Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

Before I begin my official argumentation, let me make my stance clear.My stance is to maintain the status quo in terms of the police's "militarization". I am NOT rooting for neither MORE or LESS militarization.------Oh, the irony.Under the same source, http://www.policeone.com..., if one bothers to read just a paragraph below my opponent's quoted section, one can find this gem:"...Also for that first one-and-one-half years with the new uniforms, assaults on the Menlo Park police decreased by 30% and injuries to civilians by the police dropped 50%. (end of PRO's quotation)(next paragraph, same source)***These changes were originally thought to have been a result of the uniform changes but there were other factors at work at the same time. The number of college educated officers in the department increased dramatically and the traditional autocratic management style of the department was abolished during this same time period. In 1977, after wearing the blazer style uniform for 8 years, the Menlo Park Police Department realized that the sport coat uniform did not command respect and returned to a traditional, paramilitary-style uniform. A final evaluation showed that although assaults on officers had dropped during the first 18 month of wearing the new uniforms, the number of assaults steadily began to rise again until the rate was double that of the year before the uniform change occurred. During the four years after the Menlo Park police returned to a traditional style uniform the number of assaults against their officers dropped steadily.***"It continues:"...An officer in plain clothes is at risk of being harmed by citizens and other officers as a result of misidentification. Almost any police officer would immediately draw his or her weapon on a person who is wearing jeans, a T-shirt, and is carrying a gun in his or her hand. A plain clothes officer who is chasing a burglary suspect through backyards at night is at risk of being shot by a home owner who believes the officer to be a criminal. The uniform helps both citizens and fellow police officers identify the wearer as having a legitimate purpose for trespassing, using force, or carrying a weapon." This tells us a couple things.Did my opponent get to lazy with the cursor? Or was he too busy orchestrating a heist?Anyways, this starts off my first round of rebuttals, of which i will be working through in a slightly different order.1. Paramilitary Style UniformsAs the source above showed us, once the glamor and hilarity of the new blazers wore off, citizens began disrespecting and disobeying the officers even further, to the point where the rate of violence against officers was twofold. This-- from the same source as PRO's argument-- clearly shows us that adopting a "community-friendly" uniform does not work, nor does it reduce crime in any fashion. On the contrary, NOT having paramlitary uniforms INCREASE crime!Instead, it is the differentiating uniforms that saves lives by preventing suspect misidentification.2. Riot ProvocationOn the other hand, police vehicles such as MRAPS have actually SAVED lives.The USA TODAY states:"Belmar [police chief of Ferguson PD] noted that during the protests, his officers used heavy-armored equipment to help retrieve a gunshot victim. The county chief also noted that there were five shootings in a six-block area near where the protests occurred where the vehicles aided in rescue, and there were several incidents where police and armored vehicles were struck by gunfire during the unrest."Also, the theories of the Occupy movement were NOT proven by riots in LA and Ferguson.The PoliceOne (same sourced used by PRO) states:"In one experiment test subjects were presented with color photos of two traditional paramilitary-style uniforms. One of the uniforms, consisted of the dark navy blue shirt and pants that is so commonly worn by municipal police agencies today. The other traditional uniform was that typical of California sheriff deputies, consisting of a khaki shirt and dark green pants. Although both uniforms ranked similarly as good, honest, helpful, and competent, the lighter colored sheriff uniform rated noticeably higher for warmth and friendliness. This finding is significant since the shertiff uniform only has a light colored shirt, with the pants still being very dark. It would appear that a uniform which is only half dark sends a better message that the all blue/black uniform."This shows that the color of a uniform can change an attitude. This might seem contradictory at first.HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that we don't need paramilitary uniforms. Those khaki uniforms are still, by definition, "paramilitary". And as I have proven above, by NOT donning such uniforms we run a higher risk of injuries for both officers and citizens.Changing the color of a paramilitary uniform has nothing to do with demilitarization.3. "Swatting"Swatting has nothing to do with this debate.Whether or not a city has a small or large SWAT team, if someone calls 911 and says they see a bomb at their school, THAT CITY WILL SEND A SWAT TEAM. NO MATTER WHAT. PERIOD. This is for the general safety of the people, since we cannot risk the possibility of it being a real bomb. The size and militarization of the SWAT team is irrelevant.To sum up, I've refuted to all three of my opponen'ts arguments while the PRO has not yet rebutted against my arguments. I've used PRO's own evidence to prove them wrong, and PRO have yet to answer the burden I've set for him/her the last round.