Police and "civillians"

[Wapitibill]

Law enforcement officers frequently use the word "civillian" to describe non LEO's.

I don't know why but this 'rubs me the wrong way.' Let me try to explain it this way.

When a person joins the military they are taken out of everyday society and live under a completely different set of rules for the duration of their service. The Constitution, Bill of Rights (as well as many other laws) no longer fully apply, having been replaced by the UCMJ. There are responsibilites (and consequences) encountered in military life that are all but unknown to those in the "outside." In this context it is entirely appropriate to use the word "civillian" to differentiate a person who is serving in the military from someone who is not. It's true that law enforcement agencies are orgainzed around a military-like chain of command and LEO's often have a military background. The motto: "To Protect and Serve" is written on most police cruisers and could also be used to describe the primary role of the military.

But there's a big difference between a cop and a soldier, sailor, Marine, airman etc. On duty or off, law enforcement officers remain very much a part of everyday society. They are also subject to exactly the same laws as everyone else (at least technically.) Despite the uniform, badge and authority the LEO (who's not on active duty in the military) IS a civillian. A friend of mine is a petroleum inspector for the state. He carries a badge and has arrest powers. Another friend is the town dog catcher (oops, make that "animal control officer.") He, too, carries an official badge and can make arrests within his jurisdiction. Would anyone refer to these guys (and other in authority such as building inspectors) anything but civillians?

Does the use of the word "civillian" by (civillian) law enforcement officers infer a status that they don't have or describe a situation that doesn't fully apply to them?

What do you think?

[TinStar]

Well as a retired Deputy Sheriff I can tell you that my dept. rarely if ever referred to others as civilians. In fact the Sheriffs I've served under referred to them as taxpayers, citizens, or residents. Mnay legal experts consider police to be sort of paramilitary; so maybe that is why they use that term. To compare "animal control officers and petroleum inspectors" to police isn't very good as they are worlds apart.
I don't know whether you fit into this catergory; but there are some folks that just don't like cops plain and simple and always give examples of some bad behavior and never the good.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[ncboman]

I've never heard any of our local deputies use the term but I have heard big city deputies use it.

I was a bouncer in a club in San Antonio and one of the other bouncers was a cop. That guy was somethin else. In his mind, it was always 'us against them.' :rolleyes:

ncboman

[TinStar]

I've seen a rare few with that "us against them" mentality and preferred not to breath the same air as they. I had; and have, an "us against them attitude" but it is an us against the scumbags that screw over decent folk. Never any shortage of them around these days.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

[LampLighter]

Funny thing is, the ones that are "us against them" mentality really take care of business when the crap hits the fan. The "educated" ones try to reason with talk. I was guilty of that. I had caught a night hunter and I knew his buddy's were hiding in the woods nearby. The city pd came by and saw that I had made a stop. They came on in, and when I was finished questioning them about their buddy's, the officers asked if I wanted them to "have a try." I said " go ahead." :eek::eek: Man they knocked that dude to the ground and had a foot on his neck and a PR-24 in his mouth, and asked "where's your buddies? Absolutely in no time he gave them up, and we found them.

The ideal police officer or Wildlife Agent is one that can handle a situation like that, but turn 180 degrees and "be nice" with the general public in regards to routine traffic stops. The problem is- these officers cannot ever turn that off. They tell you in the academy that you will develop the "10 year syndrone." A mental "fed up" attitude, and that is where the us & them comes in. They tell you in the academy AND in CJ 101 in college that cops have a very high divorce rate and suicide rate.

To really get the job done in a bad area, these type officers can be effective however they very often have a very low conviction rate. They make mistakes and the perp makes use of the Exclusionary rule to exclude evidence obtained illegally.

I really don't know which mentality would get the job done with convictions.

[LampLighter]

To clarify the above, I mean the ideal officer is one who affirms charge and command with an irate perp, not necessarily like the incident described, but one who firmly makes it clear not to mistake kindness for weakness. Just wanted to clarify that. This forum crashes so much I wasn't able to clarify that earlier.

[BILL K]

Good cop, bad cop, there's no denying that there are some of each, but every once in awhile fate can take one of those strange turns that makes you say, "Aint that just a kick in the azz!"
I'll not tell the name of the cop nor the state where this took place, but, I once knew of a cop who had a reputation for being very heavy handed. The kind of guy that threw people up against their car just to ask for their license and registration and quick to use excessive physical force on those who didnt comply in what he considered a timely fashion.
It got to the point where something had to be done, but the particular agency he worked for would never even think of firing him because they felt that to do that would be like admitting they had done wrong by hiring him in the first place.
The problem was solved by taking him out of the uniform, giving him a raise commensurate with his new title of "Detective", and giving him a car.
And, what's really sweet is that now he's the guy who goes out and arrests child molesters, puttin' those heavy hands to some really good use!