq in Tripoli. “I thought it was very suspicious,” she said.