Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/9/2006 8:09:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:09:58 PM EDT by KBaker]
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. 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.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

It would be nice if the public understood its responsibilities as well, but we've been told so often and for so long that "you're not qualified" I'm no longer surprised to find that most people believe they really aren't.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:05:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:


What makes you think agencies AREN't following those principles?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:23:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 5:26:59 PM EDT by tax_monster]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:


What makes you think agencies AREN't following those principles?



Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford.


Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:27:35 PM EDT

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


That was the funniest one
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:29:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tax_monster:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:


What makes you think agencies AREN't following those principles?



Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford.




Civilians is simply a term of speech to distinguish members of agroup from those outside the group. Vaudeville actors referred to non-vaudeville people as civilians as well.

As for tickets, its probably most likely due to the residents of that area requesting that level of enforcement.

SWAT exists because its needed. Plain and simple.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:21:31 PM EDT
I was at a lecture tonight on 19th century policing. In the mid-19th century in any big city the police force was tiny and all a policeman had to do was "raise the alarm" and the citizens responded.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:25:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

It would be nice if the public understood its responsibilities as well, but we've been told so often and for so long that "you're not qualified" I'm no longer surprised to find that most people believe they really aren't.



haven't the courts directly countered that by saying the police are not responsible to prevent any criminal act?

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:37:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 22bad:

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


That was the funniest one





Actually, it's a catch-22. Cops do their job, crime goes away, and the first thing people start saying is that we don't need a Police department, so they abolish it.

A couple months later, whores and crackheads abound, so the re-establish a PD.

Sadly enough, cops need crime to stay in existence.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:42:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By piccolo:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


That was the funniest one





Actually, it's a catch-22. Cops do their job, crime goes away, and the first thing people start saying is that we don't need a Police department, so they abolish it.

A couple months later, whores and crackheads abound, so the re-establish a PD.

Sadly enough, cops need crime to stay in existence.



Absolutely! Without crime, they have no income, their existence is based on crime. Yes, it is a sad truth but, it is the truth, nonetheless.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:53:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AILapua:
Absolutely! Without crime, they have no income, their existence is based on crime. Yes, it is a sad truth but, it is the truth, nonetheless.


Crime is never going to go away; there is always someone willing to fill the void created by the arrest of criminals.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:58:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By AILapua:
Absolutely! Without crime, they have no income, their existence is based on crime. Yes, it is a sad truth but, it is the truth, nonetheless.


Crime is never going to go away; there is always someone willing to fill the void created by the arrest of criminals.





Reminds me of a conversation years ago with an Episcopal minister.

"How's business?"

"Oh, just fine. There's still plenty of sin in the world."
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:12:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AILapua:

Originally Posted By piccolo:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


That was the funniest one



Actually, it's a catch-22. Cops do their job, crime goes away, and the first thing people start saying is that we don't need a Police department, so they abolish it.

A couple months later, whores and crackheads abound, so the re-establish a PD.

Sadly enough, cops need crime to stay in existence.



Absolutely! Without crime, they have no income, their existence is based on crime. Yes, it is a sad truth but, it is the truth, nonetheless.



Dunno bout that, they have an almost unlimited income\revenue stream from traffic citations in Houston

Most of the Depts here are now understaffed, if you want to be a LEO come to Houston, they are hiring

Part of that is probably because of the high crime rates, regardless of the completely misleading statistics

Crime is definitely increasing faster than our ability to deal with it, and yes, the illegals are part of that
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:30:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:32:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."
Isn't it true also that the military is the public and the public is the military. I guess we should just delete the word "civilian" from our vocabulary since it appears to offend someone.

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets. I don't imagine that Sir Robert Peel envisioned thousand of cars speeding on a roadway when he wrote his reforms in the early 1800's or he would have included traffic control.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford. Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.... who were probably supposed to be out writing citations anyway, for people going 2 mph over the speed limit or eating donuts.......

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:37:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:46:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

SWAT exists because its needed. Plain and simple.



In this day and age, I'll agree...

No village/small-town chief or po-dunk sherriff wants to be the guy with his head on the block because 'something happened' that his department couldn't deal with...

It's there for that ONE TIME they legitimately need a fire-team sized force in full battle rattle, so that when it's all over they can say 'we responded' instead of getting their asses chewed by the public for being caught with their pants down... Besides, it's not like these small town tac-teams have anything most of you folks don't have, anyway...

It's just like 'why do cops wear body armor'? Not because they're expecting to get in a gunfight, but just in case they MIGHT get shot....
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:48:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:


What makes you think agencies AREN't following those principles?

