This is exactly how I'd frame any situation to defend any argument or position no matter how inappropriate it is.
Dressing up police like soldiers and letting them rip on harmless and unarmed people is most definitely not the same as soldiers in a declared conflict making collateral damage while fighting a genuinely dangerous army armed to the teeth. Soldiers dress like soldiers because they have to go fight other soldiers and face machine gun or sniper fire, mortars, IEDs, grenades, tanks, etc. Police dresses up like soldiers to fight some people with a bandanna and a passive aggressive sign. Are you telling me that's the same?
Unless a country declares war on its citizens the police should not be allowed under any circumstances to treat them as an enemy combatant. And it doesn't even matter really, the fact that the US Army is more that willing to commit war crimes should have no impact on what the Police does to its citizens.
This is what happens when common sense stops being common, when people no longer understand "appropriate force" and "proportionality".
US citizens deserve the same response in daily life from a police under the "serve and protect" banner that an enemy combatant gets from the opposing military during an active conflict? You can't treat every citizen as if they are the worst possible one. If you got this "you could be the worst ever" treatment in any other situation you would certainly not find acceptable to reference the fact that the army also does it while in a war.