Print Contact Articles by Subject The Cure for Disinfo Bollyn Statement on the Importance of Non-Violence

Bollyn Statement on the Importance of Non-Violence

A physical therapist examined my right arm last week and determined that I am still unable to extend it fully, one full year after my right elbow was fractured in an act of police brutality. I cannot straighten my arm and suffer pain in the elbow because it was broken by three armed thugs of the Hoffman Estates police department one year ago on 15 August 2006.

The three "tactical officers" who were involved in breaking my right elbow and TASERing me while I was held down and restrained are: Michael Barber, Timothy Stoy, and Darin Felgenhauer. I hold these men and their supervising officers fully accountable for the injury and suffering they have inflicted on my family.

In my frustrated attempt to obtain justice through the court for the brutal police assault that I and my family suffered, I discovered that there is a host of characters involved in supporting the extremely corrupt judicial system in Cook County (Chicago). From the judge on down, there are scores of people who support this terribly flawed system of justice that only promotes injustice. This includes the prosecuting and defense attorneys, the office of the clerk, the county sheriff and police departments within the county.

I am a non-violent person who is the victim of police brutality. I still cannot straighten my right arm. I have no idea what internal injuries I have suffered as a result of the "drive stun" of 50,000 volts that was delivered to my lower back as I was held down by two "peace officers" of the Hoffman Estates police department.

I do know that Officer Tim Stoy knelt with his full body weight on my right temple (a fact which Felgenhauer testified to in court) for about two minutes and that this non-police lethal hold could have very easily caused brain damage and death.


I also know that Officer Michael Barber conspired, prepared, and delivered the "drive stun" from his TASER weapon while he and Stoy held me down with my left hand cuffed behind my back and my right arm trapped beneath my body. Because I was not resisting in any way and was fully restrained, Barber's TASERing of me can only be considered as torture with the intent to injure or kill.

I hold these men, and their superiors, fully accountable, and will do what I can to obtain justice. But would I do such a thing to them if our positions were reversed or if I had the chance for revenge? Would I inflict violence or torture on them?

No. I would not because I don't use violence. I see violence and torture as uncivilized and un-Christian.

I saw the corrupt officers who tortured me and broke my arm giving each other "high fives" when I went to court the first time. I didn't know then that the police in Chicago and Cook County always get off. Torture has been used by the police in Chicago for decades and according to a series of articles in the Chicago Reader, the police involved in such torture have never been held accountable for the lies they tell in court.


I listened how Stoy and Barber told bold-faced lies on the stand. They said they smelled alcohol on my breath from 10 feet away, for example, and that I clenched my fists and threatened the three armed and armor-clad officers. They said I then resisted their arrest, flailed my arms, and did three push-ups with two men on top of me.

Both Stoy and Barber told the court that the other guy had called out "TASER" before the TASER shock was delivered. Logic dictates that either both men are either both lying or one is lying and the other has forgotten what he did that day.

I, for that matter, know that both men are lying because I didn't hear either man on top of me say anything before I felt a square object placed against my lower back prior to the delivery of the electrocution-type shock. One was above my head and the other was on top of my back so I would have heard if either of them had said "TASER, TASER, TASER," as Barber said Stoy shouted.

Neither one of them said anything - not one damn word.

Against the protest of my attorneys, Judge Hyman Riebman allowed Barber to give false testimony about the effects of a "drive stun" TASER shock.

Barber, who is not an expert on the effects of TASER shock, told the court that such a 50,000 volt shock only affects an area of about 1 square inch and has only the power of a small Christmas light. This is utter nonsense but Riebman allowed Barber to speak as an expert on the effects of TASERing.

The police lies only continued and grew as the prosecution said that I had called 911 in order to start a fight, ignoring the fact that the tactical team had interfered with the 911 response and taken over the call from the uniformed officer who had been dispatched to my house. If a uniformed officer had responded to my non-emergency call there obviously would have been no cause for any alarm.

See: http:/;read=100543

Is violence an answer to any of the problems that plague the police?

No. I do not support violence as a solution and never have. I am a journalist and a writer, not a provocateur. I am convinced that the violence that I suffered in August 2006 was inflicted on me because of my journalism. The evidence clearly indicates that the Hoffman Estates police conspired to use violence on me long before the three-man "tactical unit" arrived at my house. Although the actions of Barber, Stoy, and Felgenhauerare clearly reprehensible, and I and my family have suffered immensely as a result of their criminal actions, I would not wish any violence upon them.

Violence does not solve anything and only results in more pain and suffering. I say this because I am very concerned with the discussion of violence that I see on the Iamthewitness. com website. This website is run by Eric Hufschmid and an Internet radio host known as Daryl B. Smith, who lives in France.

"We may have to kill all of them."

In a recent article entitled "Battle Plan," the website uses language that implies the use of violence to "eliminate our infestation of parasites." While I certainly agree with the need to remove the sources of corruption of our financial, political, and judicial systems, I completely disagree with the notion that violence is the solution to the problem.

It is counter-productive, extremely foolish, and irresponsible for Hufschmid and Smith to say things like this on their website:

"Alex Jones and other Zionist Deniers often imply that the only way to stop "them" is with violence. We should consider the possibility that he is telling us the truth. The Rothschilds, Oppenheimers, Chertoffs, and everybody else in this Zionist crime network may never give up. We may have to kill all of them."

"If violence erupts, the FBI and police may have to be our first targets."


I would hope that Eric Hufschmid would have the intelligence and common sense not to say such things. Doesn't he realize what he asking for by saying such things? Perhaps Eric should read what happened to Matt Hale. He has been imprisoned for 40 years for simply being the inspiration for a killer of a judge's family in Chicago.

This language could easily be seen as "hate speech" or inciting violence. With comments like these Hufschmid and Smith are going out on very thin ice - legally. This is nowhere I would want to go. I would strongly urge them to remove such comments and stick to the moral high ground. Such violent language marginalizes them - and their message. Don't they see that?

Hufschmid urges me to speak on his Internet radio show but I simply cannot and would not want be seen as supporting such calls for violence. I can not associate myself with people who are seen as supporting violence. It is that simple.

It is against my nature to promote violence. Furthermore, it is extremely unwise and counter-productive to do so.

Has violence solved anything in Palestine and Iraq? Has violence advanced any peace anywhere - ever? Have the Israelis achieved anything with all their killing and weapons? Has the American and British use of force in Iraq brought democracy, peace, or prosperity to that beleagured nation?

No, no, no.

Armed resistance, on the other hand, such as that of the Hezbollah in south Lebanon, is the legally and morally justified resistance to an armed invasion. The Intifadah of Palestine is fully justified as the legal resistance to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. These resistance movements are defensive, essential, and legal and I certainly would not condemn them. 

©2022 Christopher Bollyn | Sitemap | christopher at bollyn dot com