Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He is appointed by the President and may be fired at will by the President..Congress only has "advice and consent" Negative, the AG is subject to confirmation. You just agreed with me...advice and consent is confirmation...he can be fired without any Congressional action...that means he  serves at the whim of the  POTUS I guess I am partially agreeing with you.  The term we should be using though is "nominated," not "appointed."  The president nominates and the Senate confirms.  And yes, POTUS does the firing.

I think it is usually considered that the person who can fire you is your boss.

Quoted: I take nothing away from LEOs.  It's a thankless job full of risk and danger and I'm glad we have those willing to do it.  The LEOs I know are some of the best folks I have ever met. To your last question, why does it "minimize" LEOs to be considered civilians ? After all, this is the point of this thread, is it not ?

Being referred to as a civilian is fine by me.  What is interesting is that with some who harbor resentment toward LEOs, they take glee in pointing out they are a rung below as civilians.

I've known several retiring military officers who almost universally joke that they are being promoted to civilian.

Quoted: Quoted: I take nothing away from LEOs.  It's a thankless job full of risk and danger and I'm glad we have those willing to do it.  The LEOs I know are some of the best folks I have ever met. To your last question, why does it "minimize" LEOs to be considered civilians ? After all, this is the point of this thread, is it not ? Being referred to as a civilian is fine by me.  What is interesting is that with some who harbor resentment toward LEOs, they take glee in pointing out they are a rung below as civilians. I've known several retiring military officers who almost universally joke that they are being promoted to civilian.

It's not about a "rung below" or above.... its about creating a seperation that doesn't, and shouldn't, exist. You shouldn't feel you're a "rung above", so how is being a civilian in any form a rung below how you perceive yourself?

I am a soldier. I don't see civilians as being below me in any way, shape, or form simply due to that status.

Quoted: It's not about a "rung below" or above.... its about creating a seperation that doesn't, and shouldn't, exist. I am a soldier. I don't see civilians as being below me in any way, shape, or form simply due to that status.

If the main thrust of people's objections involve perks, like LEO only guns, I understand.  I feel uncomfortable with the concept as well.  

At least in California, there are two reasons for that happening.  

The first, and only one actually stated openly, is that most police department can't afford wazu weapons.  That is a true statement, as most departments operate on a tiny budget.

The second, is that the legislature knows it needs the support of law enforcement or they are hosed.  Fair or not, it's the truth.

There were so many LEOs who had no clue about the AW bill in California, the legislature had to run another bill a year later to allow them late AW registrations.  I think it should have been extended to all Californians.

Quoted:... Let's take a cop and a soldier and put them in my little scenario: They are together at a restaurant "off-duty."  The establishment is robbed, and an employee is killed.  The dynamic duo simply leave and offer no help to responding police.  The penalty for the soldier (correct me if I'm wrong UCMJ-wise) is nothing.  The cop is fired. Why is there such a leaning on this board toward minimizing the role of police in America?  Take them out of the equation and there is total anarchy - meaning no country possible.  The same is true for soldiers.

I do not see your point.  You seem to be interpreting "civilian" as somehow meaning "less important" - I am not sure where you get that.

In fact, civilian law usually trumps military law (except on specific federal installations) - and we have civilian control over the military in this country.

So what if LEOs are obligated in most agencies to act in certain situations.  WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION?

The cop would have to be drafted into the military in order to be ordered anywhere by the POTUS.  The soldier would not.  Why - because the cop is a civilian.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I take nothing away from LEOs.  It's a thankless job full of risk and danger and I'm glad we have those willing to do it.  The LEOs I know are some of the best folks I have ever met. To your last question, why does it "minimize" LEOs to be considered civilians ? After all, this is the point of this thread, is it not ? Being referred to as a civilian is fine by me.  What is interesting is that with some who harbor resentment toward LEOs, they take glee in pointing out they are a rung below as civilians. I've known several retiring military officers who almost universally joke that they are being promoted to civilian. It's not about a "rung below" or above.... its about creating a seperation that doesn't, and shouldn't, exist. You shouldn't feel you're a "rung above", so how is being a civilian in any form a rung below how you perceive yourself? I am a soldier. I don't see civilians as being below me in any way, shape, or form simply due to that status.

Quoted: But the point is there ARE penalties involved. There are NO penalties if a LEO wishes to walk away. Why does it bother some LEOs that they are civilians ?

I think the only reason it might bother some LEO's (and it's not all LEO's) and this mind you is my opinion... might be because as LEO's you don't want them to be considered a higher authority then other citizens of the community...... but remember the same people who say this are screaming for harsher penalties simiply as a result of their position in a community should they committ a crime.  You can't hold them to a higher standard in one aspect but not the other.  I simply consider them very brave men and women and I am thankful for their community service.  Not to mention even though it's their choice of employment, they're working for all the citizens of a community to make it a better/safer place to live without much thanks or respect from a lot of the citizens in their districts.  They put up with death threats, threats against their families, shootings, see the absolute worst of the worst.  I don't call them civilians because to me they're merits, reserves, etc. and I'm a civilian..as my position on the department is so dictated by the rules and regs of the department.  Force of habit as I explained.

