No products in the cart.


Police Expert: War On Terror Has Turned Our Cops Into Occupying Armies — And We’re The Enemy

when did

Oath Keepers has been warning about the militarization of police departments for quite a while. It’s nice that others are seeing the problem, too. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This article comes from

by Travis Gettys

The war on terror has essentially turned police into occupying armies in some American communities, said a police and criminology expert.

Thomas Nolan, an associate professor of criminology at Merrimack College and former senior policy analyst with the Department of Homeland Security, said the focus of police work had shifted greatly since he was a Boston police officer in the 1980s and 1990s.

“I remember it being drilled into me as a police officer, as a sergeant and then as a lieutenant: partnership, problem-solving, and prevention – the three Ps,” Nolan said Wednesday during a panel sponsored by the American Constitution Society.

He said police were heavily trained to form alliances to help them to better serve and protect communities, and he said those relationships clearly don’t exist in Ferguson, Missouri.

While the war on drugs is frequently cited as a major factor in the breakdown of civil liberties and police-community relations, Nolan said a more recent shift was largely to blame.

“In the early 2000s, particularly after 9/11, we saw a paradigm shift from community policing and problem-oriented principles to the war on terror, and we became Homeland Security police,” said Nolan, who has worked in the federal agency’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

He said this shift toward “homeland security” had quickly destroyed the relationships police had worked nearly two decades to build.

“I think what has happened as a direct result of that, is that those relationships that we forged, and worked so hard to attain and to maintain in the late 1980s and early 1990s, began to erode because the police were seen, particularly in communities of color, as an army of occupation,” Nolan said.

“If you dress police officers up as soldiers and you put them in military vehicles and you give them military weapons, they adopt a warrior mentality,” he continued. “We fight wars against enemies, and the enemies are the people who live in our cities – particularly in communities of color.”


Read more here.


The one thing I really disagree with Officer Nolan on is this:

“We fight wars against enemies, and the enemies are the people who live in our cities – particularly in communities of color.”

The perception of the people as “the enemy” in a “war on terrorism” and a “war on drugs” is not just in cities, nor is it just applied to “communities of color.”  That perception is applied in small town America as well as in cities, and to ALL Americans, of every race, creed, and color.  It is not a “black” problem.  It is not a “brown” problem.  It is an American problem.  Any American, anywhere, at any time, can be subjected to the same military tactics and mindset, whether during a raid on their home, during a traffic stop, or any other encounter with police.   Sniper rifles were pointed in at protesting Americans at Bundy Ranch in Nevada just as much as in Ferguson, Missouri.   And likewise for the response to the Boston bombing in the search of Watertown, MA, where weapons were pointed in at entire families as they were ordered from their homes.  And any American can suffer the fate of Jose Guerena (Marine Iraq veteran killed in SWAT raid), Bounkham Phonesavah (a one year old baby burned with a flash-bang), or any of the many other Americans caught up in the overuse and abuses of SWAT teams seen here:

And any American can end up like  John T. Williams (deaf woodcarver shot by Seattle cop while whittling a stick), or David Eckert (repeatedly cavity searched and subjected to forced enemas and colonoscopy), or like these two women cavity searched on the side of the road.  What does race have to do with it?  Not much.

This, this, this, or this, can happen to any American, of any race, in any community, at any time.

As retired Pennsylvania police officer Larry Hohol put it, when referring to that last link (the Robert Leone beating): “But for the grace of God, this could have been your child or family member that these horrific acts happened to.”  Watch his video analysis of that incident here.    That had nothing to do with race, but everything to do with abuse of power.

American police have a problem, and this problem is now endemic, and reaches into every community.   As former NYPD Detective Frank Serpico recently said:

Today the combination of an excess of deadly force and near-total lack of accountability is more dangerous than ever: Most cops today can pull out their weapons and fire without fear that anything will happen to them, even if they shoot someone wrongfully. All a police officer has to say is that he believes his life was in danger, and he’s typically absolved. What do you think that does to their psychology as they patrol the streets—this sense of invulnerability? The famous old saying still applies: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And it is a problem that the good police have a DUTY to stop.   You officers who are the “good cops” out there must police your own and put a stop to the abuse by the bad cops, and that includes all the overuse and abuse of SWAT teams, all of the violations of rights perpetrated in the name of the “war on drugs” and all of the excessive force and violations of rights that occur all over this nation, every day.

You are all rapidly losing the hearts and minds of the American people – losing their trust and support – because they increasingly see you as a threat to their lives and liberty, rather than as an ally in keeping their community safe.   A growing majority of the American people of all backgrounds no longer see you as the “officer friendly” they were taught to trust and respect as children, but instead see you as an occupying army – as unaccountable, unrestrained, militarized, armed “law enforcers” who can literally get away with murder.   They fear you.  And many of them now hate you.

