Police and Law Enforcement Books

This is one of the least political autobiographies of a public servant in a political position in Washington.

That's no reason, in my mind, to doubt the veracity of most of what Freeh writes. Those looking for conspiracy theores or outright condemnation of political adversaries will be disappointed. Freeh writes deeply of respect for a large number of persons, most notably FBI agents and fellow prosecutors.

It does make for an interesting, amusing, but very non-combative read.

Even Bill Clinton, who receives most of Freeh's ire for being more a politician than a manager, is also described as the most charming and disarming statesman.

It's not that Freeh is afraid to talk ill of any of his former co-workers, but rather this is an autobiography of his public career.

He doesn't take the opportunity to hammer home points about policy, but rather berates mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of ethical focus.

This is a good read for someone looking for a shining hero. This is not a good place to find dirt.

In writing My FBI, Louis J, Freeh has given us a microscopic view of how the FBI works and the numerable problems he faced during his tenure. He comes across as honorable and hard working, telling the truth as he saw it. I couldn't put the book down. I highly recommend reading this book to learn about how the FBI operates and about the terroism that we face today.

Freeh comes across early on as pompous and a phoney and it carries throught the book. He keeps remniding us what a great father he is because he has his kids drawings in his office. He is twice politically appointed yet rails against Clinton for being a politician. He seeths about the investigation of a bombing on Saudi soil and why Clinton would not let him interview the suspects...? I kept thinking Federal applies to the United States, not Saudi Arabia. It's that kind of arrogance that makes this book easy to put down. Plus, He never goes into ANY interesting detail on ANY investigation. And he OFTEN points out how he never really knew FBI agent turned spy Robert Hanssen. Hanssen went to the same church, their kids were in the same school....YET the same Freeh who says his style was to be among the troops claims to have barely known who he was. (BS) He also rails against Anything Clinton yet, everything Bush is AOK... This book is nothing more than a Swift-boat FBI poison pen letter.

Louis Freeh provides an interesting look into the world of the FBI. The book takes an overview approach with specific vignettes of his time at the organization and how it evolved (or lack thereof) over the years. Freeh was director during a turbulent time when trust in the FBI was at a low and worked one of the toughest cases in its history with the Kohbar towers investigation. This investigation is the focal point of the book and done very well. He also covers a lot with the Bob Hansen treason as well as other stories. The main problem with the book is that it is light on details and the chapters often ramble on without focus. The book would have been better off from an organizational standpoint with shorter chapters more pointed towards the topics. I would like to have seen lesser stories but the ones told in greater detail. Overall it is a useful primary source but not the definitive history of his role in the FBI during those years.

"My FBI" was a quick read and a very interesting look behind the scenes at the FBI in the 1990s. Freeh discusses background on the major cases the FBI handled during his tenure. This book gives insight that you didn't get from the news stories. One of the controversial subjects in the book was Freeh's relationship with President Clinton. This subject may turn off certain people, but the bottom line is that Freeh did not like working for Clinton. That is not a result of politics- because Freeh went out of his way to be apolitical. Most of it stemmed from the many investigations into the Clinton administration like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Another small part of the book I found to be interesting was Freeh's take on former "Counterterrorism Czar" Richard Clarke. Freeh writes that Clarke was never a major player in national security in either the Clinton or Bush White House. Freeh writes that Clarke was a second-tier player that was rarely at any of the important meetings. This has somewhat of a ring of truth in light of the way Clarke has tried to recast himself as a modern day Paul Revere of terrorism, after the fact. Somehow I don't buy his self-promotion, see-I told you so attitude. Anyway, overall a solid book for those interested in the FBI and national security issues.

This book is good on two levels. On one level, it includes excellent story-telling and is just plain interesting to read as a memoir. From beat cop in the dysfunctional San Diego police department to Seattle police chief overseeing the security at the 1999 WTO summit (remember, the protestors won?) this is a page turner.

On a more important level, Norm Stamper provides a lot of valuable insights into police reform. Those cities fortunate enough to have a citizen's review board might take inspiration from Stamper's mostly progressive vision. Those cities without review boards might take inspiration to create some fast from Stamper's chapter-by-chapter accounting of abuse, misuse and incompetent leadership in policing.

The one rock Stamper leaves un-turned is, what is the root of crime in society? Progressive reforms would lead to more effective, less Gestapo management of crime. But folks will have to ask themselves about a society that produces so much physical and sexual violence in the first place...

The book was extremely honest and forthright. More police officers should have the courage to write their own tell all stories to break down the "Blue Wall." The downside to the author is that he told this after the fact. However, the lessons learned will help new police officers coming on the job, realize that law enforcement is a different beast.

Norm Stamper, much like the late Seattle School Superintendant John Stanford was considered a cutting edge leader in the public sector during the '90s. This was an exciting period in Seattle history and featured the dot com boom and the rise of such businesses as Microsoft, Starbucks and this website.
Norm Stampers book offers his views of the problems faced by police departments, many of which were featured in the fictional 2006 Oscar winning movie Crash.
Norm present many of his ideas of reform, some of which I can agree with and some of which I cannot.
The book is hard to put down once you start reading it and I would recommend it to anyone.

Although I agree with several of Mr. Stamper's recommendations (legalizing prostitution, decriminalizing drugs), many of his assertions are straight out of the "I-Hate-America" handbook. All white, male cops -and even many black ones - are racsist, homophobic, women-hating thugs. What we need is a kinder, gentler way of policing.
Mr. Stamper had a brief career as a police officer before his real career of supervisory bureacrat began. He "confesses" that in his rookie year he was on his way to becoming one of the bad cops before he was set right by a straight-shootin' DA. It was apparently then that his liberal sensitivities kicked in, and soon he was a supervisor (all the better to control the average Joe).
The unfortunate thing about this book isn't the stories he relates, or even his recommendations (some good, some not so good), but the haughty way in which he relates it. Conservatives, Republicans - BAD! Liberals, Democrats - GOOD! (except for unions - bad!) If this book were written with respect not only for the majority of rank and file cops, but for the other half of Americans that Mr. Stamper obviously disdains, it may have been worth the money. As it is, if you are to the right of Hillary, take a pass on this one.