Quoted: They are together at a restaurant "off-duty."  The establishment is robbed, and an employee is killed.  The dynamic duo simply leave and offer no help to responding police.  The penalty for the soldier (correct me if I'm wrong UCMJ-wise) is nothing.  The cop is fired.

That is because we are not authorized to act in a civil context.  My powers of arrest only apply to other members of the military (all NCO and above in the military have the power to arrest another service member)  So it is not their duty to affect an arrest of a non-military person,  If you want to carry your question out ask what happens if they did that on the battlefield.

If they did the same thing on the battle field, they may be subject to Courts-martial and as has happened in the past the death penalty.


The change in the definition of who is and who isn't a civilian, I am pretty sure a recognition of the foreign tendency to have Paramilitary forces, most other nations have gendarmerie who are defiantly not civilians.

So mainly what this all boils down to is:

1. Because we don't like it.

2. The definition (as given by THE source of definitions) is wrong and we are right becuse of point #1.

Someone asked about how LEOs referr to the military... Well as the military, non civilians held in high esteem by this LEO.

Being called a civilian does not minimize my role or bother me. I was just curious as to why it pissed so many folks here off to say we are not, again as the word is defined (in the real world, your world may differ).

I see that there is no real answer to the question other than those listed above.

Thanks!

Oh, someone did point out that some uncited Federal law defines civilian but I have yet to see it...

Let me refer you to someone who should be an expert, Sir Robert Peel, the man who formed London's first police force.  He wrote a list of nine rules of modern policing, and they are as follows:

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Did that help?

Jack Booted Thugs.

Quoted: So mainly what this all boils down to is: 1. Because we don't like it. 2. The definition (as given by THE source of definitions) is wrong and we are right becuse of point #1. Someone asked about how LEOs referr to the military... Well as the military, non civilians held in high esteem by this LEO. Being called a civilian does not minimize my role or bother me. I was just curious as to why it pissed so many folks here off to say we are not, again as the word is defined (in the real world, your world may differ). I see that there is no real answer to the question other than those listed above. Thanks! Oh, someone did point out that some uncited Federal law defines civilian but I have yet to see it...

+1 to all you stated so well.

Quoted: Quoted: The meaning of civilian has changed to exclude peace officers. The meaning and role of peace officer has changed dramatically as well. Orignally Posted By Garand-Shooter: The definition of the word has changed.  Look at some older dictionaries and you will see in most cases they say non-military only. However LE and others have misused the term for so long it has come to be accepted as such. Quoted: The change in the definition of who is and who isn't a civilian, I am pretty sure a recognition of the foreign tendency to have Paramilitary forces, most other nations have gendarmerie who are defiantly not civilians. It's not simply because "they don't like it".  It has to do with the definitions being largely inaccurate.  I highlighted the key to understanding this phenomenon above.

OK... Soooo... The definition has changed because policing has changed (due to the problems facing society changing but that's anotherr head banging session entirely), LEOs have misused the word and because of a foreign conspiracy to legitimize the militarization of the police.

But that reality is that the definition DOES NOW exclude LEOs correct? Like it or (obviously) not.

Whoever wants to say their definition is better than the dictionary's or that the dictionary is wrong is free to do so. They can also insist the world is flat.

Quoted: Jack Booted Thugs.

Civilian.  

Quoted: Not to mention even though it's their choice of employment, they're working for all the citizens of a community to make it a better/safer place to live without much thanks or respect from a lot of the citizens in their districts.  They put up with death threats, threats against their families, shootings, see the absolute worst of the worst.

NOW you've done it HH! I am surprised that some of the bashers haven't already replied to you with some poll showing that we are "far from the top in dangerous jobs", that "other people have more dangerous jobs that you po-leeece",  that "other people get threats against their lives, whatcha think yer special?" type comments. Stick around a while HH and you'll see it all here. Oh, not to mention the ones who say they'd NEVER ( not that we have any way of verifying this ) "ask the Man into their lives" and that they'd "handle anything themselves without calling the po-po". True internet macho men....at least the "men" who have graduated from college...ever notice just how many opinionated college students there are on internet boards?

Some dictionaries also state members of the clergy as "non civilians".

Law enforcement officers ARE civilians. The FBI are civilians. In America, we have CIVILIAN law enforcement. Not "paramilitary" organizations like many other nations of the world. THOSE people, in those other countries, who operate in a "paramilitary" role are not civilians.

Why don't we refer to EMT personnel as non civilians if firemen are not civilians now either? Why not security guards?

Why is it that 50-60+ years ago police in America weren't so quick to differentiate themselves from "civilians" like they are now? All you cops and non cops who try to paint those of us who do not see LEOs as non civilians as cop bashers, why are you people so hysterical about cops being non civilians? You try to make it seem like we're always the ones pushing this issue, but then when we respond to your questions with facts and logical answers, we are dismissed as immature anti cop whiners.


