Concord Gets Lesson on American Militarization from Former Marine

A New Hampshire man and retired U.S. Marine Colonel went to a Concord town meeting to speak out against the federal grant for which Chief of Police John Duval applied. In his application, the Chief cited peaceful groups with no history of violence as threats and “daily challenges” to the Concord police, as a justification for acquiring a small tank. The Free State Project objected to being grouped in with terrorists and criminals, and an exchange between the group an the police chief started, and raised awareness of the militarization of the Concord police department, as well as most police departments in the United States. Below is a video of the New Hampshire Marine explaining that the tactics used in the military, are now being carried over to the private sector. The militarization of America is increasing, and especially in concordance with NSA spying, IRS bullying, and DOJ tracking there is reason for every American to be concerned.

The Marine states that his friend was in Watertown Ma when the widespread violation of Fourth Amendment rights had police dressed in identical uniforms to the military storming homes and forcing out residents without due process in the name of finding a terrorist. He points out that after the Boston Marathon bombing we saw a state police officer standing next to a Boston police officer wearing identical military uniforms, except for the unique insignia from each department.

Throughout history there have been warning signs before and during the militarization of soon to be dictatorial governments. We cannot ignore these signs if we want America to remain a haven for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The point of taking a firm stand against the police state now is so that we can stop it non-violently. Now is the time for the American public to refuse to accept the forward march of militarization aimed at innocent American civilians.

2 thoughts on “Concord Gets Lesson on American Militarization from Former Marine

  1. “… and forcing out residents without due process in the name of finding a terrorist.”

    So if you don’t believe it was in order to find the Boston bombers, then what alternate reason are you implying it was done for? Unless you didn’t intend to use “in the name of” for its common connotation for ulterior motive.

    Also, is there one example of a family or resident refusing to let officers in and there being negative consequences? If there was, I haven’t heard about it.

  2. The ulterior motive is most likely getting people used to having their rights violated. And if it was all to catch the terrorist, it is still a rights violation. Do you think it is okay for police to violate the fourth amendment whenever they have a criminal on the loose in an area?

    In the video of the police raiding one of the homes in Watertown, you will see that the man they extracted from the house was forced to keep his hands up, and was not given the option of refusing to let the police in. Otherwise no, I haven’t heard of any of the residents who had guns aimed at them with police shouting orders refuse to let the police in. I also didn’t hear of anyone being asked by police to search the house, as I guess you may be better at remaining level headed and exercising your rights while staring down the barrel of a cop’s gun and being yelled at to keep your hands up.

    In other cases however besides Watertown, yes, people have been murdered by police for failing to comply with an unConstitutional order. Perhaps no one in Watertown was willing to risk that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s