Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2004 11:50:08 AM EST
Disclaimer: If this has been asked before please lock this and give me a link to the topic. This is not meant in any way to offend. Thanks for your work.

Response from LE officer on a ? I had "civilians don't understand" I think he meant this in a condescending manner. What is this supposed to mean? Do you consider yourself a civilian or something else. How do YOU define yourself. Would you say you are more military or more civilian?
I'm in the military, when I'm not in uniform I'm a civilian, The extension of my rights are only in effect when I'm "on the job". I would appreciate your thoughts on this manner.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:12:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:12:51 PM EST by GackMan]
Yes it has been discussed... just a couple times. ;)

it is just a word. a single word is easier to say that "person not involved in law enforcement" which is what the person seems to have meant from the way you describe it. It is more appropriate than saying "the citizenry doesn't understand"

No different than you being in the military and off-duty involved in a discussion on using the military in some goof-ball liberal idea... you know, when the whiners say that we should use the military like it was the peace corps or something. Your reaction would be along the lines of "Civilians don't understand"


Plus, it is accurate. People not in the military or police are civilians.



dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=civilian

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn) n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

adj.
1. Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:20:59 PM EST
despite what they would have you believe not being subject to military command makes cops civilians. Just as much as billy bob and his local disorganised "militia" are civilians.


other then that the reason its used is it helps create a sense of community among LEO's
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:26:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:33:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:34:34 PM EST by TheAmaazingCarl]
Its kind of amusing though.

A conservator of the peace is not supposed be military by law. So wouldn't claiming non civilian status makes them felons for impersonating a cop, if it were true?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:40:57 PM EST
It is just a word... a word in "commom useage" that is whey it is in the dictionary.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:14:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:18:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:31:43 PM EST by UrbanTactical]
When I refer to a person as being a civilian, I'm talking about non LE/military.

When I take off my uniform after my shift I'm still a police officer. The department I work for requires me to carry my weapon off duty, so I'm really on the job 24/7. LE Officers do fall under the same laws as non LE. In my state there are laws just for LE both criminal and civil.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:19:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Sorry. Cops aren't subject to a different body of law. Period. They are subject to the the same civil and criminal law as I am, therefore they are civilian ONLY.



You're wrong here. Cops have many more restrictions put on them when acting under "the color of the law". And Civil Servants, by definition, aren't civilians....
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:22:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:23:56 PM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:44:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Sorry. Cops aren't subject to a different body of law. Period. They are subject to the the same civil and criminal law as I am, therefore they are civilian ONLY.



You're wrong here. Cops have many more restrictions put on them when acting under "the color of the law". And Civil Servants, by definition, aren't civilians....




in no state in the union are cops required to act, their employers may have such stipulations, but its hardly the same thing
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:44:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:49:40 PM EST by thesacrifice]
On duty, I am a law enforcement officer. The public relies on my services in time of need sometimes very small, sometimes very large (9/11 for instance.) That said, I would preffer to use the word "citizen" (although we are all citizens) in regards of LEO and the people of the community, though I see nothing wrong with "civilian."

As LEO's we are held to a much higher standard on AND off duty, for instance... an off duty LEO commits Domestic Violence and he loses his job.. in what other profession might this occur? (corrections yes..)
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:48:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:10:20 PM EST
It escapes me why ANY person would take such offense to this.

When I say "civilians" I am just too lazy to say "people that are not police officers" or "people who don't do my job." Ie:


"How many civilians need to be evacuated out of the perimeter?"


When I find the need to use the term it has everything to do with economy of words and nothing to do with some perceived God complex or the subjigation of "non cops" rights. Sheesh. If computer programmmers want to call the rest of us "civilians" so be it. It's just a word.

This post is not directed at anyone... I really just don't understand the perceived "LEO connotation"
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:14:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 4:16:11 PM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:16:33 PM EST
I will no longer call them civilians and instead refer to them as subjects.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:18:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:34:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 5:38:29 PM EST by UrbanTactical]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:59:57 PM EST
so if I get a job where Im required to carry a weapon Im no longer a "civilian"


the simple fatc is cops are NOT required to act, except maybe by their employers, there is nothing in any law that requires them to act
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:03:56 PM EST
Actually, there are requirements for LEOs actingin various situations. At least in LA.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:06:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 5:07:08 PM EST by TheAmaazingCarl]
so if somehting looks insanely dangerous and you quit instead of doing your job, then your subject to prosecution?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:10:35 PM EST
A few year back while at my best friends house, his partner was there. I found it amusing he referred to me as a civilian. Despite the fact I was a Commissioned Officer in the Marine Corps.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:11:28 PM EST
Depends on how dangerous, but I would be liable under the civil statutes for sure, and possibly Title 40 Public Safety statutes. If a death resulted from my failure to act, I could be charged under the criminal code.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:13:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 5:14:53 PM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:13:42 PM EST
On the topic, I am a civilian, but I still use the word to refer to non-police when speaking with other officers, as it is easier to use than "those people who are not affiliated with law enforcement," and politer than "fucktards," "sheeple," or "MOPs."
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:50:48 PM EST
The meaning of words change over time. Like Gay used to mean happy.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:52:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:21:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Sorry. Cops aren't subject to a different body of law. Period. They are subject to the the same civil and criminal law as I am, therefore they are civilian ONLY.



