Civilian or non-civilian, which are you? - Page 2

General » Brothers Of The Shield

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Civilian or non-civilian, which are you? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/20/2004 5:54:01 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Friend, that is the root of the definition of both terms.....

If you are in the military you are not a civilian. Agreed? Regardless of where you go, who you go with, armed, unarmed, asleep, awake, no matter what if you are active duty military you are NOT CIVILIAN. Right? Why? The why is that your life is controlled under the UCMJ. A different law, just for the military.

Then, there is everyone else. Me, the police officers, the trash collection guys, the clerk at Walmart....
We all fall under State laws.......whether we are at work, at play, armed or unarmed....whatever. We answer to the same judges and the laws are taken from the same volumes.

I am not attacking anyone. If someone feels attacked it may mean that they want to feel special and I am offering the accurate definition that removes their status as "special". I'm sorry if people feel that way, but it's not about demeaning police officers, though that may have been the thread originators intent, it is CERTAINLY not mine.

Posted: 9/20/2004 5:57:58 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

"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.

Personal attacks? How big of you.

Yeah, personal attacks, not like I was accused of being on a power trip, I guess that wasn't a personal attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:17:57 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:

"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.

Personal attacks? How big of you.

Yeah, personal attacks, not like I was accused of being on a power trip, I guess that wasn't a personal attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh, anyone can plainly see that you are used to getting your own way. Sure sounded like a power trip, sure looked like a power trip. "Your right I won't argue. We'll just go by the defintion of the word. You lose. Thanx for playing." Sure sounds like you want to be the one defining the parameters of the argument. Since you can't argue any of the points OUTSIDE what you want to define as the arguable material.

Here's a good definiton that shows how asinine the NEW definitions are:

ci•vil•ian

Pronunciation: (si-vil'yun), [key]
—n.
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal.anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

—adj.
of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.

So now we have firefighters in there too.....and even a clear line between "military" and "naval".

By all means, we should rely on the definitions given in the "new" dictionaries...

I guess it's kind of like the new math they teach where it's OK if you get 2+2=5. So long as you tried to solve it and you worked hard, the answer can be 5.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:28:01 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
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."

We gotta call them SOMETHING. Cuss words are not looked upon kindly in mixed company, and calling them all "George" or "Bob" could get confusing, and the ladies may take offense.

I suggest we call them "Those people that are similar in status to an artist formerly known as Prince"

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:34:14 AM EDT

[#5]

You guys, you're probably right, it's really no big deal to me. You can call yourselves whatever you like.....

Just remember how you react to folks who call themselves:

Custodial Engineers aka Janitors
Sanitation Engineers aka Trash Men
Retail Petroleum Distribution Engineers aka Gas Station Attendants
Liquid Recoating Specialists aka Painters

I'm sure they have plausible arguments for their case too -- they are probably in the newest edition of the Oxford Unabridged.

Think about it.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:38:30 AM EDT

[#6]

This whole thing has to do with peoples perception of power, It's a word that creates two levels of precieved citizen, or what I think is the problem. Civilian is a word that people associate with military type athority. Cops are public servants and work for the taxpayers of that state [ they pay themselvs ] and when a cop calls a person that is in the same social environment as them [but with athority to protect and serve] they see it as a power word. It creates a devide where there needs to be cohesion . It it simply makes some people feel second class to a cop.

I do think it is an easy effective way to describe uniformed personal and group of people that are say getting out of hand.

I personally do not take any offence to it, Cops are usually good people sometimes you get that bad ass drunk with power because they have the power to arrest someone and suspend their rights that screws up the public opinion for all the other good cops.

I have never had a bad expierence with a cop in my life and I live in NJ. The nicest cops I ever met in my life was a texas state trooper! [speeding ticket]

Eather way I think that the only people that have a problem with the description are people that wish they had the power that they precieve a cop haveing and just wish that they could say and do the same things.

Cops rule .. hay if I call 911 I expect them to be here to help!

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:53:47 AM EDT

[#7]

Could someone send me an IM when this devolves into discussion over what pants I wear and my haircut style? I'm going to bed now. I just finished 3 16 hour days.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:56:52 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Friend, that is the root of the definition of both terms.....

If you are in the military you are not a civilian. Agreed? Regardless of where you go, who you go with, armed, unarmed, asleep, awake, no matter what if you are active duty military you are NOT CIVILIAN. Right? Why? The why is that your life is controlled under the UCMJ.
A different law, just for the military.Then, there is everyone else. Me, the police officers, the trash collection guys, the clerk at Walmart....
We all fall under State laws.......whether we are at work, at play, armed or unarmed....whatever. We answer to the same judges and the laws are taken from the same volumes.

