>> I agree, but the judge’s decision isn’t entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions “soldiers” and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers.
>
> The police are constantly referring to us as “civilians”, so the “soldier” epithet should stick.
More [dis]concerting is the military-style equipment, gear, and tactics.
I think a good case could be made that they *are* “soldiers” — take pictures of soldiers geared up and police geared up and present it to the jury... but that presupposes that the jury would be allowed to try the facts of the case as well as the law.
A good point for any attorney reading this.