Stamper doesn't hold back - he outlines his experiences, sucesses, and failures. The book is organized around issues that are important to Stamper, such as community policing, gun control, death penalty, and the like.

Even if you do not agree with all of his conclusions the book still makes for a great read.

Good book. Lays things out as they really are. No sugar coating. An inside look by an insider that makes you glad you are not affiliated.

Great fast read, full of little bits of information that was left out of Donnie Brasco. If you're looking for a book that takes you to the core of what it is to be a wiseguy, this book is for you.

you will love this book whether your a mob book lover or not. Excellent book.

I must be discreet. I don't want to get "whacked."
You know.....this guy "Pistone" must have grown up in my old neighborhood. I used to think movies influenced this stuff but after 50 years, I think this stuff could be real. This book seems like it could be a training manual for upcoming wanabe gangsters. It's pretty well written and makes numerous references to Donnie Brasco, but I guess this is what the author is famous for. If you consider the fact that this man "Pistone" was engaged in the same crimes as the men he helped incarcerate, it only makes sense to me that he is just as guilty as them. I guess taking these created criminals off the streets leaves more room for the real criminals. (Pedohiles, CEO's,Politicians.) What Pistone does and trains people to do is a sad pathetic game that ruins a lot innocent people' lives. Save your money and go to Disneyworld. Spend time with your family and love your children. Don't give people like Joe Pistone your hard earned money. He would do the same thing to you and have a clear conscience. You gotta lot of blood on your hands, Joe.

This is the first Donnie Brasco book I have read so I can't complain about it being repetitive. Although the book didn't have me on the edge of my seat (those I give 5 stars) I felt it was a good, quick read.

Unlike most books today which have a story that could be told in twenty pages, but which are filled with 200 pages of boring ramblings just to make it a book, this book is made up of short chapters of different topics.

Some chapters are a page long which I liked because they were quick and to the point. This also allows you to pick it up and read for only a few minutes at a time without having to remember where you were in the story when you last stopped reading.

I almost didn't get this book based on some of the negative reviews here. To play it safe, I got it from the library so didn't have to worry if the short length made it a good value. In the end I was glad I picked it up.

If you are looking for a long book that is going to take two weeks to read, this is not the one. I finished it in one day. However if you want some quick light reading to last a few hours, this is a good book.

This is a great story that needed to be told. The characters were characters in this book. The balance between bravado, conflict, greed, and power of the principles in this book were well defined. You get caught up in the action but also enjoy the author's commentary and sense of humor as he details events from their eyes. There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the book in which some have critiqued the authenticity of the source. I myself do not know about the status of the books claim to authenticity however I enjoyed the story, characters, and events portrayed in this book so much that it mattered little to me. But from reading this novel I can say with some certainty that the person who wrote this book definitely had knowledge of what happened and at minimum knew the true-life persons very well. This book was very easy to read and in fact I finished very quickly because the story was so interesting. I recommend this book very highly.

I found this story to be great reading. The characters were well written. The story was well spun. I stayed up late in to the night reading this book. I am not convinced about the inside story angle. Mr. Kelly is absolutly no where to be found in the telling of the tale. There was not one "I saw" or not one "I heard" in the entire book. While reading the book I was always thinking how could he know this or what was his take? It is apparent that during this time in SIU no one was immune from the corruption bug. Mr. Kelly where were you and what was your part in this mess? What did your testimony sound like? I'm sure you were questioned during the investigations. Are there no transcriptions from that event? I feel that information would have made the book more believable.

This is a fascinating account of a truly mystifying unsolved crime committed by members of the NYPD Special Investigating Unit. The best part is the controversial nature of this account. Whether you believe this version or not the book is so interesting to read and the depiction of the characters seems so precise it is truly worth your time. The fact that this version disputes many previously held notions about the steeling of the French Connection Narcotics from the NYPD Evidence room makes this a must read. Some of my friends dispute this account vigorously but this crime has never been solved so who can say for sure.

This book was a huge dissappointment. It begins with the disingenous disclaimer and ends with a fake court scene. In between, it only occasionally deals with facts of what is a remarkable true crime tale. Kelly can't seem to make up his mind whether he wanted to write nonfiction or a novel with some basis in fact. He tried to go somewhere in between, and the mess of a result abuses his readers. He changes some, but not all, of the names of those involved. The canonization of a crooked jerk like Bob Leuci (here called Bucci)continues unabated, probably because he was a primary source for Kelly. Cooperate with the author, and get sanitized. This case is 30 years old. All the participants are either dead, or long since paroled. Why not name names? Isn't that the point of an "insider" account? Another problem is Kelly himself. If he was working there, and this is supposed to be an insider's look, why doesn't he address his knowledge or role in a first person context in either the book itself, or an addendum? Further, he now receives a tax-free disability pension for "stress" he suffered as an NYPD detective. Meanwhile, he now runs a security business and had the time to write this. You can not accept the prattling nonsense on the dust jacket once you know this. Ultimately, this book is done by abysmal writing.The fake courtroom finale is the worst ending to any book I have ever read. Kelly should be forced to tell the real story-or give me a refund.

