Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm...you have a point.
American law enforcement officers are civilians (visual aid for debates)
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
WonderNine
member
That's what I just said!
My point was that I think it's messed up.
The Idaho Criminal and Traffic Law Manual refers to cops as peace officers and non law enforcement as private citizens. It also defines the differences (legally) between peace officers and private citizens - to include when a peace officer may arrest and when a private citizen may do so. You can look up the Idaho code on the Internet. Go to I.C. 19-601-620. This particular code defines the authority to arrest. The fact is there are legal differences between a police officer and a private citizen. It dosen't mean I see myself as above the law or better then a private citizen. Some guys might, but most don't.
Red_SC
Member
Oleg, very nicely done.
Ok, I see now. I failed to disconnect the header text and accompanying image from the "Most Americans..." language. Quite utterly, I'm told.
It's probably the overwhelming visage of the cop that originally prevented me from mentally grabbing the true message of the poster, as contained in the "Most Americans..." text.
The message has merit, Oleg, but the arrangement of the medium needs some fine tuning. So much for the mise-en-scene, eh?
As for the matter of the baggage that is attached to the word civilian - have you heard that some movie stars now refer to their non-entertainment industry dates as civilians? Ridiculous!
TM
Have you ever heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? Words have power. Words define how we think. Changing the meaning of a word can change attitudes. 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.
If you don't think words have power, how about this:
Bite it, PIG!!
Ouch. Now before we go any further, I'll apologize for using that derogatory word to you. I know you're a cop, and I thank you, and those like you, for your service. I do NOT regard LEOs as pigs, and I do NOT use that term about or to them. I did so on this occasion simply to make a point. Even if you instantly realised what I was doing, I'm willing to bet you had a negative reaction to that word. Ask yourself this: If you made a traffic stop on an iffy violation, one that you could in good conscience issue a warning for or write a ticket, and the driver greeted you with that insult, would that sway your decision about a warning vs. a ticket?
It would AT LEAST cross your mind If you are unusually scrupulous about letting your emotions dictate your official actions, you'll struggle with it and maybe err on the side of a warning just to be sure (for yourself) that you aren't giving a ticket because of the insult. But even than internal struggle is proof that the word affected you.
Words count. The other side knows that, and they play that card as often as they can. They do it well, and it's a very effective weapon in their arsenal.
Don' t underestimate the power of words.
thefitzvh
Member
NOTE: BEFORE ANYONE STARTS DEMANDING QUARTUS' HEAD ON A PLATTER, READ THIS:
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an illustration. read his text below.
That said, I have something to add:
Tcsd, I realize I come across as anti-LEO sometimes, but I'm not. I'm anti "us-vs-them" The continued use of the word "civilian" to refer to non-LEOs contributes to the growing rift between the common man and the peace officer.
I thank you for the enduring crappy work conditions, low pay, and little respect. I commend you for serving. But we will never agree, I fear, on just how damaging this "word" is.
I implore law enforcement to quit using this word. Your fellow citizens are no different than you at all.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an illustration. read his text below.
That said, I have something to add:
Tcsd, I realize I come across as anti-LEO sometimes, but I'm not. I'm anti "us-vs-them" The continued use of the word "civilian" to refer to non-LEOs contributes to the growing rift between the common man and the peace officer.
I thank you for the enduring crappy work conditions, low pay, and little respect. I commend you for serving. But we will never agree, I fear, on just how damaging this "word" is.
I implore law enforcement to quit using this word. Your fellow citizens are no different than you at all.
Oleg i thought the same thing as tall man and i believe i know why.
For the reason that the words "He carries a sidearm for self-protection" are in a large bold black text.
Then when you are talking about most Americans the text is white and smaller.
Then you go back to Larger black text and say "they deserve equal protection". Since that was in black my mind thought you were talking about the officers.
I then read it once more and understood.
So i can see why Tall Man saw it that way.
For the reason that the words "He carries a sidearm for self-protection" are in a large bold black text.
Then when you are talking about most Americans the text is white and smaller.
Then you go back to Larger black text and say "they deserve equal protection". Since that was in black my mind thought you were talking about the officers.
I then read it once more and understood.
So i can see why Tall Man saw it that way.
Thats the problem: some of you assume that because the term is used that we officers are describing ourselves as military. Were the Vaudevilians claiming to be military when they used the term? No. The term is simply used to distinguish those IN the occupation from those NOT in the occupation. You guys are getting wrapped around the axle for no reason at all.
thefitzvh
Member
Maybe that's true for you, tcsd, and that's great. Being a member of THR, I know you're of a higher caliber than the average american anyways. We're not in any way calling you into question.
But for another LEO, one who is not as moral as you, or one who falls into the "us vs them" trap, the term civilian is a dangerous facilitator for this attitude.
But for another LEO, one who is not as moral as you, or one who falls into the "us vs them" trap, the term civilian is a dangerous facilitator for this attitude.
That's precisely the problem, tc! If some other term were chosen, it might not be a problem, because certainly there is a valid distinction. But the term "civilian", as a means of distinguishing between LE and non-LE citizens implies something VERY wrong. You see, there's only one way to interpret a distinction - the WHOLE point is to say, "YOU are in THIS category, and I am in THAT category." Right? Even if THIS category is named, and THAT category is NOT named, it's still implied.
When you use the term, "civilian", the only other category ISN'T "law enforcement".
It's "military". And THAT is a huge problem.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
I might fine-tune the captions based on the input.
Greg L
Member
The term itself probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't for the perceived militarization of the various police agencies. The military's job is to kill people & break things, the police is to maintain order while they "serve & protect". The problems come up when the police start to use military tactics, equipment, language, etc. What it does is change their mindset from that of protector of the local population to that of a member of an occupying force where the local population is against them. Eventually it can become a self fulfilling prophecy as the local population will turn against them if they get too heavy handed with their duties.