You're wrong here. Cops have many more restrictions put on them when acting under "the color of the law". And Civil Servants, by definition, aren't civilians....



I think this hits it on the head. You only get protection/ restrictions when acting under the law. Just because you carry outside the normal hours does not afford you any protection from civil law, but when acting in a official capacity it does. ( ie shooting someone in the line of work). I think one of the biggest diferences in Military/LE is the governing of the body. LE is run by the set of rules imposed on them by the state/govt. The military is self governed by the UCMJ, we can also be held under civil law. Althought we act for the govt- are laws are not given to us.
Correct me if Im wrong but If an LEO does something wrong on the job, he goes to the same court as any civilian. Therefore you are no differnt than a civilian, you're afforded allowances in accourdance with your job, just like doctors but held to civilian law. Does this make sense
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:56:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 1:57:06 AM EST by EPD1102]
Why does it even matter? I've never seen a whinier bunch of non-cops than some of the people on this board. Why do some people keep trying to drive wedges between police and non-police? We're all pro-gun and like AR15's or we wouldn't be on this board.
Why don't we all work together to keep our gun rights strong and forget about who's called a civilian or not?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:19:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By NorCal_LEO:
It escapes me why ANY person would take such offense to this.

When I say "civilians" I am just too lazy to say "people that are not police officers" or "people who don't do my job." Ie:


"How many civilians need to be evacuated out of the perimeter?"




I think its just the nit-picking cop haters grasping another of their pet peeve issues.As I have said before, other occupations use the phrase to denote those not in the occupation. I have even heard utility repair guys call non utility people by that phrase.All it is is short hand within a group of people, beyond the literal dictionary meaning.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:47:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl:
so if I get a job where Im required to carry a weapon Im no longer a "civilian"


the simple fatc is cops are NOT required to act, except maybe by their employers, there is nothing in any law that requires them to act



In the "global" sense police do not protect individuals.

So if someone gets robbed, they can't sue the police for failing to protect them.

If someone buys soap chips, instead of the crack they paid for they can't sue the FDA for failing to make sure the crack the bought was actually crack.

If the police fail to do something, arrest a drunk driver, or a domestic abuser, those acts in themselves could lead to criminal charges against the officer(s). The liability for not-arresting, and something happening after the non-arrest, is substantial.

Failure to render aid, is also a charge that LEO's, FF's, or EMT's could find themselves liable, criminal or civil, for under certain circumstances, that a non-LEO, FF, or EMT, WOULDN'T be liable for under most circumstances. (the exception I'm thinking of is parent-child)

Once the police actually get into a situation, there very well can be a duty to act, based on the circumstances. Others don't have that duty. In the global sense, no the police can't be held accountable for every crime they fail to detect, stop, etc.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 2:53:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By NorCal_LEO:
It escapes me why ANY person would take such offense to this.

When I say "civilians" I am just too lazy to say "people that are not police officers" or "people who don't do my job." Ie:I work too, should I refer to other civilians, who don't do the same job as I do as "civilians?


"How many civilians need to be evacuated out of the perimeter?"


When I find the need to use the term it has everything to do with economy of words and nothing to do with some perceived God complex or the subjigation of "non cops" rights. Sheesh. If computer programmmers want to call the rest of us "civilians" so be it. It's just a word.

This post is not directed at anyone... I really just don't understand the perceived "LEO connotation"



It escapes me why it is so offensive to cops to be referred to as civilians. Jeez.

Can you please point out any reference to "God complex", or subjugation of rights in this discussion? Especially by me.....



I work for a public service organization, for "the people".
My bosses remind me of that all the time.

I work at a civilian LEA. I am a civilian LEO.

Again I am lazy, civilian LEO, gets shortened to LEO.

Civilian by itself refers to non-LEO's, and sometimes non-LEO's, FF's, and EMT's.

Just so I don't get people in a snit, I sometimes just call 'em citizens.

I really think it's an argument for people that want to whine about semantics on either side.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:58:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By EPD1102:
Why does it even matter? I've never seen a whinier bunch of non-cops than some of the people on this board. Why do some people keep trying to drive wedges between police and non-police? We're all pro-gun and like AR15's or we wouldn't be on this board.
Why don't we all work together to keep our gun rights strong and forget about who's called a civilian or not?



