Does a LEO fall under combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces?

Also, do EMT and EMS personnel fall under the protection of combatant status?

Militias and Partisans fall under combatant status. Always wondered if LEOs and EMS personnel did.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

You can probebly find your answers there.

Nope, they have no mention of the words "police" or "law enforcement".

police and law enforcement are not mentioned in any way in the Geneva Conventions. The convention dealt with armed conflict between nations, and as such, police were never considered to be combatants in any way, shape or form.

Dean.

Originally Posted by Dean

police and law enforcement are not mentioned in any way in the Geneva Conventions. The convention dealt with armed conflict between nations, and as such, police were never considered to be combatants in any way, shape or form.

Dean.

Definitely, and they shouldn't be, they are civilians.

Well, from all the stuff I have seen from Iraq. I see that the Iraqi national Police are working and fighting right along side of the military.

During WWII, The Germans had entire divisons made up of police officers. France's national police fall under that military police and I believe that Italy has a type of national police that falls under the military too. They start with a "C". Come on Italian Guy, you gotta know that one.

Law Enforcement is becoming more and more para-military everyday. With the war on terror and all. I believe that law enforcement officers and other personnel like them should be protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are armed servents of the state. Just like the military. And the military enforces law too in some countries.

Also, when I was but a pup, I read one of Tom Clancy's books. Sum of all fears. In it, when to Soviets cross into West Berlin, the German Polizei are also confronting soviet armoured units. That is what got me thinking of this whole thing in the first place.

Come on now 5.56, I thought you would be on board with me that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

It was last re-written in 1949 and even then had a rather idealistic view of war.

I'm sure scholars would say that when police engage soldiers they themselves become combattants but we know that with warfare these days it's all round peg warfare trying to be fit into square hole geneva convention.

If someone is firing a weapon at me in a war zone that person is considered a combatant. If the person is wearing civilian clothes or Medical patches etc doesnt matter. If that peson fires a weapon they become a threat to the life of me and my fellow servicemembers.

The Geneva convention is all well and good until your boots are on the ground and in harm's way. At least when it comes to combatant status. Then real life kicks in.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

If someone is firing a weapon at me in a war zone that person is considered a combatant. If the person is wearing civilian clothes or Medical patches etc doesnt matter. If that peson fires a weapon they become a threat to the life of me and my fellow servicemembers.

But Marinerhodes, the Geneva convention says you have to be a uniformed soldier to be considered a combatant otherwise you're unlawful.

But we all know that the same people that embrace the "Geneva convention" are the same people who condemn the guantanamo camp as inhumane and against the Geneva convention!

So by your reasoning, if you commit war and aren’t a uniformed servicemen then you are an UNLAWFUL COMBATTANT and are not subject to Geneva convention laws. Well that's just silly, everyone knows that terrorists shouldn't be thrown in Guantanamo camps! How dare you try and manipulate the Geneva convention to your own ends just to save the lives of your fellow marines just because YOU fight honorably and YOU wear uniforms instead of blowing up civilians and wearing civilian cloths until the uniformed soldiers' back is turned! You are supporting the evil empire and the Geneva convention says so!

I can say this because I'm a European and because I'm 2,000 miles away from 9/11 I can see things with clear eyes. You see, because you where impacted by 9/11 you just don't understand. Because I am so far separated from warfare and the deaths of my fellow man, I can tell you exactly what you should be doing. Because you might die you see the Geneva convention wrong, because I will live regardless however I interpret the Geneva convention I can dictate to you exactly what it means without prejudice.

See, marinerhodes, because you or your family is likely to be killed means you can't see the truth in the Geneva convention like someone who is so far away from danger can!

I hope now you understand how you are wrong and why the Geneva Convention is the bible... nay, the bible is trash compared to the supremacy of the Geneva convention. I hate to soil the Geneva Convention by comparing it to the bible!

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Law Enforcement is becoming more and more para-military everyday. With the war on terror and all. I believe that law enforcement officers and other personnel like them should be protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are armed servents of the state. Just like the military. And the military enforces law too in some countries.

Yeah, and it is very scary and annoying just how "paramilitary" Law Enforcement in the US is becoming.