I stayed up all night reading this book. The further I got into the book the tougher it became to stop reading. The plot was full of unexpected twists with humor intermixed with serious situations. At first you needed to get to know the characters. They were described very well but there were many to get to know. Once you understood who everyone was the book came together. I became riveted to this story of scandal and corruption that was synonymous with the Special Investigation Unit of the NYPD. The stealing of the French Connection narcotics was a conspiracy of police and Mafia as told in this book. And what a good story this was!

Let me first state that I was a prior law enforcement officer on the state and Federal Level. With that in mind, Ms. MacDonald highlights some of the myths surrounding law enforcement and policing policies. I have experienced the political backlash from arresting prominent members of the community and the political workings behind the scenes to undermine and minimize the department's policing efforts. Law Enforcement is at times boring, thankless, an occasionly rewarding. I have witnessed firsthand the comments and bias placed on me when I was in uniform. I never pulled over a vehicle because of the ethnic profile of the driver. I was accused of it constantly, questioned by command (example: why have you pulled over # of hispanics this month? The command failed to mention that the jurisdiction was approximately 75% hispanic...a simple law of averages here....but I digress)
Ms. MacDonald highlights some of the recent police cases involving "profiling", especially the high profile case in New Jersey. She disects all of the politically correct charged placed against the police involved. This book is for someone with an open mind. Those that take the network news as gospel need not apply. In order to mend the very real racial divide in our culture, we have to honestly and objectfully look at how police are treated and characterized in the media. Like any large organization, there are bad officers. The majority of officers are hard working, non biased, and professional.

Great book looks at racial profiling from an officers perspective as well as from the non-criminal community eyes.

I've always been careful not to believe propaganda from the left or the right. I like to think of myself as a "self thinker" and have always held dear, the idea of personal responsibility. My education told me that speeders get stopped and law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from police officers and smart citizens have nothing to fear from criminals.

The culture at my job is one where you have two general types of person. Car guys, who built performance racers as teens and watch NASCAR, and engineer guys who built computers and programming code as teens. I'm from the latter group. However, I get stopped far more often than my white co-workers, even the ones who drive more reckless than me and are hotrodders.

As a matter of fact the last time I was stopped I was frisked handcuffed pushed around and shouted non racial but "heated" names, while my car was being ransacked by police officers with drawn guns. All of this was done before the first question or statement came out of the police officer's mouth. I wasn't speeding, blasting Rap music, wearing my hat backwards, slouching in my seat, drinking while driving, or driving with a White girl in my car (most of which isn't illegal anyway). I was wearing my seatbelt, sitting at a red light wearing a close cropped haircut with clean shaven face. I wore a conservative dark suit and was in a clean moderately upscale car with no extra rims or adornments. I work for one of the "Big Three" auto companies and was driving a car with Manuf. plates which, since I was less than a mile from the Tech center, was very common. They took my wallet out of my pocket and began tossing the contents on the hood of the car while looking for my license, insurance cert. and registration. As a photo of my wife and daughter flipped off the car and landed on the wet pavement, one of the cops asked "is dem yo hoes?" "dat yo shorty?" in a poor attempt at "Ebonics". The other cops laughed.

One of the officers seemed genuinely angry that I had a passport. I vaguely remember him asking me why a vacation in Colorado "wasn't good enough for me" or something to that effect. After the third cop car pulled up and the contents of my briefcase, wallet and car console were splayed about on top and around the car on a wet windy night, they let me go. No ticket, no help with my belongings, no "Sorry dude, wrong guy" Not even a condescending "Have a nice day" They didn't even check my trunk but did empty my briefcase. At no time during this ordeal did I show anger or raise my voice to these people yet they still acted like savages.

Is it even possible that all of the instances that we have heard about and the thousands that we haven't are simply a vast attempt to fool stupid black people into voting a certain way, to feed animosity against the police, or a method by which to make whites feel guilty? It is actually possible that some of these people are telling the truth about profiling.
If it is human nature to fear that which you've been given reason -irrational or not- to fear whether you're a cop or not, then profiling is to be expected, even among those who we would expect to know better. This would be the same even if this country was majority Black/ minority White and it was White males complaining about profiling. The presence of Jesse Jackson doesn't negate the truth and you don't get a free pass to ignorance that quickly. The premise of this book denies basic human nature and placates those who'd rather keep heads in sand.

Heather does a great job of sifting through the media drama and finding out what the real issues are. I have a completely different view of this issue after reading this book.

Heather MacDonald needs to focus less on the argument that Blacks in general {and others} as a whole are anti-police and anit-profiling. Perhaps crime has gone down simply due to improved administration, rather than trying to argue police aren't racist and "certain people" are hurting their communities by going against the police. Become a victim of racial profiling first, as I have as a young female, and then we'll talk about who or what's credible or not.
While it may be true that in many urban neighborhoods, crime rates have gone down because police activity has gone up, and that the police benefit the black neighborhoods more so than white neighborhoods...Like I said before, the system plainly improved.
The whites have always had the police by their side. Hypothetically speaking if in the past the police helped whites 65% of the time and 20 years later the numbers are 75%. But in the black neighborhood, the police helped 45% of the time and 20 years later 80% of the time; the 10% increase with whites and the 35% increase in the black neighborhood, well OF COURSE the police statistically benefit the blacks more with such a jump in numbers like THAT. The police haven't always given a damn about the citizens of the black neighborhoods they work in. Of course that's a dramatic jump and clearly it helps in a positive way and I commend them for that, but could they do better. They could do Much better.
And the issue regarding drugs and that the police "go where the crime is" in reference to urban areas......white neighborhoods have some of the most overlooked drug habits in America. Additionally, regarding income status, which means MONEY,how do these drugs get in America to begin with? It's not the urban cities. MacDonald "spent time in urban areas" researching, but what about the doped up and high-strung suburbs and rural areas, moms and teens alike. Her sources NEED TO BE MORE DIVERSE and I don't just mean race.
Some points MacDonald makes are important but her reasoning need more credibly focused.
She's alum from Yale and Cambride, and lives in a posh area of NYC, and I'm supposed to go to her on issues of racism???????????????????
At least it's an honest effort.