Amish_Bill
Member
Maybe make the white text a little bolder and slide it up evenly between the blocks of black text? Make it stand out a bit more so the top & bottom text blocks are subservient to it.
sensop
Member
I think Black92LX hit on a good point, Oleg. I associated the font colors too. A visual effect ...
Oleg, I like.
Many of the LEOs I know refer to "us" as civilians and while they are not Military, they don't look at themselves as "civilians" either.
I think that many people are seeing LEOs (especially around here - NYC metro) that look more like special forces than regular cops. Its a perception thing, but I think if one were to ask a regular Joe on the street if the NYC cop with the Kevlar and M4 was a Civilian or not, he would probably say "No. Hes not a civilian."
Many of the LEOs I know refer to "us" as civilians and while they are not Military, they don't look at themselves as "civilians" either.
I think that many people are seeing LEOs (especially around here - NYC metro) that look more like special forces than regular cops. Its a perception thing, but I think if one were to ask a regular Joe on the street if the NYC cop with the Kevlar and M4 was a Civilian or not, he would probably say "No. Hes not a civilian."
The thing you have to look at is that no matter what you say, police will always be looked at differently than "civilians", "private citizens" or whatever you wish to call everyone else. This is not only true of fellow officers but of everyone else as well. Police officers are many times looked at in a different light then the rest of the people at a certain place. People are always on their best behavior because "that guy over there is a cop", or they will give an attitude to an officer because they do not look favorably on police.
As far as the term civilian and non-civilian go; I myself, as someone who's been through the police academy, would have to lean towards the fact that officers are not civilians. If you're comparison is to the military then look at it this way: All police officers must go through the academy, which is very similar to military basic training. We had to learn drill and ceremony, received rank and just about everything else that is done in basic military training. 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.
That's why I believe the term civilian and non-civilian comes in and is true. Now that being said I do not believe that makes me better than any civilian or anyone else for that matter, just different. And as I've shown above you can't say that police are not treated differently than the rest of society. It's just a fact of life.
As far as the term civilian and non-civilian go; I myself, as someone who's been through the police academy, would have to lean towards the fact that officers are not civilians. If you're comparison is to the military then look at it this way: All police officers must go through the academy, which is very similar to military basic training. We had to learn drill and ceremony, received rank and just about everything else that is done in basic military training. 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.
That's why I believe the term civilian and non-civilian comes in and is true. Now that being said I do not believe that makes me better than any civilian or anyone else for that matter, just different. And as I've shown above you can't say that police are not treated differently than the rest of society. It's just a fact of life.
grnzbra
Member
Howcomeisit...
...that no one seems to get upset with calling it a 45 auto when we all know it's a semi auto. The only people I ever hear correcting someone about that are newbies to the gun scene.
Oleg's poster says a lot.
However, let's face it guys. While cops are not military, as far as rights go, they are Super Civilians (at least here in PRNJ).
...that no one seems to get upset with calling it a 45 auto when we all know it's a semi auto. The only people I ever hear correcting someone about that are newbies to the gun scene.
Oleg's poster says a lot.
However, let's face it guys. While cops are not military, as far as rights go, they are Super Civilians (at least here in PRNJ).
Straight from dictionary.com :
ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (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.
ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (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.
JesusCow
Member
I like it!
And, I could use it in a certain argument I'm having with a person who thinks police officers are our well regulated militia.
And, I could use it in a certain argument I'm having with a person who thinks police officers are our well regulated militia.
While an "us vs. them" attitude is generally a bad thing in a Law Enforcement context, there are legal and practical differences between sworn officers and members of the general public. Among other things, many police forces are openly para-military in command structure, with ranks of authority (ie. job titles) derived from traditional military ranks. Thus, a state police force might have Troopers, Corporals, Majors, or other ranks with military names. To call someone who doesn't have a military-sounding rank a "civilian" follows naturally.
As far as "civilian" being used to describe a person who is not a member of a particular organized group with special status, the other day there was a large structure fire nearby here. The news reported that there was significant loss of property, but that no "firefighters or civilians" were injured. Most of the firefighters in question were probably unpaid volunteers, but they got to drive with flashing lights and sirens sounding, and blow through red lights on the way to the fire, because as (volunteer) firefighters there are certain legal and practical diffences between them and non-firefighters. As a community, we have decided by law and practice that it's better to let them ignore red lights and certain other traffic laws, than to wait longer for them to arrive at a fire.
Beyond those subject to the UCMJ, "civilian" has come to denote a private citizen going about his or her private life. This is as opposed to those acting in some quasi-official capacity, even if they are themselves ultimately private citizens.
-twency,
a civilian by any definition
(except for being a specialist in Roman law)
____________
A civilian by any other name is still just some guy or gal trying to get by like the rest of us.
As far as "civilian" being used to describe a person who is not a member of a particular organized group with special status, the other day there was a large structure fire nearby here. The news reported that there was significant loss of property, but that no "firefighters or civilians" were injured. Most of the firefighters in question were probably unpaid volunteers, but they got to drive with flashing lights and sirens sounding, and blow through red lights on the way to the fire, because as (volunteer) firefighters there are certain legal and practical diffences between them and non-firefighters. As a community, we have decided by law and practice that it's better to let them ignore red lights and certain other traffic laws, than to wait longer for them to arrive at a fire.
Beyond those subject to the UCMJ, "civilian" has come to denote a private citizen going about his or her private life. This is as opposed to those acting in some quasi-official capacity, even if they are themselves ultimately private citizens.
-twency,
a civilian by any definition
(except for being a specialist in Roman law)
____________
A civilian by any other name is still just some guy or gal trying to get by like the rest of us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
