After reviewing the first 30 minutes of the Shawn Ryan interview with Brian Harpole, several issues became immediately apparent—particularly regarding Mr. Harpole’s background, mindset, and approach to protective work.

A Law-Enforcement Mindset in a Private-Protection Role

What stood out right away:

» Harpole approached private protection like a police agency.
Much of what he described—training, structure, vetting—mirrored the framework of a traditional law-enforcement unit. As someone who served in a German special police unit (USK), I recognized these patterns instantly.

» His training focus was entirely tactical and hands-on.
Everything centered around action-based methods, not behavioral analysis, pre-attack indicators, or threat-management principles.

» He tried to transplant a “corps” or “unit” mentality into a field where individual judgment, soft skills, and threat-mitigation strategies matter far more than aggressive cohesion.

Whenever his experience was questioned, he leaned on his police background as if it automatically carried over into the executive-protection world. It does not.

---

The Critical Distinction: Law Enforcement vs. Private Protection

Speaking as someone who transitioned from a specialized police unit to over a decade of private protection, I can state this plainly:

A standard LEO has zero foundational knowledge of professional private protection.

Law enforcement is about enforcing the law.
Private protection is about preventing harm, controlling exposure, and shaping environments before threats materialize.

These professions share uniforms and radios—nothing more.

With that in mind:

➡️ Brian Harpole should never have been placed in a management position immediately after leaving the police force.
➡️ Nothing in routine law-enforcement work prepares someone for VIP protection.
➡️ Experience as a patrol officer, SWAT member, gang-unit detective, or military operator does not equate to expertise in private protection.

If that statement is difficult to accept, the following section will make it clearer.

---

A Reality Check for Law-Enforcement Operators Entering EP

If you are a current or former LEO and you aspire to work in executive protection at a management or leadership level, here is a small sample of the knowledge you must possess.

These questions are straightforward for professionals from agencies like the U.S. Secret Service—yet 99.9% of former patrol officers, SWAT personnel, gang-unit operators, and even military special-operations members cannot answer them correctly.

Explain the Following:

1. What Is a Tactical Observation Point (TOP)?

Describe both:

• Defensive uses (advance warning, early threat detection, behavioral observation).
• Offensive considerations (controlling angles, isolating exposures, identifying hostile surveillance).
• How an adversary could exploit the same position.

If your answer comes from a police-sniper or SWAT perspective, it will immediately reveal inexperience. The private-protection context is completely different.

---

2. What Actionable Steps Increase Your Odds of Spotting an Attacker in a Large Crowd?

If your answer includes “a sixth sense” or “intuition”—as Harpole suggested in the interview—you are unqualified.

A correct answer touches on combat profiling, baseline deviations, and techniques such as:

• Labeling
• Pre-attack indicators
• Proxemics
• Kinetic cues

These concepts do not exist in standard police academies.

---

3. On a Two-Person Protection Team, What Are the Roles and Responsibilities?

You must know:

• Primary / Detail Leader
• Secondary / Support
• How responsibilities shift dynamically during movement, threats, or environmental changes
• How to communicate transitions without broadcasting them
• How to maintain the protectee’s bubble with only two operators

Most LEOs cannot articulate these roles in a VIP-protection context—because they’ve never been taught them.

---

Why This Matters

When someone without the proper foundation is placed in charge of a political figure—or any VIP—the result is predictable:

• Gaps in planning
• Misjudged environments
• Incorrect staffing assumptions
• A tactical, reactionary mindset instead of a protective one

This was on full display in Brian Harpole’s interview.

And this is why a proper analysis—backed by actual protective experience—is needed.