By reading the title and information on the dust jacket, I believed this was a history of the New York Police Dept. And, to an extent, it was.

If you can believe that prehaps 3 dozen men founded, organized, operated and developed the policies of the Department over the last 155 years, and that they were crooked, inept, stupid,and brutal, then you will find this to be a good read.

What I found was the stories of about 3 dozen men who had the qualities I mentioned above and whose exploits were detailed at length. And, no matter how these people behaved, the authors had to find something wrong with it. In fact, in several places they seem to contradict themselves as to what should have been the appropriate handling of a situation. And, there really never is any thesis to the book or follow up as to what the authors believed happened. It seems more to be a detailing of fact; little beyond that.

This would be a good book if it were titled, "NYPD: A History of Graft, Corruption and Stupidity" and it was used as a text book for a class at John Jay College in that subject area, but it is a book that is far from a representative of the history of the men in blue in New York.

In addition to those faults, I found the book difficult to read. One moment they are following a chronilogical sequence, then they are following a different line. It made it tough to keep track of the people detailed.

If you want a good book about the New York Police Department history, find it elsewhere. If you are a historian and wish to add one small peice of the story to your collection then maybe this book would be a good buy.

I bought this book in a shop in the mall of the World Trade Center; four days later 23 NYPD officers died in and around the those towers. As I prepared to read this book, I grumbled, "There better be no cop-bashing in here." And at the first sign of negative criticism of the force, I put the book down and didn't start again until two years later. I'm glad I did: I might not have given it a fair reading or review back in 2001.

Having said that, Reppetto and Lardner have put together a decent history of the NYPD. And yet, I finished the book with an empty kind of feeling. Considering that Reppetto is a retired NYPD cop, I thought I'd get something deeper, more probing than this. For anyone familiar with New York history or the NYPD, there's nothing really new here. A lot of known ground is rehashed: the Police Riot of 1857, Teddy Roosevelt's reforms, the attempts to fight Organized Crime, and the lurid corruption scandals that seemed to recur with every new generation of cops. The cast of characters can be found in any book on the seamy side of New York City history: Alexander "Clubber" Williams, Detective Byrne, Lt. Becker, Serpico, etc. What I'm saying is that I had expected a book that would explain how the department evolved and detail its daily processes and procedures, and not a collection of anecdotes accumulated over 150 years of department history.

What is redeeming is the authors' willingness to admit to these episodes of graft and other crimes. Still, the point is clear that no matter how many corruption scandals have surfaced over the years, the ratio of honest cops compared to the dishonest ones is so disproportionate in favor of honest cops.

There are several sections that describe some of the lesser known heroes and heroics of individual police officers. These were enjoyable and, sometimes, inspiring. But nothing could be more inspiring than the sacrifices those 23 police officers made on September 11, 2001.

Rocco Dormarunno,
author of The Five Points

NYPD is a history of New York City and its police department. It does not relate the story of either very well. The specific weaknesses of NYPD are several: It's hard to follow. While presented in a decade by decade format, the chronology is still confusing. Accounts of various incidents end abruptly, or merely tail off to no conclusion. Characters appear, disappear and like magic appear once again. Too much attention is given to past riots and disorders. NYPD also concentrates far too many pages to corruption. This subject is way too old and common to rate the space the authors have devoted to it. Honest cops by comparison are downplayed. We are rarely placed in the street with the cops on the beat. The reader gets virtually no sense of tradition, honor, or bravery that many, if not all, policemen routinely display. Also conspicuous by it's absence is HUMOR! Cops must encounter howlingly funny situations all the time, yet the authors ignore this obvious subject. A final objection to the tale is the extreme tediousness of the portrayal of the department up until the great Depression years. The tone of NYPD improves after that but not enough to save itself. Non-NYC residents will receive no feel, no local flavor. It fails on that score too. The recommendation from this reviewer is to "search" elsewhere for superior political AND better police portrayals. Surely, amazon has them. It's depressing that a lifelong NYC native has to present such negative review. The answer to the question at the top is not why buy NYPD but why was it written in the first place?

NYPD is great storytelling and a great read of the history of the
how the NYPD evolved from 1830 to the present. While the book
does spend more time recounting scandals and villains than heroes,the scandals do make entertaining reading. What makes
it great history is how the writers show how politics, economics,
events and men (both great and small) shaped and molded the profession. Despite its breezy, entertaining anecdotal style, I found the book had considerable insight into the events that shaped and molded the police department as it has evolved today. Unfortunately, given the size of the NYPD, and the times they lived in , there have been a history of headline scandals followed by "reforms", that leaves you with the feeling "the more things change the more they remain the same" . . . . I did not feel NYPD was negative about the department-I felt the focus of the book was to show the evolution of the profession- which like every other profession has its villains, heroes, smart guys and dopes, much like the politicians who ruled them and the people they served -- finally - to be fair to the writers, sometimes scandals are a helluva lot more entertaining, funny and complicated than everyday good works --- my only critique perhaps is that the book seems to rush through the events of the last 30 years--(but most of these events were more familiar to most readers anyway)

A fascinating history of the NY police that shows that there's nothing really new under the sun. Heroes, scandals, police brutality, riots and murder have been with us since the beginning. But if you think you've heard it all before, there's a couple of stories here that will surprise you.

In the "Acknowledgments' OGD says he was advised to tell the truth, and he tried. But 'truth' is always accompanied by experience and opinion, which affect perception. "A Well-Regulated Militia: the Battle over Gun Control" is a better and more informative book.

