Cop Chokes Then Body-Slams Man For Recording Arrest With Cellphone

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2010
53,233
6,719
Cop Chokes Then Body-Slams Man For Recording Arrest With Cellphone

A Virginia man’s run-in with Baton Rouge cops has sparked an investigation after he filed a police brutality complaint that he’d been choked and thrown onto the ground by an officer while he was filming an arrest.

This incident happened just outside the Varsity Theatre near LSU. Paramedics were called because a women attending a holiday party inside the theatre had become unconscious. Police were then requested “in reference to EMS and Fire needing assistance with a large hostile crowd making threats and not letting them do their jobs,” according to a police report.

Daniel Clement, 22, had been visiting Baton Rouge when police officers arrived at the Varsity Theatre and was filming an arrest when a police officer became physically aggressive with him. Surveillance footage from the theatre captured the event, and you can see Clement – wearing red – recording the officers on his phone before the altercation. Watch what happened next:

In the surveillance footage, you can see a Baton Rouge cop approach Clement, taking his phone away. Within seconds, the officer began choking Clement and body-slammed him onto the cement, causing him to fall on another officer.

Another man – a friend of Clement – grabbed the arm of the officer who choked Clement. He was arrested after being tackled by police. The man claimed the officers also maced him.

According to the offending officer, Clement was ordered to leave the scene – along with the rest of the crowd – but would not. In his report, he claimed that “The crowd was not moving and another officer grabbed someone next to the defendant (Clement) to arrest them” and said Clement “jumped on that officer and began pushing that officer off of his friend.”

Clement denies those allegations, and because the surveillance footage disagrees with what the officer claimed, the matter is being investigated further. However, Clement was charged with public intoxication, battery on police, resisting an officer and remaining after forbidden.

Clement’s cell phone has not been returned to him, after being confiscated by the police. The young man, who recently graduated from college and applied to the Peace Corps, said he doesn’t want to go back to Virginia until his story is heard.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.
 
Police brutality in America is a serious issue, but the discussion keeps getting hijacked whenever it seems like the country might have a dialogue about it.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

This sentiment I can agree with, at the present moment.

As much as I respect our police force and understand the daily stress they have to deal with, they work publicly, and shouldn't be exempt from public scrutiny.
 
Officers told crowd to break it up and leave, which they refused. Another display of disrespect for the police.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

He may not have the authority to do so, since most police departments are local concerns, but that's never stopped him before, so it is strange.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

He may not have the authority to do so, since most police departments are local concerns, but that's never stopped him before, so it is strange.

It's never stopped him before. He can write an executive order.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.


Funny thing it isnt illegal but they will slam you and arrest you for it...err...I mean...for resisting!
 
The guy roughed up was a college kid who was joining the peace corp. He's a liberal. We don't know any of the real facts. The guy is a liberal and pretty much has it coming just for that alone.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

Which law against recording police are you referencing? I seem to remember hearing about one being passed, but I only recall it as a small-scale thing, perhaps a city ordinance, not even a state-wide law. Am I incorrect in this?
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.


Funny thing it isnt illegal but they will slam you and arrest you for it...err...I mean...for resisting!

It's a felony in Illinois.

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

It 8217 s Now Illegal In Illinois To Film Cops Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Of course, the way it's worded could possibly mean it's legal to video them, but with the mic turned off.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

Which law against recording police are you referencing? I seem to remember hearing about one being passed, but I only recall it as a small-scale thing, perhaps a city ordinance, not even a state-wide law. Am I incorrect in this?

Yes, according to the articles I have been reading this is nationwide and if they do not have the law on the books they still use it against you as in the case of the black woman who recorded police brutality and they used a taser on her and then demanded she get in her car and move it - when she refused they accused her of using her car to try and run them over. Thank God she had it recorded on her phone. They erased the video on her camera but it was retrieved through cloud technology and later they had to drop the charges against her. This was in a state where recording the police was not against the law!

Wrong is wrong and the police involved should have been fired.
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.


Funny thing it isnt illegal but they will slam you and arrest you for it...err...I mean...for resisting!

It's a felony in Illinois.

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

It 8217 s Now Illegal In Illinois To Film Cops Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Of course, the way it's worded could possibly mean it's legal to video them, but with the mic turned off.

I have heard of laws in which recording audio without knowledge is illegal while recording video is not, so it wouldn't surprise me if that is the case here.

Was this eavesdropping law created in response to police being recorded?
 
Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.


Funny thing it isnt illegal but they will slam you and arrest you for it...err...I mean...for resisting!

It's a felony in Illinois.

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

It 8217 s Now Illegal In Illinois To Film Cops Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Of course, the way it's worded could possibly mean it's legal to video them, but with the mic turned off.

I have heard of laws in which recording audio without knowledge is illegal while recording video is not, so it wouldn't surprise me if that is the case here.

Was this eavesdropping law created in response to police being recorded?

It's been going on for years. Have a look at this case. This guy won a settlement. Still, you can see where even without the law they are acting as if it is illegal and this is what happens. In this case, the victim sued:

City of Boston pays 170 000 to settle landmark case involving man arrested for recording police with cell phone ACLU of Massachusetts
Simon Glik broke no law making video of police officers' use of force against another man on Boston Common.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 27, 2012

CONTACT:
Christopher Ott, Communications Director, 617-482-3170 x322, [email protected]

BOSTON -- Simon Glik, a Boston attorney wrongly arrested and prosecuted for using his cell phone to record police officers forcefully arresting a man on the Boston Common, has reached a settlement with the City of Boston on his civil rights claims. The settlement requires the City to pay Glik $170,000 for his damages and legal fees.

Mr. Glik was forced to defend himself against criminal charges of illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace. After a judge threw out those charges, Glik filed a civil rights suit against the city and the arresting officers in federal court in Boston, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and Boston attorneys Howard Friedman and David Milton. This settlement resolves that case.
_______________________
Notice the trumped up charges? Illegal wiretapping? Aiding escape of a prisoner? Disturbing the peace? Whose peace? This is the same type tactic they used on the woman they accused of using her car to hit a police officer. She was outside her car video taping what she believed to be police brutality. ( she was African - American too ) Once again - I must ask- if Obama really wanted to protect citizens? Why would he refuse to permit them the ability to use their cell phones to record abuse? Why the silence? Because he doesn't want civilians to have that right. That's why. He wants a revolution. Not a resolution. Get it?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top