I think it matters in that I want to know what LEOs think of their position/status. I'm not trying to drive a wedge but if one LE thinks that he is exempt from some laws because he is a cop or he tries to bully a "civilian' into sumbmission because he is a cop then that is wrong, "A man has gotta know his limitations". Clint if IIRC
If someone is confused on the amount of power they posses or the limitations of that power then they could get into a situation of abuse without knowing it. Having said that I believe this would be a very small amount of LEOs because the ones I've seen are profesional and know their limits.
I know being military I can do things Civilians cannot when I'm on the job (but its up to me to know what that is) Now my original ? was trying to find out what LEOs think the are "classified" as, this would give me an insight on what they think the limits of their power are bounded by. Hope that makes sense.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:02:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:06:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Actually, it's not really. Cops can call themselves whatever they like, really. However, don't try to argue a plainly incorrect position to folks who aren't as ignorant as the perps you handle on a daily basis. Just because john Q. Public buys into the non-civilian stance doesn't mean that folks who know better are going to....

A police officer in any capacity is a civilian. You need look no further than where the law that governs you resides. If you fail in your duty as a police officer and are held accountable in a court of law, your name will appear on the docket of the same courtroom you testify against your perps. Period.

If found guilty and sentenced to jail time you will serve your sentence in the same correctional institutions as those convicted by your testimony against them.





Its pretty obvious you have a personal viewpoint on this issue and an axe to grind; let it go, because its one of those issues that no one will agree on an answer for.Why you feel the need to beat this to death is beyond me. You take some sort of pleasure by demanding that officers be lumped in with you?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:08:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:13:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Actually, it's not really. Cops can call themselves whatever they like, really. However, don't try to argue a plainly incorrect position to folks who aren't as ignorant as the perps you handle on a daily basis. Just because john Q. Public buys into the non-civilian stance doesn't mean that folks who know better are going to....

A police officer in any capacity is a civilian. You need look no further than where the law that governs you resides. If you fail in your duty as a police officer and are held accountable in a court of law, your name will appear on the docket of the same courtroom you testify against your perps. Period.

If found guilty and sentenced to jail time you will serve your sentence in the same correctional institutions as those convicted by your testimony against them.




Your right I won't argue. We'll just go by the defintion of the word. You lose. Thanx for playing.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:14:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:16:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:18:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I could give a shit where you lump yourself. When it all boils down a police officer is just like everybody else. Made from skin and bone, containing emotions and weaknesses.


And thats your axe; you are just pushing and pushing your belief that officers are just lil' ol' people. Ok,you got your point across.


One thing they are not is military, therefore by default that leaves them as civilians. Period.


According to your definition; others have made it clear that according to modern definition, thats not the case. You are both right.


Ax to grind? No, I simply hate ignorance, or in some cases, pure stupidity. I'm just curious why it is such a big deal to be called a civilian? Do some folks need to feel special, or exclusive?


No one needs to feel special, but we have to wonder why its such a big issue to you.


When you, or anyone else, can level counterpoints to the my facts then we might have a discussion. However, there only seems to be the dictionary definition to back up this civilian vs. non-civilian claim.

Call it extended education, if you like......



The dictionary definition certainly lends weight to their argument. Maybe its you that should stop assuming that you are right.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:20:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I try to be accurate in my descriptions of people outside my profession. I work with engineers, admins, clerks, secretaries, accountants, scientists, etc.......I don't call people outside my department "civilians", that's retarded.



Well, kudos to you. As I have said before, other occupations don't follow the same practice. Vaudeville performers called non-actors civilians. The people I have mentioned hearing it from have done likewise. Its a convenient shorthand, as others have said. To you its an issue. To others, its a term. let it go.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:22:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:

Originally Posted By EPD1102:
Why does it even matter? I've never seen a whinier bunch of non-cops than some of the people on this board. Why do some people keep trying to drive wedges between police and non-police? We're all pro-gun and like AR15's or we wouldn't be on this board.
Why don't we all work together to keep our gun rights strong and forget about who's called a civilian or not?



I think it matters in that I want to know what LEOs think of their position/status. I'm not trying to drive a wedge but if one LE thinks that he is exempt from some laws because he is a cop or he tries to bully a "civilian' into sumbmission because he is a cop then that is wrong, "A man has gotta know his limitations". Clint if IIRC
If someone is confused on the amount of power they posses or the limitations of that power then they could get into a situation of abuse without knowing it. Having said that I believe this would be a very small amount of LEOs because the ones I've seen are profesional and know their limits.
I know being military I can do things Civilians cannot when I'm on the job (but its up to me to know what that is) Now my original ? was trying to find out what LEOs think the are "classified" as, this would give me an insight on what they think the limits of their power are bounded by. Hope that makes sense.



