= new reply since forum marked as read
and you still would be in favor of restricting their first amendment rights.
So now you WANT them to be "basically a civilian military"?
Like I said, you are favoring making America MORE of a police state, even while you claim it IS a police state because it is not as much of a police state that you want it to be.
I'm starting to get dizzy here 
They also disrespected one of their own with a childish display at the funeral of Officer Ramos. You know what they said, it's 'ALL ABOUT ME'. No honor for the dead, no respect for the officer or Eric Garner that was strangled to death by their own.
The protesters deserve their first amendments rights as well.
Here is the PD response to them
Question for you, who is policing the police? And whyb do they have a right to protest and others do not?
Excellent question, can you answer it for me?
depend on how severely they want to crack down?
Yes it does. I predict the crackdown will become more severe. 
po·lice state
noun: police state; plural noun: police states
a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.
since the middle of the 20th Century, the term has "taken on the emotional and derogatory meaning of a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the police."[1]
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[2] Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat ("legal" or "constitutional" state) with the aristocratic Polizeistaat ("police state"
.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état or mass insurrection).[1]
Both totalitarianism and military dictatorship are often identified with, but need not be, an autocracy. Totalitarianism is a system where the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society. It can be headed by a supreme dictator, making it autocratic, but it can also have a collective leadership such as a commune or political party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
criminal defendants is deeply flawed. There is hardly a defendant alive (to not say "none" that doesn't know about and understand Miranda warnings. They are not so stupid to believe cops'
statements about "if you cooperate with us it'll go easier for you" and most defendants are quick to "lawyer up" (a derogatary term much loved by the RW). The days of cajoling a criminal defendant into voluntarily waiving his/her Miranda rights are long gone.
in parts of Soviet Russia. People who fled there to come to a place like this can tell you what it's really like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
.[3]
The Soviet Union and its many satellite states, including East Germany and those that were part of the Soviet bloc, had extensive and repressive police and intelligence services (such as the KGB); approximately 2.5% of the East German adult population served as informants for the Stasi.[9]
Nazi Germany, a dictatorship, was brought into being through a nominal democracy, yet gradually exerted more and more repressive controls over its people in the lead-up to World War II. Nazi Germany was indeed a police state, using the SS and the Gestapo to assert control over the population from the 1930s until the end of the war.[10]
During the period of Apartheid, the South African government maintained police state attributes such as banning people and organizations, arresting political prisoners, and maintaining segregated living communities and restricting movement and access.[11]
Other examples at link.
Do throw water on the hyperbole.
We're in a police state wrote the free man on the internet that is being monitored by the NSA. 
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[2] Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat ("legal" or "constitutional" state) with the aristocratic Polizeistaat ("police state"
.The term "police state" was first used in 1851, in reference to the use of a national police force to maintain order, in Austria.[4] The Oxford English Dictionary traces the phrase "police State" back to 1851. The German term Polizeistaat came into English usage in the 1930s with reference to totalitarian governments that had begun to emerge in Europe.
Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However, the degree of government repression varies widely among societies.
In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between freedom and national security often tips in favour of security. This shift may lead to allegations that the nation in question has become, or is becoming, a police state.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
I'd like to head it off at the pass, if it's all the same to you.
Exactly !!!
Nothing made that more clear than when Occupy started the protests in NYC,
and THIS happened:
Our problem is "too damned many people in the country, which leads to complacency and lack of interests in changing the laws…?
And, would you care to explain THAT one?
So I will have to kick&rec this thread! Just for that one reason alone! 
Funny watching cop/control freak wannabees defend our version of a modern police state. Well, pathetic really but they've been doing it since the beginning of DU1.
Glad to see nobody falls for their pile of shit anymore. It was sad to watch on DU1 and DU2. Looks like DU3 is not having any of it!
Would that satisfy the semantical differences we are encountering?
There is little disagreement over the issues. Few are disputing that the police are militarized, tend toward brutality, are protected from prosecution, and are hypocritical of civil rights.
But we can post about it! So this can't be a police state. 
I propose the compromise term, "policeish" to denote a state where police can exceed their legal authority, assault and arrest peaceful assemblies, and they are covered and exonerated by the system.
--imm
