I know a number of cops. None of them have ever drawn their weapon other than on the range.
So what about the Coast Guard? How about when the National Guard is called in to restore peace?
So how about the raid on the camp Davidians? How is a raid in Iraq different from that?
Why not? I content that there are enough similarities that it is useful. They are both agents of the state empowered to use force, guided by different laws than the rest of the populice, and equipped with weapons the populice cannot (legally) obtain.
Please explain why you feel that LEA’s are in the same boat as civilians in secutiy firms or acting as bounty hunters. Neither of these groups have the same legal standing and empowerment that the LEAs do.
See the above list. Reread the list in my OP and tell me which ones are firmly one or the other, but not both.
Possibly. Also because, as some have mentioned above, many individuals in LE refer to all non-police as civilians, but, when in a discussion, a non-LE refers to non-LE as civilians, someone comes around and says, “but cops are civilians, too.” Lastly, they also have a different set of laws to live by.
I am quite surprised the government has not.
Bah. Please ignor teh msispelings abuve.
My brother was in the Army for 8 years and never drew a weapon other than in training.
http://www.policetrainingconsultants.com/BasicSniper/
I am certainly not arguing that the LEAs are part of the military (It’s all a conspiracy people! WAKE UP!) 
I am saying that the difference between “military” and “law enforcement” is merely in the details of the organization. If the individual LE agencies here in the states were organized into one “Homeland Security Force” would you have any problems calling such force the sixth branch of the armed forces?
A platypus is similar to a duck in that they both have bills, webbed feet, and lay eggs but despite what they share in common a platypus is not a duck.
The Coast Guard is one of those weird agencies. Normally it falls under the Department of Justice but during war it can fall under the Department of Defense. The National Guard are only used during extreme circumstances when the normal law enforcement has broken down for whatever reason.
The ATF didn’t hit the Davidians with the intention of killing them they wanted to execute a search warrant. The military might be interested in capturing weapons or intelligence but they’re also out to specifically kill their enemies which most law enforcement types are not out to do.
If you want to lump the police with the military be my guest but don’t be surprised when people arch their eyebrow or roll their eyes at you during conversations.
Marc
That’s a nice, neat analogy, that conveniently does not answer the question. Wanna actually make the comparisons and contrasts in actuality, and not by analogy?
…so… I’m right that military agencies are also responsible for enforcing the laws of the US on US soil?
So why are the prisons in Iraq filled with living, breathing people, instead of simply being morgues? If all the forces are trying to do is kill people, they should launch a couple of nukes and be done with it. (Or blitzkreig 'em all and let god sort it out.)
I believe that you are differentiating frequencies. The forces in Iraq kill people more often than the LEA’s in the US. The LEA’s in the US raid on privately held lands and confiscate illegal materials; so do the forces in Iraq. The difference is only in how often and under what circumstances.
So I shouldn’t arch my eyebrows and roll my eyes when I hear police speak of “civilians ?”
(Interesting; dunno why I ddn’t link to this def’n in my OP; according to def’n 1, but not the adj’s, dictionary.com agrees with me that “cops” are not "civilians.)
They are not the same, but bounty hunters, security guards, and pretty much every individual in the US is allowed to use force in an appropriate legal manner. LEOs are bound by the same laws as the rest of us. In practice, there are some unfortunate exceptions to that, but in general, we all operate under the same rule of law. People have different responsibilities and are empowered to do different things, but that is true over all sorts of ranges.
The military operate under a different legal system if I understand correctly.
You seem to be hung up on the term “civilian”. Lots of folks have commented that it is very common for organizations to refer to those outside the organization as civilians. It’s just a way of differentiating “us” from “them”. They do not have a different set of laws to live by, but different aspects of the law apply to different people. Parents are held to different responsibilities and are given greater authority over others than non-parents, but it’s the same set of laws.
When was the last time you entered a house and searched for it illegal materials? When was the last time you gave someone a citation for speeding? When was the last time you made an arrest? When was the last time you were able to legally drive faster than the speed limit?
Unless you are a cop, I would imagine you have never done any of the above. (If you were an EMT, you likely have not done the last one, either. In many jurisdictions, EMT’s / Paramedics are not legally allowed to drive above the speed limit.)
Does it really matter if all of the laws are bound together in the same book if different sections apply to different people?
That is my understanding as well. All members of the armed forces are held to the UCMJ, however, those laws are still a part of US laws (Title 10 United States Code, Chapter 47 ).
The rules set up that dictate what a member of the military can and can’t do are different from the rules that dictate what a civilian can and can’t do. Right now, the military are not bound by the UCMJ. They are the one section of the population that is empowered to use force to protect peace that is not bound by the UCMJ. If I were to start a second debate, I would actually argue for the nation’s LE agencies to be united into one force and held to the UCMJ (with a few changes - like civilian oversight committees, or somesuch).
Well, that may be true. I admitted right off the bat that I am arguing semantics. I want to try to define these terms in a coherent manner. As has been pointed out in this thread, many people (including deli-workers, it seems) simply use the term as “not-us.” I am looking for a non-jargon definition.
Ok, fair enough. But I think that terms “parent” and “minor” are relatively well-defined. It did take a little while for our society to begin using “Guardian” in the same manner as “parent.”
The Coast Guard is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to that, it fell under the Department of Transportation. Before that, the Treasury Department.