The fact that police departments now have tons of military equipment, mostly thanks to clinton's efforts to give government more and more power with selling surplus military gear to PDs at rock bottom prices - that is what bothers me more than semantics. It seems that nearly every PD in America now has a SWAT team with automatic weapons, APCs, and a host of other military gear. In fact, my town has a SWAT team that drives the APC around every now and then. Why the hell does this small city with almost no crime need a militarized SWAT team when the LA County Sheriff's team is a phone call away? My guess is that there is no need, the cops here just want to feel cool and since they can get all that gear at cheap surplus prices they jump at the chance. Of course then they go around at am and give people tickets for not turning their wheels toward the curb on a street with at most 2% grade, and wonder why people resent them. Silly me though, there is a real big public safety justification for such actions.

Quoted: Some dictionaries also state members of the clergy as "non civilians". Law enforcement officers ARE civilians. The FBI are civilians. In America, we have CIVILIAN law enforcement. Not "paramilitary" organizations like many other nations of the world. THOSE people, in those other countries, who operate in a "paramilitary" role are not civilians. Why don't we refer to EMT personnel as non civilians if firemen are not civilians now either? Why not security guards? Why is it that 50-60+ years ago police in America weren't so quick to differentiate themselves from "civilians" like they are now? All you cops and non cops who try to paint those of us who do not see LEOs as non civilians as cop bashers, why are you people so hysterical about cops being non civilians? You try to make it seem like we're always the ones pushing this issue, but then when we respond to your questions with facts and logical answers, we are dismissed as immature anti cop whiners. The fact that police departments now have tons of military equipment, mostly thanks to clinton's efforts to give government more and more power with selling surplus military gear to PDs at rock bottom prices - that is what bothers me more than semantics. It seems that nearly every PD in America now has a SWAT team with automatic weapons, APCs, and a host of other military gear. In fact, my town has a SWAT team that drives the APC around every now and then. Why the hell does this small city with almost no crime need a militarized SWAT team when the LA County Sheriff's team is a phone call away? My guess is that there is no need, the cops here just want to feel cool and since they can get all that gear at cheap surplus prices they jump at the chance. Of course then they go around at am and give people tickets for not turning their wheels toward the curb on a street with at most 2% grade, and wonder why people resent them. Silly me though, there is a real big public safety justification for such actions.

You actually seem to be the hysterical one.

Got a chicken shit ticket, did 'ya?  

Quoted: Law enforcement officers ARE civilians. The FBI are civilians. In America, we have CIVILIAN law enforcement. Not "paramilitary" organizations like many other nations of the world. THOSE people, in those other countries, who operate in a "paramilitary" role are not civilians.

We are in fact paramilitary in nature. We have uniforms, we have rank structure, we have standard orders, rules of engagement ( so to speak), etc..we are paramilitary in nature. I think that you are thinking of paramilitary in strictly a European sense of what the word might mean.

Why don't we refer to EMT personnel as non civilians if firemen are not civilians now either? Why not security guards?

I have heard EMTs AND Fire Fighters refer to non- emergency services personnel as civilians What you and others don't seem to GET is that its a convenient short hand for us and other emergency services people to be able to label soemone as "other than us"

Why is it that 50-60+ years ago police in America weren't so quick to differentiate themselves from "civilians" like they are now? All you cops and non cops who try to paint those of us who do not see LEOs as non civilians as cop bashers, why are you people so hysterical about cops being non civilians? You try to make it seem like we're always the ones pushing this issue, but then when we respond to your questions with facts and logical answers, we are dismissed as immature anti cop whiners.

I don't see much "logic" in the answers of the bashers; I see stridency in their responses that says over and over "you're nothing special! Stop trying to be "special" and "better" than me", when that is NOT the goal of officers. I think it is an inferiority complex by those posters

The fact that police departments now have tons of military equipment, mostly thanks to clinton's efforts to give government more and more power with selling surplus military gear to PDs at rock bottom prices - that is what bothers me more than semantics. It seems that nearly every PD in America now has a SWAT team with automatic weapons, APCs, and a host of other military gear. In fact, my town has a SWAT team that drives the APC around every now and then. Why the hell does this small city with almost no crime need a militarized SWAT team when the LA County Sheriff's team is a phone call away? My guess is that there is no need, the cops here just want to feel cool and since they can get all that gear at cheap surplus prices they jump at the chance. Of course then they go around at am and give people tickets for not turning their wheels toward the curb on a street with at most 2% grade, and wonder why people resent them. Silly me though, there is a real big public safety justification for such actions.

I would rather, as a taxpayer, have local agencies get that stuff from the Feds at a bargain than have to pay full retail, burden the taxpayers with higher costs, or potentially never have the equipment available to the officers and agencies that need it because they cannot afford to pay full price. That gear ( much of it ) would simply have gone overseas to some third world country; I am happier seeing it put to use here at home.

