Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm...you have a point.
The dictionary is only reflecting the terminology in current usage.
Ok, I see now. I failed to disconnect the header text and accompanying image from the "Most Americans..." language. Quite utterly, I'm told.I was trying to say that the non-LEOs shOuld have the same protections as the LEOs...
Which THR member is that? I've got a wild, crazy, out of this world guess....a nice THR member.
WHY does this debate continue ro resurface? WHY do some gun owners keep getting themselves worked up over whether LEOs are referred to as civilans or non-civilians?The reality is that in common usage, the term is used to refer to non-LEOs. Vaudeville performers called non-vaudeville people civilians as well. Was there an uproar? No. Its a reality of modern language. I suggest everyone move on to some other topic that has some real importance.
The change of mindset in this country from police officers being civilians to police officers being a military force is VERY important (and very dangerous), and is facilitated by the incorrect use of the term "civilian" by (some) police officers.
The term is simply used to distinguish those IN the occupation from those NOT in the occupation.
I took that oath as well as a Federal employee. I'm still a civilian because I don't fall under the auspices of the UCMJ. Police don't either, thus they're civilians.The other, and most important fact, is that when a police officer is hired he must be sworn in and take an oath to uphold the law just as military personnel must take an oath to defend the Constitution.