Thats YOUR definition/ distinction. I would say that you are a non-civilian simply because you are in the military. Not because you are subject to UCMJ or any such artificial distinction.Oh, and military folk are just as subject to state penal law as they are to UCMJ.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:07:30 AM EDT

[#9]

from the gov't here to help

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:11:04 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Friend, that is the root of the definition of both terms.....

If you are in the military you are not a civilian. Agreed? Regardless of where you go, who you go with, armed, unarmed, asleep, awake, no matter what if you are active duty military you are NOT CIVILIAN. Right? Why? The why is that your life is controlled under the UCMJ.
A different law, just for the military.Then, there is everyone else. Me, the police officers, the trash collection guys, the clerk at Walmart....
We all fall under State laws.......whether we are at work, at play, armed or unarmed....whatever. We answer to the same judges and the laws are taken from the same volumes.

Thats YOUR definition/ distinction. I would say that you are a non-civilian simply because you are in the military. Not because you are subject to UCMJ or any such artificial distinction.Oh, and military folk are just as subject to state penal law as they are to UCMJ.

It is?

There are alternate definitions of military? Ones that say they are civilians?

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:29:02 AM EDT

[#11]

I'm an American.

r/s

Dan

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:45:52 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Gosh, anyone can plainly see that you are used to getting your own way. Sure sounded like a power trip, sure looked like a power trip. "Your right I won't argue. We'll just go by the defintion of the word. You lose. Thanx for playing." Sure sounds like you want to be the one defining the parameters of the argument. Since you can't argue any of the points OUTSIDE what you want to define as the arguable material.

Here's a good definiton that shows how asinine the NEW definitions are:

ci•vil•ian

Pronunciation: (si-vil'yun), [key]
—n.
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal.anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

—adj.
of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.

So now we have firefighters in there too.....and even a clear line between "military" and "naval".

By all means, we should rely on the definitions given in the "new" dictionaries...

I guess it's kind of like the new math they teach where it's OK if you get 2+2=5. So long as you tried to solve it and you worked hard, the answer can be 5.

Woohooo I win with your definition too!!

Oly 2, Shivan 0

Power trip, that may be what it appears to to someone who is WRONG. It's not a power trip, it's OLY being right.

Military includes naval forces, I guess they had to expand the definition because people want to split hairs............................

If you also notice, civilian refers to one who is not in the military, police, or fire fighting services, that doesn't mean that police or fire service personell have anything to do with military. They are exceptions to "civilian".

Thanks again, for pointing out you were wrong with your own supplied defintion.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:57:41 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.....

Brother, calling me a civilian is a sign of respect in my book. You can call me that all day and night if it pleases you. I am happy with anything above "asshole"

Like I said, if you read carefully...I was not directing the above post at anyone. As far as "God complex" or subjugation of rights, please refer to the word "perceived" and insert any GD discussion on the topic.

Relax... I don't think I am better than anyone. Period, job or otherwise. But then again, I don't think the problem lies on my side. I hope you are able to work through this and recognize your allies (pro-2am cops) without alienating fellow gun lovers (regardless of their profession.)

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:01:22 AM EDT

[#14]

Being governed by the UCMJ has nothing to do with being civilian or not. Members of the military are part of "the government" so they are not civilians...even though "civilian" law (non UCMJ) still applies to them within non military jurisdictions (i.e. off post).

Now, what about members of the FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other government agency? They are not in the military....do you say that they are civillians as well?

Many people consider anyone who is not an employee of the government to be a civilian.

State and local police dept's are local government agencies, so many officers refer to non-officers as "civillians". Although not perfect, it is the closest thing to describe what they are meaning to say when referring to non-police officers.

As much as some here hate it, there are times when the distinction between police and non-police must be described.....and "civilian", for lack of a better word, is the most convenient way to denote it.

Quoted:

There are only two groups MILITARY and NON-MILITARY.

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:15:12 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Here's a good definiton that shows how asinine the NEW definitions are:

Woohooo I win with your definition too!!

Thanks again, for pointing out you were wrong with your own supplied defintion.

Reading comprehension....

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:16:04 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
...for lack of a better word, is the most convenient way to denote it.

So it's about being conveinent, not about being accurate. OK, got it.