If you think that crime doesn't happen even in small town America that would require the use of a team, you are wrong. Crime is not the sole domain of large cities, and while your  own towns' Emergency Response Team may be small, most small jurisdictions are fielding a small number of officers that train with other ERT members provided by near-by agencies and they operate on a mutual aid compact where they pool resources.That is fiscally prudent rather than having every small agency try to finance a Team entirely out of its own pocket.

When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ.

When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away.

I am a civilian.

Quoted: If you think that crime doesn't happen even in small town America that would require the use of a team, you are wrong. Crime is not the sole domain of large cities, and while your  own towns' Emergency Response Team may be small, most small jurisdictions are fielding a small number of officers that train with other ERT members provided by near-by agencies and they operate on a mutual aid compact where they pool resources.That is fiscally prudent rather than having every small agency try to finance a Team entirely out of its own pocket.

Word.  It's amazing to me that pro-gun people who advocate the possession of powerful, high capacity firearms (and I'm one of them) would bemoan police having better weapons and training to handle crime.  I just don't get it.

And FYI, LASD SWAT isn't just a phone call away.  They're a loooong call up away.  The smaller city teams can be 10-8 lickety split and are every bit as good at the job.  Many small cities have their field officers carry their tactical gear in the trunk of their patrol cars so they can deploy really fast.

Quoted: When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ. When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away. I am a civilian.

What rights did you waive when you joined the military?

Quoted: Quoted: When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ. When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away. I am a civilian. What rights did you waive when you joined the military?

Freedom of speech, for one.  The right to keep and bear personal arms, for another.

Quoted: Quoted: When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ. When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away. I am a civilian. What rights did you waive when you joined the military?

I won't start with the long list, but give one example.

Free speech, in some forms, is restricted,

For example, political speech and activities. I see police officers and cops in uniform at political rallies all the time, even stumping for the candidates. Want to see a shitstorm erupt have a soldier do the same.

Here are some examples of what a soldier can and cannot do:

Can - Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

Can - Promote and encourage other military members to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute an attempt to influence or interfere with the outcome of an election.

Cannot - Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.

Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Can - Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform.

Cannot - Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

Cannot - March or ride in a partisan political parade.

Cannot - Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fundraising events.

Can - Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and has the prior approval of the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee (example, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Air Force, ect.).

Can - Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate's name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

Cannot - Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.

Can - Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate.

Cannot - Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Can - Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations of law.

Cannot - Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

Cannot - Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

Cannot - Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.

Can - Display a political sticker on the member's private vehicle.

Cannot - Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.

Can - Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

Cannot - Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.

Cannot - Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make public speeches in the course thereof.

Cannot - Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day.

Cannot - Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

Cannot - Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C.

As an officer, I am held to an even higher standard. Article 88 of teh UCMJ makes it illegal for me to use "contemptuous words" against "President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which the military member is on duty"

Thats just political speech.... if you like I could go into many, many other areas as well.

Quoted: Quoted: When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ. When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away. I am a civilian. What rights did you waive when you joined the military?

First thing you give up your right to free speech and in the case of officers you give up the right of free association.  Also the found right to privacy doesn't exist, we can search you at anytime if we wanted to, and has been shown before by the actions of Gen Van Ripper at MCB Quantico, can enter quarters without a search warrant.

Quoted: Quoted: When I enlisted in the Armed Forces I swore an oath to the Constitution as well as swearing away some Constitutional rights by adopting the UCMJ. When I was sworn in as a Police Officer I swore an oath to the Constitution but I did not swear any of my Constitutional rights away. I am a civilian. What rights did you waive when you joined the military?

When you swear in to the military and go under UCMJ, you lose some of your right to free speech, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, your freedom to travel as you please(sans official permission), your right to privacy, etc.

A civilian is someone who is subject to civil law, and ONLY civil law.  Military is held accountable to BOTH civil and UCMJ.  Police are held to only civil, so LEOs are civilians.  Maybe civilian +, because you have standards of conduct that you can be fired for.

ETA: And the military unionizing is right out.  Most police departments are unionized.  Another difference.

Quoted: Maybe civilian +, because you have standards of conduct that you can be fired for.

Many companies have "moral turpitude" clauses as part of their employment.  It's not just LEO that can be fired for off duty behavior.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe civilian +, because you have standards of conduct that you can be fired for. Many companies have "moral turpitude" clauses as part of their employment.  It's not just LEO that can be fired for off duty behavior.

I realized that after I posted.  DOH!