Well, the repeated admonition to "let the professionals handle it, and don't take the law into your own hands" is just one clue.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:58:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By piccolo:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


That was the funniest one





Actually, it's a catch-22. Cops do their job, crime goes away, and the first thing people start saying is that we don't need a Police department, so they abolish it.

A couple months later, whores and crackheads abound, so the re-establish a PD.

Sadly enough, cops need crime to stay in existence.



Sadly, I would say that legislatures create crime by enacting stupid laws. Making something illegal simply because you don't happen to like it, is what I am talking about.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:59:53 AM EDT
This one will go 20 pages minimum.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:07:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
This one will go 20 pages minimum.



And get more stupid by the post.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:19:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By tvc184:

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."
Isn't it true also that the military is the public and the public is the military. I guess we should just delete the word "civilian" from our vocabulary since it appears to offend someone.

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets. I don't imagine that Sir Robert Peel envisioned thousand of cars speeding on a roadway when he wrote his reforms in the early 1800's or he would have included traffic control.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford. Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.... who were probably supposed to be out writing citations anyway, for people going 2 mph over the speed limit or eating donuts.......



Re #1: That is the PROPER use of the word civilian: Everybody who is not in the military. The police are civilians.



I guess it depends on whos definition you go by:

ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj.
Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.

Modern Police agencies are para-military in structure. Are they not in fact "Armed Forces"

Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:23:24 AM EDT
While I am of the opinion that anyone not in the military is a civilian, my younger brother, who's the fire chief in these parts, calls anyone a "civilian" on site who's not a firefighter.

I guess that's what a group of people with specified training does. They consider themselves set apart from everybody else.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:50:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:


As for tickets, its probably most likely due to the residents of that area requesting that level of enforcement..



Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:54:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 667:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
As for tickets, its probably most likely due to the residents of that area requesting that level of enforcement..




That was pretty funny.

Link Posted: 3/11/2006 7:04:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
While I am of the opinion that anyone not in the military is a civilian, my younger brother, who's the fire chief in these parts, calls anyone a "civilian" on site who's not a firefighter.

I guess that's what a group of people with specified training does. They consider themselves set apart from everybody else.

I am on a fire dept. I am a civilian.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 7:09:39 AM EDT
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 11:39:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.

It illustrates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Re-read Peel's Rule #7:

7. 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.

Instead, today we get "Let the authorities handle it. You're not qualified." Because we're just civilians, and they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:32:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.

It illustrates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Re-read Peel's Rule #7:

7. 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.

Instead, today we get "Let the authorities handle it. You're not qualified." Because we're just civilians, and they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40.



It also has to do with the militarized mindset that the term "civilian" indicates. Police are not supposed to be a paramilitary force, because it brings with it a mindset toward interaction and use of force that is antithetical to good police procedure.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:38:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
This one will go 20 pages minimum.



I was just thinking that.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:53:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.

It illustrates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Re-read Peel's Rule #7:

7. 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.

Instead, today we get "Let the authorities handle it. You're not qualified." Because we're just civilians, and they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40.



It also has to do with the militarized mindset that the term "civilian" indicates. Police are not supposed to be a paramilitary force, because it brings with it a mindset toward interaction and use of force that is antithetical to good police procedure.



I think you guys are getting your feathers ruffled over a non-issue.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:57:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.

It illustrates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Re-read Peel's Rule #7:

7. 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.

Instead, today we get "Let the authorities handle it. You're not qualified." Because we're just civilians, and they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40.



It also has to do with the militarized mindset that the term "civilian" indicates. Police are not supposed to be a paramilitary force, because it brings with it a mindset toward interaction and use of force that is antithetical to good police procedure.



I think you guys are getting your feathers ruffled over a non-issue.



+1
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 1:03:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
It also has to do with the militarized mindset that the term "civilian" indicates. Police are not supposed to be a paramilitary force, because it brings with it a mindset toward interaction and use of force that is antithetical to good police procedure.


Police work IS paramilitary. You have uniforms, a rank structure, rules and regulations, etc, all of which is paramilitary in nature.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 1:05:21 PM EDT
so does this mean that they shouldnt use the SWAT team to make drug busts? That's be a revolutionary concept!
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 1:21:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I don't understand the issue surronding the term civilian.

It illustrates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Re-read Peel's Rule #7:

7. 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.

Instead, today we get "Let the authorities handle it. You're not qualified." Because we're just civilians, and they're the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock .40.



It also has to do with the militarized mindset that the term "civilian" indicates. Police are not supposed to be a paramilitary force, because it brings with it a mindset toward interaction and use of force that is antithetical to good police procedure.