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:18:51 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
But then again, I don't think the problem lies on my side. I hope you are able to work through this and recognize your allies (pro-2am cops) without alienating fellow gun lovers (regardless of their profession.)

No problem here, see this post?

You guys, you're probably right, it's really no big deal to me. You can call yourselves whatever you like.....

Just remember how you react to folks who call themselves:

Custodial Engineers aka Janitors
Sanitation Engineers aka Trash Men
Retail Petroleum Distribution Engineers aka Gas Station Attendants
Liquid Recoating Specialists aka Painters

I'm sure they have plausible arguments for their case too -- they are probably in the newest edition of the Oxford Unabridged.

Think about it.

Anyone can call themselves anything.....no problems at all.

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:23:32 AM EDT

[#18]

I'm a Police Officer because I want to help people. Who gives a shit what I'm considered (civilian/non civilian) I'm here to help people to the best of my ability and go home alive at night.. Everyone is right in one point or another.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:24:11 AM EDT

[#19]

So, since you seem to be splitting hairs, what about the FBI and LEO's from other federal agencies? Do you say that they are civilians as well?

Quoted:
Quoted:
...for lack of a better word, is the most convenient way to denote it.

So it's about being conveinent, not about being accurate. OK, got it.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:33:40 AM EDT

[#20]

How about "Non-police-American"? My personal policy is to call everyone what they want to be called, even if it changes every few years. As long as any group can come to a consensus on how they wish to be addressed, I will comply.

All I ask is that all persons who are not employed as police get together and think up a word for them that police can use when referring to the above referenced non-police personnel that doesn't offend anyone.

They we will try and get in into a dictionary, where if we succeed, twenty years from now someone else will be saying, "If the dictionary says that, the dictionary is full of crap".

But, we can deal with that then.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:53:56 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
So, since you seem to be splitting hairs, what about the FBI and LEO's from other federal agencies? Do you say that they are civilians as well?

Quoted:
Quoted:
...for lack of a better word, is the most convenient way to denote it.

So it's about being conveinent, not about being accurate. OK, got it.

Splitting hairs? I am using the biggest possible "buckets" to place groups of people in, and somehow I am splitting hairs. We are not talking minutia here, we are talking big groups of 100,000's++ of people.

As far as FBI etc.......

Hell, who knows, they aren't listed in the dictionary specifically and since that's what we should go by it's all very unclear.

Maybe someone should write Webster's and Oxford and have them make further clarification.

Posted: 9/20/2004 10:25:48 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Being governed by the UCMJ has nothing to do with being civilian or not. Members of the military are part of "the government" so they are not civilians...even though "civilian" law (non UCMJ) still applies to them within non military jurisdictions (i.e. off post).

Yes additionally, even on or off base, on or off liberty, on or off leave, the UCMJ applies. If a Marine of sailor under my command commits a civil offence, I can prosecute him even if the civil authorities have prosecuted. Normally out of a sense of not double prosecuting, after the civil courts are done we don't take action. However, in the past I have been in commands that did prosecute after the civil authorities on drug cases.

Posted: 9/20/2004 10:27:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Military includes naval forces, I guess they had to expand the definition because people want to split hairs............................

There are non-military naval forces in the US, namely the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine in peace time.

Posted: 9/20/2004 11:23:12 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

I dont think I said they dont. If you took what I wrote that way then thats not what I was getting at
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.

First off you just assumed I havent seen that. Just because you have seen something " Regularly", that means you not a civilian. It just means your more wordly- it doesnt give you anymore power I can watch all the idiots/ abusers/ bad people I want on TV/ News
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............

I'm for as much law as we need. Id rather have too much than not enough

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?

I live in a shithole 3rd world country. I've had 2 friends shot. I wear a c3 vest everyday, drive like a madman and watch for people tailing me. I watch out for people taking notes. I get a sitrep everyday about the local threats. I can point out all the bullet holes in the walls. If you want to talk about bad things ive seen i'll go toe to toe, but would rather not. If your having problems with what you do see the shrink- it will help.

I didn't come here to bag on LEO's (although some will say I did). I asked a ? so I COULD understand. Your response is a noncaring one, just like the original LEO. 1st you assume and then you don't try and help me understand. Why not just say fuck off. It gets to the point better. I want to know how you classify yourself and the reasoning behind it. So far this has turned into a pissing match.

Thank you that have replied with your thought on your meaning of civilian and how you think it applies

Posted: 9/20/2004 11:57:05 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Here's a good definiton that shows how asinine the NEW definitions are:

Woohooo I win with your definition too!!