Quoted: Quoted: Law enforcement officers ARE civilians. The FBI are civilians. In America, we have CIVILIAN law enforcement. Not "paramilitary" organizations like many other nations of the world. THOSE people, in those other countries, who operate in a "paramilitary" role are not civilians. We are in fact paramilitary in nature. We have uniforms, we have rank structure, we have standard orders, rules of engagement ( so to speak), etc..we are paramilitary in nature. I think that you are thinking of paramilitary in strictly a European sense of what the word might mean. Why don't we refer to EMT personnel as non civilians if firemen are not civilians now either? Why not security guards? I have heard EMTs AND Fire Fighters refer to non- emergency services personnel as civilians What you and others don't seem to GET is that its a convenient short hand for us and other emergency services people to be able to label soemone as "other than us" Why is it that 50-60+ years ago police in America weren't so quick to differentiate themselves from "civilians" like they are now? All you cops and non cops who try to paint those of us who do not see LEOs as non civilians as cop bashers, why are you people so hysterical about cops being non civilians? You try to make it seem like we're always the ones pushing this issue, but then when we respond to your questions with facts and logical answers, we are dismissed as immature anti cop whiners. I don't see much "logic" in the answers of the bashers; I see stridency in their respoenses that says over and over "you're nothing special! Stop trying to be "special" and "better" than me", when that is NOT the goal of officers. I think it is an inferiority complex by those posters The fact that police departments now have tons of military equipment, mostly thanks to clinton's efforts to give government more and more power with selling surplus military gear to PDs at rock bottom prices - that is what bothers me more than semantics. It seems that nearly every PD in America now has a SWAT team with automatic weapons, APCs, and a host of other military gear. In fact, my town has a SWAT team that drives the APC around every now and then. Why the hell does this small city with almost no crime need a militarized SWAT team when the LA County Sheriff's team is a phone call away? My guess is that there is no need, the cops here just want to feel cool and since they can get all that gear at cheap surplus prices they jump at the chance. Of course then they go around at am and give people tickets for not turning their wheels toward the curb on a street with at most 2% grade, and wonder why people resent them. Silly me though, there is a real big public safety justification for such actions. I would rather, as a taxpayer, have local agencies get that stuff from the Feds at a bargain than have to pay full retail, burden the taxpayers with higher costs, or potentially never have the equipment available tot he officers and agencies because they cannot afford to pay full price. That gear ( much of it ) would simply have gone overseas to soem third world country; I am happier seeing it put to use here at home. If you think that crime doesn't happen even in small town America that would require the use of a team, you are wrong. Crime is not the sole domain of large cities, and while your  own towns' Emergency Response Team may be small, most small jurisdictions are fielding a small number of officers that train with other ERT members provided by near-by agencies and they operate on a mutual aid compact where they pool resources.That is fiscally prudent rather than having every small agency try to finance a Team entirely out of its own pocket.

Oh crap...here we go again...I just bought a Chick fil a from a "paramilitary" group by your definition.  they wear uniforms, they have a rank structure (manager), they have standard orders (clean the coke machine every night), and (so to speak) rules of engagement (if he pays, give him the chicken).  Paramilitary means to serve alongside or in place of the military...not what cops in the US are supposed to do

Quoted: So mainly what this all boils down to is: 1. Because we don't like it. 2. The definition (as given by THE source of definitions) is wrong and we are right becuse of point #1. Someone asked about how LEOs referr to the military... Well as the military, non civilians held in high esteem by this LEO. Being called a civilian does not minimize my role or bother me. I was just curious as to why it pissed so many folks here off to say we are not, again as the word is defined (in the real world, your world may differ). I see that there is no real answer to the question other than those listed above. Thanks! Oh, someone did point out that some uncited Federal law defines civilian but I have yet to see it...

Ok, I will give it to you, but I expect you to show me the state or federal law that refers to law enforcement as non-civilians, otherwise accept that referring to a LEO as a non-civilian is legally inaccurate.

From Article 2 of the UCMJ:

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

Indeed, all through the UCMJ the term civilian is used to refer to non-military persons, and it is also used in that regard in may non-UCMJ Federal statutes, which I can point out to you if you wish.

This terminology and usage is also what is used by the supreme court in Goldman v. Weinberger and some other cases, to include United States v. Averette, and opthers.

So I provided the info, now can you provide and statute that says LE are not civilians? Or even refers to them in that regard?

You see, you #1 is incomplete.. It's because some don't like it because legally it is incorrect.

But, let me guess, your answer is the dictionary means more than federal law, right????? You have the dictionary, I have the law. I know which one I will go by.

Great posts, military guys.  I actually like the USMJ provisions discussed above.  Partisan politics should not affect military or police operations.  I hate it when the police union hacks support candidates (always Demonrats, by the way).

My agency uses "sworn" and either "civilian" or "non-sworn" to differentiate between cops and clerks.  I think most have gone this route.

How about this, guys:

We settle on Armed Forces or Military; Sworn Police Officers; and Civilians.