Next up: Department of Energy or maybe Education - whichever one can fund our Deepwater program.
That is correct. The USCG, a military agency, has law enforcement authority. The root of that authority stems from 14 USC 89. And it’s not just in the U.S., but almost anywhere in the world under certain circumstances save for actual foreign soil. In fact, the CG probably has more law enforcement authority and jurisdiction than any other LE agency in the U.S.
Well, soil might be stretching it a bit when we’re talking about the Coast Guard but yeah in some special cases the military can be involved with law enforcement.
Feel free but understand it’s common jargon and doesn’t mean they’re a military organization despite your nifty Dictionary.com definition.
Well I think I’m just going to cut bait and bow out of the conversation. I don’t think we’re going to convince one another one way or the other so take it easy and I’ll see you in another thread.
Marc
The US Coast Guard isn’t cops. It’s a branch of the US Armed Forces. That it is not a part of the Department of Defense does not, in any way whatsoever, change the fact that it’s one of our Armed Forces.
The National Guard is a reserve component of the US Army. That does not, in any way whatsoever, make it cops.
Have you also noticed how many Chiefs-of-Police and Sheriffs (especially in some of the smaller departments) wear the rank insignia of 4-star or 5-star generals?
I’ve also seen “enlisted” police personnel wearing Master Sergeant stripes.
It does seem to be a wee bit militarised to me.
Will the police forces of the United States assume an actual military function (e.g. fighting as infantry units) if there was ever a military land invasion of the United States?
A police department using ranks similar to military ranks, insignias similar to military ranks, and salutes does not make them military.
Well, it looks like that’s the end for my attempt to stir up a Great Debate over the similarities between law enforcement and military.
…However, at the risk of sounding like I’m saying, “I WIN THE DEBATE, Woo-HOO, go me! It’s my birthday! It’s ma birfday!” [ahem] …
… I can’t really see any counter-arguments here other than, “they’re not the same because they’re not.” (I see one counter argument based on analogy; and one where the debater keeps saying "even though you see all these similarites, they’re really different. I won’t say how they’re different, but they are.) I don’t see anyone refuting my comparisons or taking the time to explain their views.
Bah. I should have just started a poll in IMHO.
I would if I had the slightest inkling how in this case - however, I don’t see what there is to “debate” unless one has a lot of video clips to refer to. I was merely going on my impressions from watching TV interviews with cops and soldiers. If I was talking “stereotypes”, they’re “stereotypes” that members of those communities buy into, probably without even knowing it.
My response to those who say that the police are not CIVILIANS in the U.S.A., or to whom may be merely questioning weather they are is below for your reading pleasure. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did ranting about it.
The Police in America are part of the “CIVILIAN POLICE FORCE” as sworn civil servants. Which makes them civilians period.
A police officer can tell his Sargent to go to hell if his Sargent
wants to send the officer into a gun fight. The most that will happen is the cop will be fired and perhaps lose his pension. Because he is a “CIVILIAN”, he has the freedom to make that choice. (Sure, he’ll never be a cop again.)
A solider can not say no to his superior who gives such a command. He has not the right to say no. And if he does he can be court marshaled and perhaps even shot. Once a soldier you ARE government property until you are discharged from service.
A police officer makes a choice every day to put that badge on, and to go do his or her job.
A soldier’s choices are made for him or her once enlisted.
CIVILIANS ARE FREE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, SOLDIERS FIGHT TO KEEP CIVILIANS FREE.
What will we allow next? Are we to allow airline pilots at United Air Ways to start calling us civilians because they have a pin that says Captain? How about the guy who you charter a fishing boat for the day from? He has a Captain’s license to pilot that boat. I think not. It is disrespectful to those in our armed forces to use the term “CIVILIAN” if you are not a soldier. At least in my opinion.
I think emotively, that a person who uses the term “CIVILIAN” when they are themselves a “CIVILIAN” denotes a need or claim to power or title that is not their own and that they are not deserving of. It is an attempt to place themselves falsely in a higher station than they actually rank. Perhaps for the purposes of intimidation, manipulation or just to be seen as some thing bigger then they are, so that people will feel they have less of a right to not comply with them.
Or may be it’s all just a common fallacy or mistake in proper grammar, terminology or meaning, that the masses misuse the term “CIVILIAN” so blatantly.
Well I guess that’s been building up for eight years.
Let me guess, Moe, you served in the military?
And the freedom that the military fought for allows the police, the fire department, city workers, airline staff, and fishing fleets to call anyone they want “civilian”. There is no single definition of the word (which was the point of this thread 8 years ago) and not single use is mandatory.
Civilian is a way of separating “us” from “them” and is useful and appropriate in many contexts.
Nothing says “power” like identifying oneself as property.
Very good points - language is contextual, not absolute. For another example, consider
[QUOTE=Galatians 3:28 KJV]
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Here, Paul is using the term “Greek” colloquially to mean “someone who isn’t Jewish”. Italians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Germans, Celts, and other people who might have been in Paul’s audience would have been included in the expression, even though they might not have Greek ancestry, not have citizenship papers for any Greek city-state, not be native speakers of Greek, or might not even speak Greek at all.
I don’t care what they’re considered. Most cops I’ve met didn’t merit being called civil. Most are egotistic, morally delinquent control freaks with sadistic impulses, devoid of humor and compassion for their fellow man. That help any ? No ? Maybe I’ve been around more than most others.