Thanks again, for pointing out you were wrong with your own supplied defintion.

Reading comprehension....

Yeah it's an ass kicker, maybe you should take a course or two.

I like how YOU think YOU get to decide what words mean.

Your wrong. Whether or not you agree with the definition of a word is pointless. Are you going to argue the meaning of the word "is" next?

Next, you started defining what military vs. non-military meant, which is great. Except the word that was trying to be defined was civilian. Not military.

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.

----------------------------------------------------

Again for you, civilian is one who is not in the military, or an active member of the police forces. That doesn't mean that police are part of the military. It means police aren't "civilians".

Posted: 9/20/2004 12:03:53 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

I live in a shithole 3rd world country. I've had 2 friends shot. I wear a c3 vest everyday, drive like a madman and watch for people tailing me. I watch out for people taking notes. I get a sitrep everyday about the local threats. I can point out all the bullet holes in the walls. If you want to talk about bad things ive seen i'll go toe to toe, but would rather not. If your having problems with what you do see the shrink- it will help.

I didn't come here to bag on LEO's (although some will say I did). I asked a ? so I COULD understand. Your response is a noncaring one, just like the original LEO. 1st you assume and then you don't try and help me understand. Why not just say fuck off. It gets to the point better. I want to know how you classify yourself and the reasoning behind it. So far this has turned into a pissing match.

Thank you that have replied with your thought on your meaning of civilian and how you think it applies

Good, minimize anything I have to say, because obviously you know it all.

Next time you ask a police officer "why is it"? And he looks at you and says you wouldn'r understand................. Think back to this post, and remeber when you asked why people don't understand what police do, and you got a sincere answer, which you shit all over..................

Yah idiot. Everytime someone says why don't police talk to people.............One did in this very post, and you immediatley minimzied and downgraded what he had to say. Then you wonder why police don't want to talk about what they see............

Posted: 9/20/2004 12:09:35 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Here's a good definiton that shows how asinine the NEW definitions are:

Woohooo I win with your definition too!!

Thanks again, for pointing out you were wrong with your own supplied defintion.

Reading comprehension....

Yeah it's an ass kicker, maybe you should take a course or two.

I like how YOU think YOU get to decide what words mean.

Your wrong. Whether or not you agree with the definition of a word is pointless. Are you going to argue the meaning of the word "is" next?

Next, you started defining what military vs. non-military meant, which is great. Except the word that was trying to be defined was civilian. Not military.

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.

----------------------------------------------------

Again for you, civilian is one who is not in the military, or an active member of the police forces. That doesn't mean that police are part of the military. It means police aren't "civilians".

Hey man, it's cool just call yourself a Law Enforcement Engineer. Or maybe an Administration of Justice Specialist. It's about the equivalent of calling yourself a non-civilian.

I guess you just started looking at the meaning of words, or dictionaries, in this decade. Get over yourself.

Posted: 9/20/2004 12:44:35 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

I guess you just started looking at the meaning of words, or dictionaries, in this decade. Get over yourself.

yeap... using the old definitions it the way to go... because this is one GAY discussion.

using only the original meaning or words because you don't like the direction a living language is taking is just silly. by your logic nobody is a civilian since there are very few people who specialize in Roman law running around.

this discussion always dissolves into this...

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:17:21 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I guess you just started looking at the meaning of words, or dictionaries, in this decade. Get over yourself.

yeap... using the old definitions it the way to go... because this is one GAY discussion.

using only the original meaning or words because you don't like the direction a living language is taking is just silly. by your logic nobody is a civilian since there are very few people who specialize in Roman law running around.

this discussion always dissolves into this...

As late as 1984 the definition stated that a civilian was anyone not actively involved with the armed forces of a country. i.e. non-military....

Maybe if someone could explain the change. Why did it change? What happened in the everyday life that suddenly made police officers non-civilian? Was it simply the fact that we issued them APC's, submachine guns and machine guns and hard body armor? Or does it speak to the tactics and training doctrine they employ?

What made it change?

Maybe that would be a better approach to understand why the definition changed.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:18:02 PM EDT

[#30]

This had been beaten to death. I'm done with this topic; don't even think of this crap again here.

I don't care if you think I’m a civilian or not. I’m a LEO with a job to do, leave me the hell alone.

Art in KY

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:18:39 PM EDT

[#31]

locked

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Civilian or non-civilian, which are you? (Page 2 of 2)

General » Brothers Of The Shield

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us