Routinely, “officer safety” is put forth as the great excuse to justify  all the militarization, including the increasingly militarized rules of engagement that in turn serve to cover and excuse even the most glaring cases of excessive force and abuse of power.  But in the end, there are not enough MRAPS, not enough body armor, not enough .50 cals, select-fire M4s, sub-machine guns, sniper rifles, flash-bangs, or enough military trained SWAT teams to keep you safe once you lose the hearts and minds of the people and they turn against you en-mass.    The only thing that will truly keep you safe is the trust, respect, and support of the people in your community.

And the only way you can restore that trust, respect, and support is by obeying your oath, by personally holding the bad cops among you accountable to YOU.  You must defend the Constitution by enforcing the Constitution in a very direct way, on the scene, and in your department.  As Frank Serpico put it:

Law enforcement agencies need to eliminate those who use and abuse the power of the law as they see fit. As I said to the Knapp Commission 43 years ago, we must create an atmosphere where the crooked cop fears the honest cop, and not the other way around. An honest cop should be able to speak out against unjust or illegal behavior by fellow officers without fear of ridicule or reprisals. Those that speak out should be rewarded and respected by their superiors, not punished.

We’re not there yet.

Indeed, we are not “there” yet, and the honest cops, the ones who still take their oaths seriously, must take the lead in getting us “there.”  And that takes courage and resolve to do what is right, on the spot, at all times, even at personal risk.  It is what must be done to fix this problem.   And in the long run, those good cops really have nothing to lose by doing what’s right, because, unless they step up and lead by example, they will lose everything once they lose the people.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder and President of Oath Keepers




  1. I was in NJ the week before last and stopped for a coffee. I was dressed kinda crumby because I was helping a friend with a welding project at his shop. I saw a fish and game cop who was dressed like he was going to war. He looked at me and took a defensive posture. I kinda laughed and said good morning to him and got my coffee. Just illustrates the article.

  2. Thank God for Oath Keepers, our Sheriffs are our only true protection. We live in a small town and we do not have this happening, but it is highly alarming being as how obummer intends to be a
    tyrannical dictator who has already talked about what he calls homeland forces. We have got to get that man out of office before this country tanks completely. If we ever have any chance of any kind of recovery as a nation, he has to be removed. I pray for him, but he is one hard hearted person.

  3. I agree 100% with Stewart. I was at the Bundy ranch. On that Saturday that the cattle were released, we faced BLM in full body armor, and fully automatic weapons pointed at civilians and children. Since when does a land management bureau need that. One shot could have been a disaster. I have traveled around America in the last six months training militias, and have seen police pulling over vehicles on our highways. Sometimes three cruisers pulling an individual over. I have even seen the same scenario pulling over 18 wheelers. Since when are truck drivers the enemy. The police, with the mindset they have today, are now considered the peoples enemy. And with that comes a trust problem. You are going to see an increase in casualties, on both sides, unless this military approach to policing stops. The police have to remember, they are very outnumbered. The only thing that has stopped the shooting of them, is our respect for them. And that is dwindling very fast through out this country.

  4. if good cops don’t stop the bad cops then they our aiding the bad cops therfore there is no good copsthey are all bad cops

  5. Every point that Stewart Rhodes made in his comments on where we’re at concerning the relationship between the police and the public is true. Every American have seen these changes take place within most our police departments since 911. Many have first hand experience with the abuse police are using against the people. If it were not for the internet and the ability to record these atrocities perpetrated by the police we would not know about them. The problem also lies with the superiors over the officers, their attorneys and judges who will sweep these abuses under the rug to protect the policeman from being removed and prosecuted.

    It IS time for the good cops to speak out and report the unlawful treatment their fellow officers are using against a citizen while on duty. To remain quiet makes them complicit and just as guilty.

  6. The problem I see is that more and more police are getting good combat training. Most of the Grand Masters in USPSA are also training government teams and police now to shoot quickly and accurately. The tactics and marksmanship of most police was a joke for years. Now they need to be taken seriously. One of the GMs, JJ Racazza is the top trainer for DHS now. Trust me you will not survive first contact with these units after they are properly trained. Don’t expect them to continue to run away like the LA Riots and Katrina and Bundy Ranch.

  7. The US Constitution REQUIRES accountability from all governmental “employees” – state and federal.

    It forbids governmental professional law enforcement, and they are only there to do the duties of each state’s militia and to have ANY authority they must do their duty in a constitutional manner and KEEP the oath.