Chapter 6 tells of the attempt to ban handguns in Calif (p.137); this was defeated overwhelmingly in the statewide referendum. It does name the multi-millionaire who paid for this attempt, but tells little more about the group. OGD explains Dukakis' defeat as due to NRA opposition (p.144), which provided the margin of victory to Bush I. Page 153 has some comments on the American Revolution. You'll find "What They Didn't Teach You About the American Revolution" a much better history book. OGD does not seem to understand the subject.

Chapter 7 deals with an NRA convention in April 1991; he seems to delight in media attacks on the NRA. Hasn't the monopolization of newspapers, radio, and TV been a factor in this? Whose side are they on? OGD notes that the 'Washington Post' attacked the right of the people to keep and bear arms for seventy-seven consecutive days in 1965! Was this just a way to control thinking and distract people from more important issues? Does anyone believe that they represent "public opinion" (p.168)? The bottom of page 168 mentions the willful ignorance of media workers. Those who work for a corporation learn their rules. Page 171 provides another example of OGD's censorship in writing about the attempt on President Reagan. he doesn't say if Hinckley was the son of Bush's best friend and business partner! Page 178 gives an example of OGD's twisted writing: the NRA did not support Bork because "he was unlikely to suppress the exclusionary rule" (bans evidence gained in illegal searches). What was that again? Bork's court favored the plaintiff with deep pockets; Bork resigned after this allegation.

Chapter 8 mentions the Brady bill, and quotes Sarah Brady as saying President Reagan was for it. Isn't that a self-serving statement? Didn't his biographer say he was senile in his second term? Page 202 mentions reports that were "almost uniformly exaggerated or wholly fabricated", an admission of biased reporting. Page 215 tells of the trick pulled to report out the DeConcini bill. Arlen Spector created the "magic bullet" theory used to explain the shooting of JFK and Governor Connally by a lone gunman.

OGD doesn't explain the politics of a "waiting period". This would prevent sales at weekend gun shows! Shutting down the computer would simply prevent all sales as well. Page 277 shows OGD believes Kellerman's story (a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder). Read the article yourself to see its limitations. In homes without a gun you are 99 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Hint: most violent deaths in the home are suicides; "died at home" is a code word for this in obituaries. OGD again shows his prejudice when he says "gun violence" (p.282). Half of all gun deaths are suicides; they can't be prevented by a fantasy like "childproof guns". Maybe you would do better to read "Armed" by Kleck and Kates on this topic.

The author has written books on other topics; he has no background on this one. OGD did try to hold back his biases, but they slipped out in many places. Chapter 1 tells of "The Stockton Lesson" and how it was exploited by Gun Prohibitionists to further their agenda. The real lesson is that the Establishment refused to hospitalize a sick, deranged individual; they would prefer to exploit any crazy attack that occurs in a "gun free zone". How many other walking time bombs are being released in the hopes of another incident? OGD's criticism of the volunteer NRA (p.22) shows he doesn't understand "Democracy in America"; DeTocqueville stated that voluntary association was the basis of democracy in America. Pages 28-29 document no infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, then. OGD does NOT mention the name of the group that paid for "sweeping legislation to ban or regulate a wide variety of firearms" (p.29). Pages 35-39 show how the NRA is a democratic organization responsible to its members. Compare that to the "Million Mom March Inc.", or the major political parties! The 1968 Gun Control Act banned mail order sales of guns and ammunition, even though this leaves a paper trail, and provides a delay for cross-checking!

Pages 63-81 has a good summary on the passage of the McClure-Volkmer law, reports that are usually censored in the corporate media. OGD's writing shows his bias here. Page 69 shows the difference between the politically appointed Justice Department and popular elected House members. Page 50 mentions a description of ATF as "jackbooted group of fascists ... a danger to American society", but doesn't mention why. Could it be Waco? There is no mention of Ruby Ridge either. Read the book "Tainting Evidence" for good information on both events.

There is another deliberately misleading or false statement on page 121. The rate of violent deaths in America is less than in Japan, but ahead of Canada. See how OGD constructs sentences to hide this fact! This is the typical dishonesty of Gun Prohibitionists. OGD also mentions the high gunshot death rate among young black males. Does this underline their oppression in our society? Psychologists know that concentrating laboratory rats creates aggression and violence. Are urban ghettos a "kinder, gentler" version of concentration camps? Hubert Humphrey wanted "good jobs at good wages"; didn't he also attack the 1968 Gun Control Act when running for President? Since crime is very low in South Dakota and Vermont (no gun control laws), could "gun control" be a scheme to generate business for urban hospitals (p.122)? Since 1987, 33 of the other 48 states passed "right to carry" laws that overturned WW I era laws. The book "More Guns, Less Crime" reports the results.

Another dishonest statement is on page 129: "opinion polls have showed consistent support for gun control". The 1976 Massachusetts referendum to ban all hand guns was soundly defeated! The truth is that these polls are rigged to get the answer that is desired! Page 135 shows another deliberate distortion of the Second Amendment. Those who passed the Bill of Rights did NOT want only the Federal Military to "keep and bear arms". That quote by W. Burger suggests the contrariness that accompanies senility. You will find William Weir's "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Battle over Gun Control" a better and more informative book.

Gray does a masterful job in documenting the founding of the NRA, as a quasigovernmental organization through the powerful lobbying organization it is today. It presents the story without any particular bias, exposing the infights and its hot and cold relationship with law enforcement.

The documentation of the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977, which brought Harlon Carter to power, thus giving the association its John Birch veneer, is unique. It was interesting to note that "jackbooted thugs" was a long-standing staple of the organization.

