Balancing Justice and Principle: A Police Officer’s Perspective on the January 6 Pardons

As a former police officer who dedicated my career to protecting my community, upholding the rule of law, and honoring my oath to the United States Constitution, I was and still am deeply troubled by the events of January 6, 2021. The attack on the Capitol represented not only an assault on the democratic process, but also a violent affront to law enforcement officers who risked their lives to protect the very foundations of our nation. It is both heartbreaking and enraging to see fellow officers harmed while fulfilling their sacred duty. As someone who spent decades on the job, I unequivocally despise the actions of individuals who assaulted police officers that day. I find it equally disturbing to see these offenders pardoned.

Yet, my commitment to justice and constitutional principles compels me to address another reality—one that is uncomfortable but necessary to confront. While the actions of January 6 must never be minimized, I also recognize that many individuals caught up in the aftermath of that day may have faced sentences that exceed the bounds of fairness or have been subjected to violations of their constitutional rights. Some of these individuals were swept up in the fervor of the moment without engaging in violence or destruction, while others may have been improperly charged or excessively punished under political pressure. For these individuals, I believe commutations or pardons may be warranted—not as a reflection of support for their actions but as an acknowledgment of our responsibility to administer justice fairly and proportionately.

This belief stems from a principle I have always held close to my heart: it is better for 100 guilty individuals to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. This concept, a cornerstone of our judicial philosophy, demands that we hold ourselves to the highest standards of fairness, due process, and constitutional fidelity—even in the face of heinous acts. Justice must not be a tool of vengeance; it must be a pursuit of balance, accountability, and truth.

After retiring from the NYPD in 2006 and working on tens of thousands of criminal cases and hundreds of homicides, I continue to serve the mission of law enforcement in a different capacity. Over the past 19 years, I have worked to provide cutting-edge technology to police departments nationwide. I have consulted and ensured that the technologies I support are applied ethically, responsibly, within the constructs of the Constitution, and in alignment with the policies of local police departments and municipal laws. This work reflects the same commitment to fairness and justice that guided me throughout my career, reinforcing my belief that the rule of law must be both respected and balanced with the protection of individual rights.

I understand that this position may invite criticism. Some may question my loyalty to my profession, my brethren in law enforcement, or my commitment to public safety. To those individuals, I say this: my dedication to my profession and to the safety of my community is unwavering. For over two decades, I worked tirelessly to serve and protect, to uphold the law, and to ensure that justice was served. For almost another two decades I support those active in their mission. My belief in the sanctity of the law and my fidelity to the Constitution remain at the core of who I am. It is precisely because of this loyalty—because of my understanding of the sacrifices law enforcement officers make every day—that I hold firm to these principles.

The oath I took as a police officer was not merely to enforce laws but to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That oath demands that I protect the rights of all individuals, even those whose actions I find reprehensible. It requires me to demand accountability for those who break the law while ensuring that the justice system does not overreach or trample on the rights of the accused. It is a delicate and difficult balance, but it is one that defines who we are as a nation and as a society.

The events of January 6 tested our democracy and our sense of justice in profound ways. They also tested our resolve to uphold the values that make us who we are. For me, despising the pardons of those who assaulted police officers does not conflict with my belief that fairness, justice, and constitutional protections must apply to everyone—friend, foe, or otherwise. To abandon those principles in the name of anger or retribution would be to betray the very ideals I swore to defend.

In the end, my dedication to my profession, my loyalty to my fellow officers, and my commitment to public safety are not diminished by my stance. Rather, they are reinforced by my belief that justice must always remain impartial, principled, and rooted in the Constitution. It is this balance—demanding accountability while upholding fairness—that ensures we remain a society of laws and not of men, where the rights of every individual are protected, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. That, to me, is the highest expression of loyalty to the badge, to my community, and to the United States of America.