    Breaking the Oath is a felony. It matters not what the position being occupied is – state or federal, if they break it they have committed a felony and made themselves not only a criminal, but no longer meeting the requirements of the position they occupy.

    That includes the judges – state and federal. But as long as we do not press charges, as long as we do not remove those criminals from office we are aiding and abetting their actions against us – be it violence, spying on us, breaking and entering without a warrant (Constitution REQUIRES a lawful warrant with NO third party), treason, terrorism, etc. Ignoring them is assisting them, assisting in the destruction of the US Constitution and our nation.

  8. Thank you Mr. Rhodes for an excellent article. May we all send this to our county Sheriffs and police Chiefs NOW. I am one of many who is having a bit of a challenge maintaining a calm composure when I feel that we should be ARRESTING some of these people NOW for their OBVIOUS crimes!
    Thank you for your fine leadership Stewart!
    With warm regards,

  9. Why not show the other half of the meme you put in the headline?

    Walt Davis: When that warden heads out into the woods he could face anything from bears to meth cooks, and his back up may be hours out.

    Jay LeDuc: do not confuse the feds with the locals… who pointed their own weapons at BLM officers. Great picture circulating of a man on an overpass with a rifle in an “overwatch” position covering multiple people with the muzzle of his weapon… If you have multiple Staties pulling over a rig it is like a port of entry inspection and they may perform a mechanical inspection on the spot.

    Orrie: I’m guessing we have a different opinion on what constitutes “many”

    Mark Gardner: “The problem I see is that more and more police are getting good combat training. Most of the Grand Masters in USPSA are also training government teams and police now to shoot quickly and accurately.” There are no words to describe how dumb your statement was… I remember 20 years ago multiple officers in a shooting usually meant 60 shots fired with four hits to the suspect. I you saying thats a good thing?

    On that note. Free “Oath Keeper” tab patch with hook backing, just post me your address, I’ll even pay shipping. Sorry I couldn’t save the bumber sticker for you but I didn’t have time to take it off nicely.

    [RESPONSE FROM STEWART: So, we point out a very real problem, quoting good cops who understand and agree that there is a problem, in the hopes that police will correct it themselves, internally, and then veterans chime in with confirmation and discuss it some more, and your response, instead of offering insights into how to help fix it, is to take your toys and go home? So, you are no longer an “Oath Keeper” officer? Then what are you? And you apparently justify the problem of militarized police by suggesting that we “deserve” to be treated like an occupied enemy people, and that We the People, in fact, are your enemy. Nice.]

  10. Thk. God for my living in Arizona where we have constitutional sheriffs like Babeu, Dannells, Arpaio,Mack, Dever, Judd, Alred, etc. These patriots will be leading the charge against the Usurper’s forces when the time comes. All Americans need to be joining their OK’s, Shrf. posses, state and constitutional militias, etc. as we are about to be betrayed by the overreaching fed. juggernaut with its so called “National Citizen’s Army” (DHS, IRS, FEMA, NSA, EPA, ETC.). We must hope that our military is not so corrupted that it will side with the Globalists and their puppet Barak Hussein.

  11. Talk about stating the obvious!

    This started long before the war on terror, the war on drugs, or the war on guns.
    I believe that police departments have waged a war on our rights since day one in one
    way or another. It is long past time to disband all police departments, and let the people protect
    them selves, something which they are perfectly capable of, with a small sheriffs department whose only purpose is to protect our rights NOT to enforce thousands of rights violating laws (Law Enforcement) like police departments do.

  12. Here is a link that illustrates “what is now common in “changed” Amerika”.
    80 year old man roughed up:

    I could spend HOURS putting up similar links.
    And when you bring forth FACTS. Video which CLEARLY shows ABUSE and CRIMINAL actions by Police.
    Then you are called “anti-Police”. Or “anti-government”. They label you because you show what they did wrong.

    It is just nuts. I don’t understand that viewpoint.

    I once was on a state champion football team. A couple of members did some bad things. We as a Team “educated” our fellow team mates that did the bad things. Restitution was made in full. We as a Team did not TOLERATE criminal acts by a couple of idiots that wore our colors. We self regulated and effectively punished the perps.

    As many military members can understand, especially Marines. “Blanket Parties” are special “events” for those few that foul up life for the many. We keep our own “in check”. We help our brothers who fall behind. But they damn well be putting out maximum effort. We are trusting one another with our lives. So lack of performance and effort is not tolerated. Again, self regulate and punish “slackers and foul ups”.

    So why don’t police keep their own in check?
    Why is there a zombie group think mentality within many local departments?
    Where they protect their own NO matter their crime.