[Rodney King] Can we all get along?  [/Rodney King]  

Quoted: Quoted: So mainly what this all boils down to is: 1. Because we don't like it. 2. The definition (as given by THE source of definitions) is wrong and we are right becuse of point #1. Someone asked about how LEOs referr to the military... Well as the military, non civilians held in high esteem by this LEO. Being called a civilian does not minimize my role or bother me. I was just curious as to why it pissed so many folks here off to say we are not, again as the word is defined (in the real world, your world may differ). I see that there is no real answer to the question other than those listed above. Thanks! Oh, someone did point out that some uncited Federal law defines civilian but I have yet to see it... Ok, I will give it to you, but I expect you to show me the state or federal law that refers to law enforcement as non-civilians, otherwise accept that referring to a LEO as a non-civilian is legally inaccurate. From Article 2 of the UCMJ: (b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment. Indeed, all through the UCMJ the term civilian is used to refer to non-military persons, and it is also used in that regard in may non-UCMJ Federal statutes, which I can point out to you if you wish. This terminology and usage is also what is used by the supreme court in Goldman v. Weinberger and some other cases, to include United States v. Averette, and opthers. So I provided the info, now can you provide and statute that says LE are not civilians? Or even refers to them in that regard? You see, you #1 is incomplete.. It's because some don't like it because legally it is incorrect. But, let me guess, your answer is the dictionary means more than federal law, right????? You have the dictionary, I have the law. I know which one I will go by.

The UCMJ eh?

I thought you were referring to a Federal Law, not the UCMJ.

I guess it goes without saying that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians outside of the military or to LEOs for that matter. You know that as well as anyone else here.

Besides, no one is arguing that military personnel are not civilians. I assume you interpret that passage as being exclusive of anyone else? Why would one place such broad power in a passage from something so narrowly directed as the UCMJ?

Let me say AGAIN that I certainly do not care how I am referred to, believe me, I have been referred to as  MANY, MANY things. I am simply amused at how many of y'all start crying when YOU hear it and was wondering why. I see it is based on their (your) individual conception (possibly misconception) of the word. This thread reinforces that.

It is directly related to a perceived slight that apparently offends some people.

EDITED TO ADD that I stopped reading at the UCMJ stuff which is not relevant, IMO, but should have continued. If the posted cites reflect what GS says it does then a great point may have been made.

What I find funny though is how seldom would anyone HERE IN ARF EVER let a SCOTUS opinion or a piece of legislation define anything at all, unless of course it serves THEIR purposes... Say something like militia, RKBA, assault rifle, etc...

Quoted: Quoted: A day doesn't go by without cops shooting an unarmed man, the police have superior numbers and the law on thier side they should not be able to shoot and kill with the only excuse "I was in fear for my life". A day doesn't go by , eh? Maybe on a national scale you might be able to even come close to such a comment, even though it would be in error. At a national  scale, you are dealing with thousands upon thousands of officers working 8-12 hour shifts. Statistically, SOME of those officers will encounter situations where they have to use deadly physical force. The same could be said of any function of any career out there; SOME members of that profession will have to so something fairly unusual that isn't normally dealt with every day.It just so happens that our career involves the use of physical force/ deadly physical force. Whether that adds up to one a day, so? Is that significant given the numbers of officers we are talking about on a NATIONAL scale? Even if it is true, which I doubt? As for the fear of life justification, that is an entirely justifiable, legal  defense that is not limited to officers only. Just yesterday we had a woman near-by who shot her other half while being beaten because she feared for her life. Would you deprive her of that defense? I certainly would not. Or are you suggesting that only officers should not have that justification of use of deadly physical force available to them?

tcsd, Finish the story!! Was she handcuffed, and put in cruiser? was she taken to jail? Or did you all just comfort her and from the onset tell her it was justified and let her go home. Details please.



Roy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So mainly what this all boils down to is: 1. Because we don't like it. 2. The definition (as given by THE source of definitions) is wrong and we are right becuse of point #1. Someone asked about how LEOs referr to the military... Well as the military, non civilians held in high esteem by this LEO. Being called a civilian does not minimize my role or bother me. I was just curious as to why it pissed so many folks here off to say we are not, again as the word is defined (in the real world, your world may differ). I see that there is no real answer to the question other than those listed above. Thanks! Oh, someone did point out that some uncited Federal law defines civilian but I have yet to see it... Ok, I will give it to you, but I expect you to show me the state or federal law that refers to law enforcement as non-civilians, otherwise accept that referring to a LEO as a non-civilian is legally inaccurate. From Article 2 of the UCMJ: (b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment. Indeed, all through the UCMJ the term civilian is used to refer to non-military persons, and it is also used in that regard in may non-UCMJ Federal statutes, which I can point out to you if you wish. This terminology and usage is also what is used by the supreme court in Goldman v. Weinberger and some other cases, to include United States v. Averette, and opthers. So I provided the info, now can you provide and statute that says LE are not civilians? Or even refers to them in that regard? You see, you #1 is incomplete.. It's because some don't like it because legally it is incorrect. But, let me guess, your answer is the dictionary means more than federal law, right????? You have the dictionary, I have the law. I know which one I will go by. The UCMJ eh? I thought you were referring to a Federal Law, not the UCMJ. I guess it goes without saying that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians outside of the military or to LEOs for that matter. You know that as well as anyone else here. Besides, no one is arguing that military personnel are not civilians. I assume you interpret that passage as being exclusive of anyone else? Why would one place such broad power in a passage from something so narrowly directed as the UCMJ? Let me say AGAIN that I certainly do not care how I am referred to, believe me, I have been referred to as  MANY, MANY things. I am simply amused at how many of y'all start crying when YOU hear it and was wondering why. I see it is based on their (your) individual conception (possibly misconception) of the word. This thread reinforces that. It is directly related to a perceived slight that apparently offends some people.

