Regarding artistic license, I periodically have these "discussions" with relatives about so-called "freedom of speech," especially as regards artistic expression, and have to remind the kind folks that the categories of speech that are especially deserving of protection in public are the ones that are specifically unpopular or otherwise controversial - why would not-controversial activity require protection, anyway?
This applies specifically to artistic expression, as artists are often the first ones to take the pulse of a culture. Painting images inspired by police or government activity, just like photographing them, should be included under this protected category of activity.
Regarding the responsibility of law enforcement personnel to uphold the laws and principles of the land, the owner of a salvage yard was once asked why he had such a mean rottweiler tied up in the yard behind the shop. He replied that the creature was not there to intimidate the shop's clients or guests, but rather was there to protect the shop after-hours from theft or vandalism.
I think the analogy fits here, in that we've permitted the rottweilers of our culture to run the whole show, and now they're driving off our good clients through fear and intimidation.
Guard dogs are good for only one thing, protecting the populace. But you don't want them running the whole show, c.f. Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Or, as a Dallas, Texas police officer was once overheard saying "A Police State isn't so bad - if you're the police."
~Joe