The story of the obstructionism, disguised as cooperation, in the Bush decision to ban imports of certain assault rifles shows exactly how powerful this group has become. The exposure of tactics such as smears of law enforcement officers, who had the audacity to enforce gun control laws, shows why this is an organization to be feared, and perhaps countered. The deceitful practices of fudging their membership roles, and framing the public debate to regulation equates to confiscation, through historical misrepresentation, is enough to give one a jaundiced ear to anything the organization says.

Gray doesn't hold back in his similar exposure of the proregulationers either. His description of the evolution of the "green apple" to become known as the "cop killer" is a case in point.

All in all, an excellent book, which fills a critical niche in the gun control debate, and it's confluence with contemporary politics.

This is a must-read if you really want to become truly informed about the NRA. A statement near the end of the book clearly reveals the thesis of the author. The author says something like "The NRA is not the evil empire that its enemies claim but neither is it a super patriotic defender of the constitution." The author goes on to explain that the NRA is simply a special interest group. The NRA's understanding of the second amendment is flawed. If gun-control is really unconstitutional then why are there so many gun-control laws in some areas of the US? No court has ruled those laws unconstitutional. The NRA has often tried to demonize those who support sensible and moderate levels of gun-control. Instead of addressing the issue logically, the NRA is content to resort to personal attacks and name calling by referring to such people as communists and comparing them to Hitler.

On the other hand, the book tells of how the NRA was right about cop killer bullets and plastic guns. A ban on all types of armor piercing bullets would have included many types of hunting and sporting ammunition. Plastics guns that can fire real bullets is a myth. A ban on such weapons is unnecessary. So if you are looking for a book that tells it all, then read this book.

Some reviewers have noted that "gun nuts" (et al) will complain about the bias that they tend to claim isn't there, but when you read the last chapter that was added after the first edition was published ("200,000 Bodies: The Battle Continues") it's painfully obvious. If after reading that chapter someone STILL claims there's no bias, the claim says a lot about that reader and little, if anything, about reality.

Still, Davidson does a good job, overall, of at least minimizing his (or her?) bias and reporting information, but the bias is still present enough to be obvious if you're not already biased as much or more than Davidson.

That said, it's still a good source of information on the NRA. Only religiously pro gun rights advocates can argue that the NRA is purely noble and beyond reproach without embarrassing themselves, and Davidson points out why, beyond the typical simple-minded, reactionary recrimination and myth-making (and buying) so often heard from uninformed, feeling-over-fact liberals and "we know what's best for everyone," social engineering, nanny-state democrats.

Mr. Williams book, despite its shocking title, neither proves the police to be "our" enemy nor offers any constructive suggestions as to how to correct existing police excesses. The book relies on the archaic concept of the "capitalist" or "ruling" class and the "worker" class as the basis for its argument. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Williams truly sees these divisions in 21st Century America. The current American service economy filled with small business people and contract labor is not the 19th Century of Mr. Williams' fond memory. He writes for a country of robber barons and oppressed workers that never existed. In his vastly simplified view of the Industrial Revolution, Mr. Williams idientifies the police as the iron fist of capitalist control of American society. It is a view that might have found more traction 100 years ago than today.

The only solutions he offers are policing without the state. The two hopeful examples he cites involve homogenous minority communities, without access to the perquisites of the majority. The people's court he cites as a sign of hope could not survive in a diverse society such as our own. He is also forced to readily admit that the solution he proposes was for the accused often worse than existing system.

The book is full of misrepresentations and inconsistencies that seriously undermine his basic thesis. He claims that while police are currently obessed with officer safety, policing is not a particularly dangerous line of work. He cites government statistics that show mining and agriculture as more deadly. This completely misses the point. The relevant statistic would be the number of homicides within a given field. Seen in that light, policing is suddenly much more dangerous than mining or agriculture. Mr. Williams tells of the Boston Police strike of 1919. While arguing that police are an unnecessary instrument of capitalist oppression, he tells of city overcome by looting, vandalism and gang rape when three quarters of the police went on strike. This would hardly seem to prove police unnecessary. Yet Mr. Williams seems unaware of this contradiction. This is not an isolated problem,but occurs throughout the book. Mr. Williams frequently cites court cases or the passage of laws as part of police abuses. Legislatures pass laws, judges interpret them, police enforce them. This distinction seems to elude the author.

This book is probably an enormous hit on college campuses where undergraduates can complain about the time a police officer caught them necking or made them pour out their beer and the injustice that represents. The greater injustice seems to me to be that Mr. Williams oppressed poor workers at the Soft Skull Press by making them print this nonsense and that he keeps this book from poor workers by charging $17.95 a copy.

Mr Williams exposes not only the extreme ignorance among the general population (as evidenced by the one-star reviews) of the United States regarding police abuse and corruption, but the institutions that benifit from the existance of a police force. It's no accident that those in positions of power rely on brute force to keep the "rabble" in line. Since 9/11 the violations into people's lives in the form of "sneak-n-peek searches", the TIPS program, spying into library reacords - and then threatening the librarians with prosecution if they inform anyone of this activity - is completely outrageous. The increasing number of unjustifiable searches and seizures, arrests and killings by the police in their "War on Drugs" fiasco has led to the biggest increases in prison populations and deaths. A greater increase in law enforcement does not mean a more protected populace; on the contrary, the more cops you have on the streets the more crime there is. Remember, police forces don't want to eliminate crime all together, because then there would be no reason for a police force, and all the graft and corruption that exists within them. Also, the culture of the police acts as a safe haven for those who have an authoritarian mentality. So, when the powers-that-be want your head clubbed by a cop, he shouldn't be that sympathetic towards your condition.