As a military officer, let me assure you I have been referred to as a "civilian" by LEOs on numerous occasions.  I am sure nearly every other one here will testify to the same.

I am not saying I was offended, just merely amused.

I can definitely understand the perceived slight by other civilians - you all live in the same community, pay the same taxes, and many cops honsestly do feel they are "special."  I am not saying any of you guys are, but many are crooked as hell.  I know for a fact that in some towns cops can drive anywhere as drunk as they want, for example, and other cops will let them in their way once the badge is flashed.  

Meanwhile, both military and civilians are ocmpletely at the mercy of the local law when in your jurisdiction. I have seen some good soldiers and sailors lose their careers thanks to overzealous local law that could easily have handles a situation differently, and I'm sure many civilians have similar stories.

While we in the military have out share of bad apples, we are unable to deprive civilians of life, liberty, or property as an LEO can.

Quoted: The UCMJ eh? I thought you were referring to a Federal Law, not the UCMJ.

Umm, the UCMJ is Federal Law. Its contained in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part III, Section 47 of the United Sates Code. Its passed by Congress and Signed by the President. Just like any other Federal Law.

I guess it goes without saying that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians outside of the military or to LEOs for that matter. You know that as well as anyone else here. Besides, no one is arguing that military personnel are not civilians. I assume you interpret that passage as being exclusive of anyone else? Why would one place such broad power in a passage from something so narrowly directed as the UCMJ?

Because, as you see from my above information the UCMJ is Federal Law. That portion of the United States Code clearly states when the transition from civilian to non-civilian takes place, and is the ONLY place in any law where such a distinction is drawn. As such, there is only one proper legal definition.

Its only found in that section because thats the only place it is needed.

And yes, there are certain very limited situations where a civilian can be subject to the UCMJ, but that is a story for another day.

Quoted: I can definelty understand the perceived slight by other civilians - you all live in the same community, pay the same taxes, and many cops honsestly do feel they are "special."  I am not saying any of you guys are, but many are crooked as hell.  I know for a fact that in some towns cops can drive anywhere as drunk as they want, for example, and other cops will let them in their way once the badge is flashed.  Meanwhile, i have seen some good soldiers and sailors lose their careers thanks to overzealous local law that could easily have handles a situation differently.

You seem very bitter about things, and maybe deservedly so.  But it's you who expect "special" treatment because you're in the military.  

And by the way, LEOs are special.  And for damn sure, so are military personnel.

Quoted: Quoted: In the words of Colonel Jeff Cooper:  "Criminals wear masks".   Lock up the children on halloween!!   Seriously now.  SWAT does it to keep from being seen.  Just like hunters wear sometimes masks..which reminds me... Lock up the hunters!

Swat stays masked b/4 during and after the mission. No photos or pics on tv as they don't want their faces shown to the community they serve. swat is nothing more than military wanabee's with no war to fight so they practice on the citizens of this country.




Roy

Quoted: Swat stays masked b/4 during and after the mission. No photos or pics on tv as they don't want their faces shown to the community they serve. swat is nothing more than military wanabee's with no war to fight so they practice on the citizens of this country. Roy

Roll call for cops haters commence:

Roy here, sir.

Next...

Quoted: Quoted: I can definelty understand the perceived slight by other civilians - you all live in the same community, pay the same taxes, and many cops honsestly do feel they are "special."  I am not saying any of you guys are, but many are crooked as hell.  I know for a fact that in some towns cops can drive anywhere as drunk as they want, for example, and other cops will let them in their way once the badge is flashed.  Meanwhile, i have seen some good soldiers and sailors lose their careers thanks to overzealous local law that could easily have handles a situation differently. You seem very bitter about things, and maybe deservedly so.  But it's you who expect "special" treatment because you're in the military.   And by the way, LEOs are special.  And for damn sure, so are military personnel.

Show me one post where Adam said he expected anything special. Yes, being military and dealing with local LE often will make you bitter... military towns are often interesting places.

BTW, as a soldier I do not see myself as special, and most soldiers are like me. We don't claim to be.

You however, just put yourself into a special class of your own opinion. That there shows a great divide in how we think.

FiveO,

It is not so much that we sillyvilians hate being called that (its been a few years since I was in the Army, so I am once again a civilian), its more along the lines of this:

Many of us grew up watching the police use water hoses, billy clubs, dogs, and other weaponry against the civil rights protestors.  It affected our thinking and perception in ways that aren't good.  The only way to offset that imagery is for us to think of LEOs as 'one of us, the guy down the street', et al.  But we have some that say, 'we aren't like you, we aren't civilians, we are something more'.  Well, true, but it brings up my first point.  Self fulfilling prophecy and all that.  

