The police are not a paramilitary force, they are a police force. They shouldn't be purchasing tanks in order to compensate for the billions our country wastes on the military every year.

@bo- I am not fighting that they are held to a higher standard I am agreeing with you. To the extent that they are held to such a higher standard that it is a different standard, and should prosecuted and judged in a higher standard court.

"the police are already considered a paramilitary force."

They shouldn't be.

No, they shouldn't. They're still civilians. Soldiers are not tried in civilian court because they are military, not civilians. Unless you want to make police work a non-civilian profession, which will only give them more reason to feel high-and-mighty, you're talking nonsense.

They aren't, abge. The Stasi and the SS are. The 2nd Precinct in your local suburb is not.

@bo- but they are. a paramilitary force is defined as a force having a structure similar to that of a military and carries out operations similar to a military force. Police do buy tanks they are not weaponized but they are armored vehicles, they do buy military grade weapons, they do buy body armor, they do have a similar structure, and they do carry out similar operations.

Yes, but they shouldn't.

@bo- you are arguing with a U.S Army Cadet who literally studies the UCMJ, the differences between paramilitary, military, and militia (police forces are considered paramilitary for the reasons I just listed) about what a paramilitary unit is. I mean I am not saying you dont have an opinion but I am not stating an opinion I am stating a definition defined by global international military doctrine.

1.) Police forces buy tanks because the federal government has extra, not because the government thinks they deserve them. Don't you know that everything in Washington revolves around money?

2.) Civilians can buy military grade weapons. Hell, civilians can technically buy non-weaponized tanks too. Just ask Arnold.

3.) Civilians can buy body armor. I have some, though it's antique.

4.) What is structure to you?

5.) Our military carries out similar operations to a police force because we for whatever reason think our military has the right to be a police force. Most militaries don't.

I don't care who you are, CB. You only have credibility before you waste it with stupid arguments. You should have pulled that card first.

@everyone- nobody wants a "paramilitary" police force until a major riot happens and their own house gets destroyed, then it becomes "why didn't our police have armored vehicles and the means to prevent this?" or a school gets put under seige and 50 students are slaughtered and it becomes "why werent the police responsive enough, where was the body armor, and lethal weapons?"

I think you ALL are inflamed with justified rage over an unnecessary death but fail to realize that making a separate judicial system only puts a tighter thumb on the police. The UCMJ has a higher rate of success than civilian courts. A seperate system can would (like the UCMJ) be written by a civilian agency, likely the DOJ (UCMJ was written by the DoD), and would be much more responsive.

I think everyone should realize that sometimes we are just scared to admit reality. reality is that our police are paramilitary and that it helps them protect us. sometimes they make mistakes or commit crime, and should be put to trial as such. But just in a separate system. That wouldn't make them "more militarized" it would give them more over-sight and protect everyone.

You seem to think that the police need to do the National Guard's job.

@bo- Police carry-out raids / military carry-out raids
police defend objecties (like escorting politicians and presidents) / military defends objectives

I mean you can make your empty arguments but reality is they are paramilitary.

@bo- well it seems the national guard is already doing theirs.....

and no. The national guard is: a subsidizing force for emergencies and a state run military to defend from foreign or domestic attack that can respond with the same lethal intent as the army.

I can make my empty arguments? Are you kidding? If you're getting tired, leave. I've got all night. You telling me my arguments are empty when you a) haven't bothered responding to them, and b) just said police is paramilitary because they "carry out raids" and "defend objectives" - yet I'm the one making empty arguments? Get your thoughts together and don't get mad when you're wrong.

Do you not consider violent riots in residential areas or schools under siege an emergency that the state should intervene in? I sure do.

@bo- You have stated that police should be held to a higher standard... I agree. And you said I "seem to think that the police need to do the National Guard's job".... the national guard right now is doing the polices job in baltimore right now... if they are interchangable then I think my argument stands that the police are a paramilitary force.

The National Guard is doing the National Guard's job. They got called in to quell a violent riot. Local police should not do that; that's why the Guard is there.

the guard was not established to quell riots. It was established as a means of defense for the individual states who were afraid of large federal military power in 1776. Over time they have adopted roles regularly performed by local police including: riot control, natural disaster relief and preparation, and routine patrols when a police force is suspended.

you are operating under several civilian misconceptions. I am just trying to argue that we should have a separate court for police which would hold them to the higher standard that you even said they should be held to. In the end we are arguing over whether police are paramilitary, not that they should or shouldn't be held to a higher standard. so for argument sake and because i really dont care about what we label our police hell we can call them the muppets for all I care, what I want is better training, and better oversight. In the form of a separate higher court of law.

Exactly. Horses and bayonets. The Guard's role has changed, but they are still the paramilitary force of our nation (and can be military when overseas or defending, but it's been 70 years since we have needed defense against another nation). Police is not paramilitary; we just have wacko tendencies to give crazy powerful things to civilians.

You want a military court for police, but I am saying that police are civilian, and civilians have their own court. If you're gonna define police as civilian, they go to civilian court. Simple as that.

@bo- again, I dont want to argue about the definiton of paramilitary.

do you agree police should be held to a higher standard?

would a court which holds police to a higher standard not accomplish that?

Er... the National Guard was created during the reign of President Wilson, almost a century and a half after 1776. It was designed to be far more pliant to the diktats of the central regime in Washington than the state militia system that preceded it.

but how can you hold someone to a higher standard in a equal standard court? that leaves far too much room for subjective opinion to muck up the trial.

If you don't want to argue the definition of paramilitary and fight me on the idea that police are civilians, then you can't tell me police shouldn't go to civilian court. They should be held to a higher standard by their bosses - you and me. We should charge and convict them in court of what they've done. We should make them wear body cameras, like you said. If your dash/body cam magically goes off for two minutes and something ridiculous happens in those two minutes, you ought to be a huge suspect and your word should be taken with a grain of salt. We should continue to film them at work. We should expect that, if anyone does, the civilian court will determine whether we live or die, not police. That has nothing to do with a police tribunal.

There is no subjective opinion in a court of law. Law is objective. It applies universally.

"There is no subjective opinion in a court of law. Law is objective. It applies universally."

Except it is executed by men, who are incapable of being 100% objective. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors - all have subjective opinions that they apply to the legal process, whether they know it or not.