I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction. For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with the

I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction. For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with the imposition of martial law. Similarly, police delegations get sent overseas on UN missions. In my mind, the distinction is consent and source of authority. The military works by imposing rule, the definition of rule coming from a higher level. The police work by enforcing behaviour, as defined by the community they are policing. Granted that the definition of community is subjective. My argument is the definition of "community" should be the smallest one possible that allows a positive outcome in the current situation. For example in a noise complaint, the police could appeal to a sense of right, based on the expectations of people in the street. The law wouldn't even come into it, as that is something from "outside". Only if that's unsuccessful would the police have to broaden the definition of community to include statutes and external influences. ---- Edit: I'd also add that ultimately, the military is not bound by the law. Their final brief is "get the job done" and they will answer for war crimes if they stuff up.