    My experiences:
    I am well traveled throughout USA due to employment. Job requires interaction.
    Feds-Professional. But arrogant, know it alls. Displayed no common sense. Overeducated zealots.
    Sheriff-I have found Sheriff departments to be mostly good, just normal guys and gals. Best people to deal with.
    State-Some State Patrols good. Some not so good. Seems to be a mix based on the particular State.
    Local-Local Police. These are the worst to deal with. More of them seem out of control than not. Many are bullies.
    I personally dread any and all interaction with local municipality police. I Don’t enjoy doing business with them.

    My survey is non scientific. May just be my experience. But there it is.
    My experiences may be limited in scope?
    No this is not bashing Police.
    No I am not “anti police”.
    No I’m not “anti government.”
    But I believe there is right and wrong. I also believe in ACCOUNTABILITY for actions and choices made.
    It seems like Police and Government in general are NO LONGER held ACCOUNTABLE for bad choices or actions.
    Why else would Police continually beat, make charges against, confiscate, video filmers of their misdeeds.
    If there is nothing to hide. Then why do they feel so threatened by their actions being shown to the world.

    I am proud of work I perform. I don’t care if customer or boss shoulder surfs or would video. Why? Because I do a good job. I’m honest. Truthful with customers. There is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

    So why wouldn’t it be the same for Police?

    Evil hates the light of day. Evil that is brought into the light often isn’t all that scary. Or if it is scary. It can be dealt with effectively.

    That is why Evil loves the dark.

  13. They can be sure of one thing. The people are not afraid of them. They are human like the rest of us. They are no more powerful than we will let them be. That will be their biggest mistake to go against the people. We will know who they are and where they live. They will be brought to justice when it is all over. There will be no excuses. No apologies.

  14. It is not the cop that decides which law is on the books and which one is not.
    Judges, lawyers and others of their ilk write these laws and then have the cops enforce them.
    I do not agree that out law enforcement should behave like thugs. This works for judges and lawyers also.
    As far as the community of color is concerned, police your own and the problems that are “endured” by you will go away.
    I was a cop in the 60s through the 80s and the job has become much more dangerous than in my long career.
    I agree with InalienableWright.It is time for people to learn to defend them self and only have a small S.O to protect our rights and not the many laws that violate our rights!

  15. After reading this and the majority of other threads I see where the word ‘Law’ is used so much and I began to wonder how there can be Laws that fall from the Constitutional Tree so I looked up the definition of ‘Law’ at an do not see where a ‘Law’ must conform to the Constitution at all? What struck me most was ‘Body of People’ and what they determine is or should be a ‘Law’. If is missed something please help here, so can a group get a ‘Law’ placed into effect and has no valid context under the Constitution?

  16. “On that note. Free ‘Oath Keeper’ tab patch with hook backing, just post me your address, I’ll even pay shipping. Sorry I couldn’t save the bumber sticker for you but I didn’t have time to take it off nicely.”

    The right of freedom of association. –Great to see someone making use of their rights.

    How does that saying go: You either use your rights or you lose them.

  17. @ Ron, ” see where the word ‘Law’ is used so much and I began to wonder how there can be Laws that fall from the Constitutional Tree so I looked up the definition of ‘Law’ at an do not see where a ‘Law’ must conform to the Constitution at all?”

    “Lawful”: in accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. Black’s Law Dictionary: Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

    A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. “Legal”: the “color of law”, “appearance of law”, “pretense of law without the substance of lawfulness”, “misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state”. In accordance with the law of the land; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. Black’s Law Dictionary: Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law.
    Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
    Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
    Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    The US Constitution itself requires that all laws, treaties, etc made here in America be in Pursuance thereof it.

    Article VI:
    “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

    It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    Alexander Hamilton, New York convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this – that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”.

    Federalist #33, Hamilton additionally pointed out: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”.

    Thomas McKean, Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states”.

    James Iredell, 1st North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause, Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Food For Thought:
    Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

    I am not sure if this helps you or not. Basically the US Constitution says what is correct in this country, what those serving within our governments are allowed to do – and in what manner it must be done; and what they are FORBIDDEN from doing.

  18. @ Warrior, “It is not the cop that decides which law is on the books and which one is not.
    Judges, lawyers and others of their ilk write these laws and then have the cops enforce them.”