I think you guys are getting your feathers ruffled over a non-issue.



+1



+2

And for those bitching that the police say "you're not qualified to handle it" remember, most of the time, people are NOT qualified to handle it. People, as a whole, are stupid, lazy, inefficient and worthless. Do you think the police department condoning taking laws into the peoples own hands would result in anything but pure anarchy? How long before we would see "He pissed me off, so I shot him." on a much greater scale than it already is. Now, granted, that is an extreme example, but where do you draw the line.

And on that note, most of the cops I know are all for people handling their own problems if they are able. I think that often, the words of administrators and the words of flatfoot "cops" are considered one and the same. I've got news for ya, the views of a real working-the-road, watching-shit-go-down-every-day cop and his administration rarely are anything close to the same.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 1:38:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2006 3:48:12 PM EDT by Rustygun]
Some of the biggest problems in modern policing are:

1. In inner city areas the police get zero co operation from anyone because it is gangland and no one wants the police there interfering with their drug sales, gang wars, and the life they love so well.

2. People are now encouraged to call the police for matters that are not law enforcement. This creates a problem for police who arrive and really have no action to take since they are not armed babysitters.

3. Police are now legally prohibited from doing what most people think is their job. People are usually shocked to learn about Supreme Court decisions since the 70's and departmental policies. Police now would be imprisoned for policing like police did until the late 70's.

Bottom line police are the only people who will come to your house if you call them day or night for whatever reason. They are not a genie in a bottle who can grant your wishes or straighten out your uttterly fucked up life.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 1:42:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rustygun:
Some of the biggest problems in modern policing are:


2. People are now encouraged to call the police for matters that are not law enforcement. This creates a problem for police who arrive and really have no action to take since they are not armed babysitters.





So very true.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 3:08:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2006 3:15:50 PM EDT by killswitch]

Originally Posted By tvc184:
Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.....



If my wife or child are held hostage, get out of the way, I'll go in myself and get them. I have over 1K hours of counterstrike, I can clear a room like nobodys business. "Counter terrorists win biotches!"
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 3:53:13 PM EDT
Most of the cops I work with have figured out that we are civilians, since we are not the military. So we refer to non cops as "citizens", which most of the folks we meet are.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 3:55:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By tvc184:

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."
Isn't it true also that the military is the public and the public is the military. I guess we should just delete the word "civilian" from our vocabulary since it appears to offend someone.

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets. I don't imagine that Sir Robert Peel envisioned thousand of cars speeding on a roadway when he wrote his reforms in the early 1800's or he would have included traffic control.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford. Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.... who were probably supposed to be out writing citations anyway, for people going 2 mph over the speed limit or eating donuts.......


Re #1: That is the PROPER use of the word civilian: Everybody who is not in the military. The police are civilians.



Amazing.

1. Military are NOT "civilians". Your ass is OWNED by the .gov. You are no longer afforded protections that are due to citizens, and you are subject to the UCMJ. However, a soldier is still a citizen (when applicable). LEO ARE civilians. They are public servants who are supposed to be

2. If you need a word to describe someone who is NOT a LEO, try "Citizen". It's much more respectful. Kind of like calls a cop "Police Officer" vs. "Copper".
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 4:07:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By AILapua:
Absolutely! Without crime, they have no income, their existence is based on crime. Yes, it is a sad truth but, it is the truth, nonetheless.


Crime is never going to go away; there is always someone willing to fill the void created by the arrest of criminals.


Absolutely.
Every year the public school contributes to job security
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 4:27:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Rustygun:
Some of the biggest problems in modern policing are:


2. People are now encouraged to call the police for matters that are not law enforcement. This creates a problem for police who arrive and really have no action to take since they are not armed babysitters.





So very true.




I blame the fucking politicians who have realized that by promising that their people will do more than if the "other guy" gets elected.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these fucking people call 911 for something, but by the time we get there, they refuse even talk to us.

Many here bitch about cops that do everything BUT law enforcement. Lemme tell ya, the common folk of the country want us to do everything except law enforcement. They want their children raised, their ex-husband/wife arrested, and their neighbor shot. We should do everything in the world for them except bother them.

It's crazy.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:00:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:

Every year the public school contributes to job security


Sorry, but I don't blame it on the schools; I blame it on the parents and the people in question.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 8:25:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2006 8:27:56 PM EDT by Polydude]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:

Every year the public school contributes to job security


Sorry, but I don't blame it on the schools; I blame it on the parents and the people in question.



I certainly figure there is enough blame for the schools too. Have you TALKED to a high school "Graduate" lately? VERY scary. hould

BTW: We call anyone not in the field "Civilians" too. (When we're not using "Stupid Jerk")
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:48:56 AM EDT
>SWAT exists because its needed.