This book will appeal to those of you who are already educated to the reality that police exist for one reason and one reason alone : To maintain the current class order and hierarchies of society.
Let's be honest here. Poor people go to jail. Not the rich.
The idea that this book is filled with "distortions, lies, urban myths, twisted logic,absurd claims and bizare conlusions" (as one reviewer wrote) is certainly true if you've spent your life living in those wonderful, white, suburban hoods. If, however, you grew up in the neighborhoods consisting primarily of poor, black folk, you'll have no trouble seeing where the author is coming from. The fact that people either love or hate this book speaks volumes in and of itself. It proves many of the points the writer is trying to make. The police no longer 'protect and serve' the citizens of this country. If they ever did. They protect and serve the masters of America. The rich policy makers. The ruling white class.
You may not believe this, but that does not make it any less true.

This book is so full of distortions, lies, urban myths, twisted logic,absurd claims and bizare conlusions; that you wonder when reading it, if the author is really serious or the whole thing is some kind of Saturday Night Live parody. On the back cover where they print the endorsements you have Ward Churchill (of little Eichmans fame) and convicted cop executioner Muma. You think they must be kidding, who in their right mind thinks these guys endorsement adds to the credibility of your book.
One expects books like this to be biased and demagogic, but make some effort to be persuasive to those who may be sympathetic to their point of view.
Reading this book is like listening to a paranoid Schizophrenic ramble on about how the CIA has installed a listening device into one of there fillings. You are so tempted to say it's not the CIA, its the NSA that puts listening devices in peoples fillings.
I would read the 5 star ratings with some skepticism; I would interpret them as approvals of the premise not necessarily the quality of the content.

This book deftly serves up a wealth of material to try to convince your liberal friends (I'm presuming 'you' are a radical) that the police really are a pillar of racism and capitalism, and not simply a bunch of oppressed workers who don't understand that the protesters they are hitting on the head are actually on their side. But even better, Williams account has real intellectual substance, both historical and sociological. As history, he grounds the evolution of the police in the evolution of American racism, dating back to the slave patrols. As sociology, he scoops the 'bringing the state back in' crowd, which, for all its talk about the importance of looking at institutions of the state, has missed the growing autonomy and political power of the police in the US. My only kvetch is that he fails to look more than superficially at the roots of public support for the police--but I suppose you can't do everything in one book.

A fine book for anyone interested in understanding how the NRA has hijacked the issue of gun control in the U.S.. Spitzer's analysis is well-reasoned and presented clearly. I recommend this book highly.

Unlike one of the other previous reviewers, though I am generally a conservative, I would agree with this book's primary conclusion: the NRA has had a disproportionate impact on the politics of gun control.

The legal and constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment also does not seem to be much in dispute. Perhaps there is some evidence he does not cite for thinking that it goes back to an individual right to bear arms, but as conceived by those who wrote it, the Second Amendment was clearly intended to protect the rights of state militias.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this issue, scholar and lay reader alike.

I read this book because I was required to in College. It is painfully, obvious that it was written from a predetermined conclusion. The history of the NRA is especially vicious. The author chastises the NRA at several points for the NRA early support by Government by subsidies, use of Nat'l parks to train WWII soldiers how to shoot, etc. The author essential argument that anyone that has ever received support from Gov't has duty not to ever to oppose the government in anything. In the beginning he points out that this book he will not examine gun control polices in foreign countries, yet on several instances he cites them (Canada for instance) to make his point, but nevertheless totally neglects gun control failures such as England and Austrailia (See London Times 1/16/2000 for details on this) . He quickly glosses over concealed weapon laws citing statistics showimng their failure, when a number of policy studies have concluded the opposite that Concealed weapon laws do in fact reduce crime. If you want one-sided reading of gun control this is your best bet.

"Not concerned with the efficacy..." of gun control laws. That about sums up The Politics of Gun Control. Dr. Spitzer started out to write a book exploring the policy resolution ramifications of gun control, but along the way he got sucked into arguments for the pro and con of gun control, and ended up delivering a weak polemic for stricter gun control laws.

Dr. Spitzer's original question intrigued me greatly. How, in a civilized society, does one develop a rational and moral course of action when so many competing interests are so stridently opposed to each other? What are the proper roles of the courts, of the federal government (both legislative and executive branches), of local government, and of advocacy groups, in determining the proper direction for government policy? Sadly, after posing these questions, The Politics of Gun Control fails to deliver, beyond the superfluous finale that the gun control dilemma can be resolved by treating gun control similarly to international arms control. (Suffice it to say I was unconvinced.)

Alternatively, as pro-control literature, The Politics of Gun Control fails utterly. Unlike Dr. Kleck's Targeting Guns, The Politics of Gun Control offers little insight into the methodologies of the studies cited, why one may be better than another, and offers virtually no explanation of the plausible mechanisms that underlie quoted study's results.

For other examples of the failings inherent in The Politics of Gun Control, consider the following:

- Many of the significant citations are taken from newspapers and magazines. While this may be acceptable for anecdotal recollections, it is not sufficient for scientific analysis. When concluding that "easy accessibility of weapons" is a significant contribution to a rise in homicide, one expects a more respected source than the New York Times.

- In the section devoted to participants to the debate, twenty-three pages are devoted to a rather mean-spirited negative portrayal of the National Rifle Association, and only one page to Handgun Control, Inc. In one quote, the rabidly anti-gun Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center is passed off as a "policy analyst".

- The section lambasting the NRA for its position on KTW "cop-killer" bullets blatantly misrepresents critical facts: facts readily available in Osha Gray Davidson's Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control. The result is that readers like "A customer from Michigan" draw erroneous conclusions and disparage a stand that never was.

- The material on "assault weapons" contains the same fabrications reported in HCI's partisan literature, and fails to adequately deal with the objections raised by David Kopel and others. Left unanswered are such critical objections as the irrationality of a ban on "assault weapons" that are fundamentally indistinguishable from other, unbanned, semi-automatic firearms, and that far from being criminal weapons of choice, "assault weapons" are actually under represented in crime. Again, the result is that less knowledgeable readers complain of the non-existent "proliferation of automatic weapons." If a book can be judged by its results, this one failed miserably to produce enlightened readers.