First, I really don't get you.

Next, police do have authority while on duty that others don't. The authority to arrest, and the legal privilege of using focre to effect that arrest.

There are serious and real constraints on LEO authority.

As far as your original post, "civilians don't understand". You don't. I get to go places, see things REGULARLY, that most people never see, or try thier best to ignore. Drunken, and drugged behavior, suicides, abusive parents, serious injuries, car crashes, abnormal behavior, etc. etc.

In a few minutes someone will post "why does my small team need a SWAT team, nothing ever happens around here". Typical, I'll bet if you ask a cop in that same town if "things" happen there they'll be able to point out a dozen dicey situations they were involved in............

When I drive around at night, in fricken Wisconsin, I can't drive but a few minutes without finding a place that had a murder, attempted murder, rape, high speed chase, done CPR, serious domestic, etc etc. associated with that spot.

What do you know about the places you drive past during your commute to work, or while at work?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:25:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:31:00 AM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
First, I really don't get you.

Next, police do have authority while on duty that others don't. The authority to arrest, and the legal privilege of using focre to effect that arrest.

There are serious and real constraints on LEO authority.

As far as your original post, "civilians don't understand". You don't. I get to go places, see things REGULARLY, that most people never see, or try thier best to ignore. Drunken, and drugged behavior, suicides, abusive parents, serious injuries, car crashes, abnormal behavior, etc. etc.

In a few minutes someone will post "why does my small team need a SWAT team, nothing ever happens around here". Typical, I'll bet if you ask a cop in that same town if "things" happen there they'll be able to point out a dozen dicey situations they were involved in............

When I drive around at night, in fricken Wisconsin, I can't drive but a few minutes without finding a place that had a murder, attempted murder, rape, high speed chase, done CPR, serious domestic, etc etc. associated with that spot.

What do you know about the places you drive past during your commute to work, or while at work?



Excellent post Oly. His fears are meaningless. As usual when someone posts on this , its always 'the officers I know personally are good, its all those other officers..blah blah blah".Those officers are just like all the other good officers, and the bad ones are such a small minority they don't count.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:26:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

"we are going to play this game MY way......."

As usual, a power trip. Nice. I guess I understand why you can't bare to be called a civilian.

Can't argue with anything more than that? You would use a dictionary defintion that is obviously grossly inaccurate?? How sad.




Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to thier level, and overwhelm you with experience....................

Sorry if you think actually using words as they are defined is being on a power trip.

I'm not going to argue about what you "feel" words should mean.

You ain't never gonna see me "bare" either.

I also said I am a "civilian LEO", sorry in your frenzy to argue you missed that.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:31:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:33:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:37:19 AM EST by dpmmn]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
There is MILITARY and NON-MILITARY. What does the military consider the local police force?



Civilians
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:36:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I'm doing what? It's not a "belief", it's a fact. I am not demeaning anyone. Where have I called police officers lil' ol' people. There are two groups of people. Military and non-military. So why would I demean the group of people to which I belong?



It most certainly is a belief. The fact that other people have shown that it is in fact considered otherwise shows that there is an equally justifiable definition that includes officers.You may not intend to demean, but its pretty clear that your intent is "to put those little ol' police offiocers in their place".


Can't both be right. That is the root of the issue. There are two groups of people military and non-military.


I think that both CAN be right. But you are welcome to your opinion.



I don't need to assume anything, if I scan in a dictionary definition that does not include LE what will you say then? How about several dictionary pages that do not include it? The definition has been re-written due to the militarization of the police forces in society. This still does not bring the two groups closer together, nor doe it define a new separate group. There is MILITARY and NON-MILITARY. What does the military consider the local police force?



And the whole militarization thinbg, which is a non-issue created by certain lunatic fringe types, is another portion of your whole objection to the term being used as it currently is.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:36:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:43:44 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:42:35 AM EST
I am a CITIZEN.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:42:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:45:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I think it is YOU who has some sort of delusional fantasy of persecution.

I am discussing how things are defined and I am being called an idiot or a lunatic fringe type....it's interesting to say the least.

We have a dictionary defintion as the crutch of this argument.......yet we all admit that the definition has morphed to what can only be called inaccurate.

There are only two groups MILITARY and NON-MILITARY.



In this thread it is you who defines things in military and non-military terms.That doesn't mean that it is the only definition. I don't know how many times we have to repeat that.

My observation of the bashers on this and other sites makes it quite obvious that there are many here who want to bash officers; its hardly delusional, and exactly why this area of the site was created.

If you are not a lunatic or fringe type, the ones who use your argument usually are.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top