BS
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 6:19:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Amazing.

1. Military are NOT "civilians". Your ass is OWNED by the .gov. You are no longer afforded protections that are due to citizens, and you are subject to the UCMJ. However, a soldier is still a citizen (when applicable). LEO ARE civilians. They are public servants who are supposed to be

2. If you need a word to describe someone who is NOT a LEO, try "Citizen". It's much more respectful. Kind of like calls a cop "Police Officer" vs. "Copper".



This is going to get fun. So just exactly which definition are you using to determine who is or is not a "civilian"? Here's one from Webster's...

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective


...and one from Cambridge Dictionaries....

civilian
noun [C]
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:


...and from dictionary.reference.com.....

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


IT"S JUST A WORD! Get over yourselves already....
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 7:22:15 AM EDT
Updated for present times:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to provide revenue for the the government, to gradually use different methods to erode the Bill of Rights, and to provide a class of citizen with more rights then the average civilian.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the whim of the police officer.

3. Police could care less about the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force caught on camera, if there is no video evidence the physical force never happened.

5. Police provide different service to the law depending if you are another police officer, work for the government, are rich or famous, or just a regular "civilian".

6. Police use physical force when they want, only if the force is videotaped will there be a problem.

7. Police are a protected class of citizen, and simple "civilians" can't understand or take care of themselves.

8. Police view everyone who is not a police officer as a criminal: unless you are rich, famous, or a member of the government.

9. The police are inefficient.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 7:51:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Amazing.

1. Military are NOT "civilians". Your ass is OWNED by the .gov. You are no longer afforded protections that are due to citizens, and you are subject to the UCMJ. However, a soldier is still a citizen (when applicable). LEO ARE civilians. They are public servants who are supposed to be

2. If you need a word to describe someone who is NOT a LEO, try "Citizen". It's much more respectful. Kind of like calls a cop "Police Officer" vs. "Copper".



This is going to get fun. So just exactly which definition are you using to determine who is or is not a "civilian"? Here's one from Webster's...

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective


...and one from Cambridge Dictionaries....

civilian
noun [C]
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:


...and from dictionary.reference.com.....

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


IT"S JUST A WORD! Get over yourselves already....



Those definitions were updated in the last 10 years or so. Definitions are changed with the times, unfortunately.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 7:52:06 AM EDT
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force caught on camera, if there is no video evidence the physical force never happened.

Remember.....STOP RESISTING......STOP RESISTING!

I am very confused....... I am a LEO and a ex fultime now part time soldier....
What do I call myself
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:30:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 8:36:41 AM EDT by ChickenKiller]

Originally Posted By killswitch:

Originally Posted By tvc184:
Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.....



If my wife or child are held hostage, get out of the way, I'll go in myself and get them. I have over 1K hours of counterstrike, I can clear a room like nobodys business. "Counter terrorists win biotches!"





Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:01:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By tax_monster:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
And wish more modern police departments understood and followed them:


What makes you think agencies AREN't following those principles?



Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford.




Civilians is simply a term of speech to distinguish members of agroup from those outside the group. Vaudeville actors referred to non-vaudeville people as civilians as well.

As for tickets, its probably most likely due to the residents of that area requesting that level of enforcement.

SWAT exists because its needed. Plain and simple.




Bwahahahahahhh!!!!! You've obviously been smoking some of the evidence.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:17:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tin_Star:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By tvc184:

Originally Posted By tax_monster:
Go back and read #7. Then tell me why cops insist on calling people like me "civilians."
Isn't it true also that the military is the public and the public is the military. I guess we should just delete the word "civilian" from our vocabulary since it appears to offend someone.

Go back and read #1. Then tell me why they spend so much time and effort writing 7-mph-over speeding tickets. I don't imagine that Sir Robert Peel envisioned thousand of cars speeding on a roadway when he wrote his reforms in the early 1800's or he would have included traffic control.

Go back and read #4. Then tell me why every po-dunk town has a SWAT team, or as close to one as they can afford. Let you wife or child be taken hostage and you will wish that the local police had more than three untrained cops with .38 specials.... who were probably supposed to be out writing citations anyway, for people going 2 mph over the speed limit or eating donuts.......



Re #1: That is the PROPER use of the word civilian: Everybody who is not in the military. The police are civilians.



I guess it depends on whos definition you go by:

ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj.
Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.

Modern Police agencies are para-military in structure. Are they not in fact "Armed Forces"




Modern Police are not subject to the UCMJ. Therefore, they are civilians.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top