- The claim that firearms are not regulated because they are not under the control of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, is demonstrably false. (Interestingly, Robert Delfray of the National Shooting Sports Foundation reports the CPSC exemption for firearms was instituted because HCI attempted to use the CPSC to ban "the sale of bullets for handguns.") Firearms are manufactured according to SAMI regulations (part of ANSI) in addition to a multitude of access laws, not that you could learn this from The Politics of Gun Control.

- The chapter on the interpretation of the Second Amendment fails to answer any of the arguments raised by pro Second Amendment scholars (who are not necessarily anti-control) such as Clayton Cramer, Robert Cottrol, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, Sanford Levinson and Lawrence Tribe. (Most of these authors have works available on Amazon.Com - I suggest you search and decide for yourself.) Many of these scholars appear in the endnotes, so obviously Dr. Spitzer has read their work, but their primary arguments are neither presented nor refuted. Of greater concern is that Dr. Spitzer's work promised to tell us what role, if any, should be assigned to judicial precedent, in deciding the future of gun control. Given that the courts have produced both good and bad decisions, how are we to know which ones are to be given credence and which consigned to the trash heap? After reading this chapter I was left with the feeling that Dr. Spitzer's criteria was based on which cases supported his preferred outcome.

On a general basis, I found especially irritating the emotive, value-based, unsupported, adjectives that are peppered throughout the text. I was looking for an alternative viewpoint, not consistent needling. For pro-control readers this may give you a warm glow; for more doubtful readers it may simply make you grit your teeth and reach for the markup pen.

In the final analysis, Dr. Spitzer begins with the twin propositions that the "purpose of government is to maintain order" and that the "purpose of firearms is the ... destruction of people, animals, and objects." Neither assumption is adequately supported; they are presented to be taken on faith. Perhaps, to one holding such beliefs, the burden of proof for the necessity of gun control is much lighter. To those who actually believe that governments are instituted to secure the blessing of liberty and that firearms are simply a tool for good or ill, The Politics Of Gun Control remains unconvincing.

I wonder if the reader from Glen Ellen CA and I read the same book? That review seemed to my mind an excellent example of tediously shaving facts to fit one's predilections- much more so than the actual work in question.

I do happen to agree with him in this regard- people who have already made up their minds about the issue will find the book irritating-- in much the same way that baseball fans are irritated by umpires.

Spitzer builds a case for stepping back from the issue far enough to see alternatives clearly, and to understand the larger forces driving the insanity of this battle over weapons of destruction.

The problem for Spitzer is that human beings consistently develop addictions to causes that allow them to release large amounts of adrenaline into their circulatory and central nervous systems in the form of rage, paranoia and righteous indignation. Actually solving the problem would be the equivalent of flushing one's favorite stash of drugs down the toilet. Those who don't want to see this battle over guns ended will find plenty of things to irritate and discomfort them in Spitzer's intelligent analysis.

Bill Sosa does an excellent job in writing this book. He shares his insight about Aikido and how it is applied to everyday life. I especially enjoyed the chapter on the 4 points of unifying mind and body. These are readily sounded off by many aikidoka, but rarely understood. (Ask any aikidoka to explain weight-underside) The real jewel in this book is that particular chapter. Aikido techniques are very difficult to learn from a book. While many techniques described in the book would seem to never be able to work, I can assure you from a first hand experience that every technique in the book works very well. The reader cannot understand or feel the way that the author is able to unbalance the opponent(uke), which is really the technique. This book should not be bought to learn aikido from. It should be used as a tool to try and understand the basics of the techniques and how the basics work. In addition, the reader can try to gain some insight into a man who has been involved in aikido for around 40 years.

Bill Sosa Sensei, an amazing teacher and artist, has put together a terrific review for both the advanced student and curious reader. He offers a concise history and philosopy of the art, illustrates exercises for training, and then brings the focus of the book to controlling tactics. The step-by-step photographs of these defenses will enable the reader to get a clear sense of their usefulness and obvious applicability to the street. Above all, the reader should know that Mr. Sosa is uniquely qualified to write on this topic. He has trained police officers and written a well-received manual applying aikido to law enforcement, and his practical, no-nonsense approach gives the student plenty of material to practice and ideas to apply. This is a must-read for beginner and advanced practitioner alike. Let Bill Sosa Sensei guide you in aiki! (Frank Thomas, PhD, Gokyu, Fort Worth

The First half of the book is the same as hundreds of other aikido books, about the second half: the techniques are badly explained, and the pictures are not any help.

I've read this book in few hours. As aikido apprentice (1st kyu) I jumped over the philosophical bla-bla to view those amazing techniques: the rear techniques are simple every-day's practice "ushiro-waza" with a gun in one hand. What if somebody stands in front of you pointing a gun in your mouth? And the knife techniques? People have to know that they have to train hard for several years before they can achieve the results shown in this book. Too many books about Aikido, anyway.

Having read the synopsis and previous reviews I had expected to open up a book on controlling tactics used by law enforcement professionals based on aikido techniques. How wrong can you be.

The first 67 pages are what you expect in a general book on the subject of aikido. The 21 Tactics shown left me stunned.

No17 sums it up. You cannot use this defence where an attacker bearhugs from behind around your elbows.

We teach self defence and practice these types of attacks on both males & females. The suggested raising of the arms to break the grip as you step back is a joke. The attacker is usually right agianst your body and you cannot step back or raise your arms.

There are numerous successful ways of defending agianst this type of attack but this is not one to be recommended.

Overall I was disappointed with the content and feel I waisted my money.