    It is not those who write the laws that one has to worry about (and it is NOT lawfully the judges and the lawyers, it is the legislators who were given that duty), it is those who will enforce anything that might even look like a law while having taken on the personal responsibility that they are lawful (constitutional) before enforcing. Before you say that is asking too much that they remember the US Constitution… it is NOT the complete Constitution that they need to remember. IF they memorize the Bill of Rights, and what they are told to do is in line with (Pursuance thereof the US Constitution) enforce it. Otherwise they are REQUIRED to, and take personal responsibility for which they can be held accountable that they are to say “NO”.

    That is correct, that it cannot be enforced as it is against the law. If youa re worried that those you “run with” might disagree and take things out on you for being lawful, then you are in a gang, not an LEA.

  19. Well said Stewart, points come across loud and clear on this issue of excessive force and unchecked power by those entrusted to serve their communities. The article from Frank Serpico was excellent read, after all these years and still doing the right thing with dignity and honor.

  20. I agree with Stewart but would like to add that it’s not just a case of good cops speaking out against bad cops in order to minimize the problem. I believe it all hinges on the supervision by their superiors, Police Chiefs are not reining them in and making sure they are trained in a way that commands respect. I lay it at the feet of those superiors, and in fact feel they are complicit in the vicious abuse that has been escalating over the past few years. I am convinced that if a bad cop knows he’s going to risk getting fired for bad behavior and abuse of power, he may think twice about intimidating and abusing the public.
    Furthermore, I feel that the hiring guidelines are definitely lacking when it comes to screening out unfit people who apply for police jobs. I think certain individuals see themselves as real tough guys and relish the chance to parade their authority and superiority over the citizens, many of them are being hired to work on the police force and venting out their negative personalities on innocent people. It won’t stop though until the public puts enough pressure on local governments to change it.

  21. One only need to examine the Stanford Prison Experiment to realise the veracity and accuracy of this being the case. Placing police in military uniforms and providing them with milsurp equipment changes the mind set from civil servant peace officer to that of SOF militant thugs. I resigned in part due to this very issue. I will honour my oath! I will not prey upon the working poor, my countrymen, my kinsmen for banking interests and corporations.

    Pax aut bellum.

  22. When I traveled foreign, even IF the environment justified it, I was not comfortable and did not feel secure seeing military weapons on shoulders of uniformed police forces. Has there been any big changes in the US that this would make me feel secure? NO…..

    I was born in another time, or is it that such abuses were not made known to us?
    “we must create an atmosphere where the crooked cop fears the honest cop”. Fact is, this may not occur until “the crooked cop fears the abused”.

    If ‘The Robert Leone Story’ is indeed as Larry Hohol presents, all involved (active participants, hospital and those in the cover up) WOULD be held ACCOUNTABLE, preferably via the legal system.

  23. @Cal;

    Yes, thank you, that does help clear it up for me and unless I missed something I am now sure in my mind we have many, many laws that are nor lawful and are strictly allowed to exist via power and color of law.

    I think that any LEO can name more than one officer that has the macho disease caught by the badge and gun. I personally knew of five in and office of twenty-five (small SO), in fact the Patrol Lt. was the biggest in the lower ranks. The Captain was in a totally different world, the First
    Sheriff was so hung up on his girl friend one had to be sure to double knock on his office door. Then we had the Juvenal officers that were sharing a 14 year old. Ended up the seven from the twenty-five were tried for sex crimes with the same gal. Interesting work it was and glad I did not stay in that field.

  24. I read so far about police being bad and good but let’s look at a point that there had been improper treatment when it comes to homeless drunks and drug addicts. The one example is one guy who had forced me to draw my gun on him even though it is a CO2 BB gun semiautomatic, I decided to knock him out hand to hand combat. After I punched him hard, police showed up. I spoke up and said YES I PULLED MY GUN OUT NO I DID NOT SHOOT HIM BUT YES I PUNCHED HIM. even though I was willing to be booked, the police said NO I ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE AND HE HAD VIOLATED A NO TRESPASS
    ORDER. Now I ask you why is it that every time he causes trouble, the police won’t arrest him? The answer I got was the courts are getting tired of doing paperwork on him. That’s a poor lame lazy excuse. I had told the police this and stood my grounds that if this drunk continues coming at me and my wife I will not be so Merciful next time. But instead they tell him what I said and this time he may not be so lucky. But 3 times I knocked him out now the police does no longer harass me about my gun. The police here has supported me in my rights. Now he is more afraid of me and the police because he knows I have the police backing me up.

  25. Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire noted how the Rule of Law collapsed. Once the law only protects government, the end is near for not merely do your human and civil rights vanish, you cannot protect your property of anything else for that matter.

    The younger badge wearing officers would do well to understand that statement from a noted historian, because contrary to what they may think today they are not exempt.

    STEWART: Excellent reference and point. Thanks!

Comments are closed.