@inthehandsPaul Cantrell as a veteran, I find the appropriation of military motifs by civil law enforcement extremely offensive, but also incredibly dangerous.

A particularly egregious example, that I wish people would address more often, is the use of the word "civilians" to describe people that are not whatever strain of police is using the term. "Civilians" refers to people within the general civil populace, as opposed to the military. The police (in all their various forms) are members of the civil society, and as such, civilians themselves.

Words have meaning, and those meanings matter. When we allow these subtle shifts in language, we normalize the militarization of police forces nationwide, but more than that, we reinforce the self-image of the police as separate from the rest of civil society. And history shows that when people view themselves as apart from civil society, they often see themselves unbeholden to the norms and ethics that govern civil society.

One can draw a pretty straight line from that to these guys cosplaying soldier, wearing full tactical gear, riding on MRAPs and HMMWVs, assault rifles on their shoulders like the movies, belt-fed automatic weapons mounted on turrets in the background for Kristi Noem's photo-ops. We, collectively, should have never let anyone get away with normalizing this from the second it started. Yet how many articles does one read in the press where no one ever bothers challenging a cop when they refer to the people that they've supposedly sworn to protect and serve as "civilians", as if they, themselves, are not?