People are taught that we in this country are free people, but you have to repect the law. Then when you grow up, you hear LEOs say (write) that 'when I give you an order, you will OBEY!'  We call them JBTs for a reason.  They are drunk on their own power.  Most LEOs aren't like that, fortunately.  They have realized that it is Joe Civilian who makes it possible for the LEO to go home safe at night, because Joe Civilian doesn't want to break the law and make the LEO pay him unwanted attention.  In most cases (me included) if a civilian sees an officer in danger of getting shot, we will act against the person shooting the LEO, because we believe that the person shooting at the LEO is WRONG!  The LEO is automatically assumed to be in the right, and the other to be in the wrong, because the LEO has the publics trust.

And that is the way it should be.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can definelty understand the perceived slight by other civilians - you all live in the same community, pay the same taxes, and many cops honsestly do feel they are "special."  I am not saying any of you guys are, but many are crooked as hell.  I know for a fact that in some towns cops can drive anywhere as drunk as they want, for example, and other cops will let them in their way once the badge is flashed.  Meanwhile, i have seen some good soldiers and sailors lose their careers thanks to overzealous local law that could easily have handles a situation differently. You seem very bitter about things, and maybe deservedly so.  But it's you who expect "special" treatment because you're in the military.   And by the way, LEOs are special.  And for damn sure, so are military personnel. Show me one post where Adam said he expected anything special. Yes, being military and dealing with local LE often will make you bitter... military towns are often interesting places. BTW, as a soldier I do not see myself as special, and most soldiers are like me. We don't claim to be. You however, just put yourself into a special class of your own opinion. That there shows a great divide in how we think.

I thought the red highlights would explain enough, but here goes.

Adam_White complained of LEOs thinking they were special.  Then, he complained about soldiers and sailors losing their careers because LEOs could have handled situations differently...differently, not that they were incorrect, he just wanted the LEOs to look the other way.  Isn't that a call for special treatment?

Sorry if I misinterpreted what he said, but I think I'm on target here.

Note: I used the collective "you" for military, not for Adam_White specifically.

Quoted: I thought the red highlights would explain enough, but here goes. Adam_White complained of LEOs thinking they were special.  Then, he complained about soldiers and sailors losing their careers because LEOs could have handled situations differently...differently, not that they were incorrect, he just wanted the LEOs to look the other way.  Isn't that a call for special treatment? Sorry if I misinterpreted what he said, but I think I'm on target here. Note: I used the collective "you" for military, not for Adam_White specifically.

He never said look the other way, he said handle it differently. Here is an example... go back a few weeks and look at the post about a GA deputy lieing to intimidate a member here from lawfully selling a handgun at a flea market. Had the member here, who is also in the military, stood up for his rights he could have possibley been arrested, even it it was wrongfull. And in the military, even if a wrongfull arrest is completely overturned, it can still kill your career.... especially if you are a security clearance or are an officer. At best it will have a slight detrimental effect for anyone.

It's cases like that.  It's no secret that in many communities near military bases local LE often is harder on military personnel for whatever the reason may be.

double tap

I think the implication was that they were arrested or whatnot, and although they were good soldiers and/or sailors, their careers were ended.

And I completely understand the "handle it differently" angle.  I could have ended an Army captain's career for something I won't even mention here.  But a long talk and some tears from the guy were enough to convince me he needed a break.

Quoted: Quoted: In my eyes,... If you can walk into work and say "I quit" and then go home without being incarcerated - then you're a civilian. But that's just me. That is the way I see it too.  Citizen is a better word than Civilian.

Except in many cases its techinically wrong. Those of us working in border states deal with non citizens as much as citizens.

I simply try to refer to people as what they are. Victim, informant, witness, suspect...

Civilian is too loosely used.  It's like calling someone nice.  I know when I hear it it sounds like a pejorative.

Quoted: Oh heck, I usually stay out of these - but since this one was actually started by a cop, I must ask: 1)  What do you cop types think about refering to actrive duty military officers - or even enlisted members - as "civilians?"  Surely you understand that some of us find that quite amusing. 2)  What term to you use to differentiate military law from the law you enforce?

1. I refer to them as what they are "that drunk assed marine over there..."

2. We dont enforce the UCMJ, not need to "differentiate" military law fro the laws I enforce.

One title will never fit everyone. Like you hinted at, "Civilian" is not always accurate for those working near military bases. "Citizen" is even less accurate.

Those who resent cops being excluded from "civilian" seem to support border jumping illegals being called "citizen." Sorry, border jumpers do not deserve the inherent respect that the term citizen carries. Words mean things and every dictionary I own says cops are not "civilians" and border jumpers are not "citizens"

Quoted: We are all citizens.

there are 15 million criminals in California alone who are not citizens.

Quoted: And I too would be interested in how you refer to someone who is in the military? Are they still "civilians"?

Drunk assed Marine
Jarhead
Lance Corporal
ect...