Do you need a hug?
That sort of post does nothing but rile people up without providing any substance to actually discuss. This discussion is in regard to the status of police as “civilians.” It is not supposed to be a rant on “Why I hate cops.” If you need to rant, open a thread in The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Funny - every one I have ever spoken to has been civil and considerate (and I don’t think Canada is THAT different from the US in that regard). That includes one time that I was arrested for something that I absolutely agree was incredibly stupid on my part (sorry - I’m not prepared to confide the details to this group; I did end up in court). Maybe you should treat them as you want them to treat you?
This is what I was going to say.
“Civilian” means someone outside your group or professional class. Military personnel are “civilians” to police, and vice versa.
Not one where they taught how to spell the more common military terms, evidently.
Well, spend several years as an indentured servant on combat duty, afraid your superiors will shoot you for cowardice, and see how much you care about spelling.
Or something.
Are cops “civilians”?
Well they’re certainly supposed to be. The English tradition was originally to have a system of citizen watchmen and constables, with the populace obligated to assist in the apprehension of felons if need be. When such informal measures became insufficient in the nineteenth century, Sir Robert “Bobby” Peel introduced the Peelian Principles, intended to be the distinguishing characteristics of a civil police force as opposed to an occupying army.
However, a police force is only as good as the people running it, and at times that hasn’t been very good. When the government is corrupt, the police often become the bully boys for whoever’s running things. Especially back in the era of big city “machine” politics the police were sometimes little more than the biggest and best armed gang in town- which perhaps reached its pinnacle in New York City’s “Police Riot”, when two different forces backed rival claimants to power. After the move to make carrying firearms by-permission-only beginning in the early twentieth century, the police became de facto, if not de jure, an armed elite.
As mentioned upthread one distinguishing characteristic of police is voluntary service- they can quit at any time, and aren’t subject to a special penal code like soldiers are. However they certainly do mimic many of the features of military organizations- state police forces are actually called “troopers”. And particularly problematic are laws reserving special classes of weapons to the police, like full-auto firearms. I think a case could be made that granting a special privilege of arms to the police violates the US Constitution’s Compact Clause, which forbids states from keeping “troops”
Uh, no.
I look forward to your efforts to disband the National Guard.
Not very informative. Please give your reasons.
Article One Section Ten of the US Constitution lists the sovereign powers ceded by the states to the federal government. The third clause bans the states from, among other things, keeping “troops” in peacetime- that is, the states are not allowed to have full-time professional military forces. The states are explicitly allowed to keep a “militia”: armed citizens who could be mustered for emergency service by state-appointed officers. When the practice of requiring every able-bodied man to show up with a musket was allowed to become moribund, the states switched to “select” or “organized” militias: those citizens who specifically volunteered for militia duty. And since the Constitution gives the federal government co-authority with the states over the militias, the 1903 Dick Act and subsequent legislation reorganized the state militias into the National Guards, specifying that anyone who steps forward to volunteer for the Guard is by law simultaneously volunteering to join the US Army Reserve. Yes, the modern National Guard looks, sounds, feels and smells like regular army troops- by design- but in legal theory there’s still a distinction.
I wasn’t contending that the Guard should be disbanded; but rather that it’s hypocritical to have state laws banning the civilian possession of entire classes of weapons, while carving out special exceptions for police and the Guards, and then claiming they aren’t “troops”. If there is to be a distinction between purely civil and purely military weapons (which in theory I wouldn’t object to), then certainly the police and possibly the Guards should be on the same side of the line as civilians.
I believe this to be a logical interpretation of the letter of the Constitution; if you think the result is insupportable, then the Constitution should be formally amended.
Yeah, Canada is that different. The Golden Rule is what I live by. Cops never seem to have heard of it.
My post was off-topic. I apologize. The “hug” comment could be taken as snarky. Or, as humorous. I’ll chose the latter.
You’re resting your argument mostly on the use of the word “trooper”. You also obviously don’t understand the very words you’ve quoted from the Constitution. As the poster up-thread indicated, the states are not prohibited from maintaining the National Guard.
The rest of your post is simply a regurgitation of the typical anti-government WONJCT tripe.
That reason enough for you?
From the good ole’ wiki:
The word “troops” is obviously referring to military, not to police officers. The state police are not in compact with the police of another state to engage in war.
Get back to us when you’re reading that esteemed document with, as Sheldon Cooper might say, “your reality glasses”.
If you can stop foaming at the mouth and shouting slurs for a moment, you might realize that I never claimed that the National Guard or police are prohibited by the Compact Clause. They’re allowed because in legal theory they’re the militia- you know, civilians with guns? I’m not complaining about the police and the Guard having heavy weapons, I’m complaining about state governments giving these select people a special right to weapons not enjoyed by the rest of the population, and then claiming they’re just Joes like you and me.
Of course if you believe that the general police power of states gives them an absolute authority to regulate (out of existence if need be) firearms, the Second Amendment be damned, then you probably don’t see anything wrong with the situation. Or to put it another way, if you believe that the Guards are “state armies”, then exactly what do you think that provision in the Compact Clause is for?
Instead of violating the site rules for this forum, I’ll simply say you are pretending I said something I did not, not to mention that you’re far off on what I might say in the future.
Unsurprising, given that police forces as we now think of them did not exist in the Framers’ time.
There was a sheriff, and if he needed help, he’d rely on the law-abiding populace to help him out (or as wikipedia calls them “local militia.”)
The idea of a governmental body and its professional representatives expressly created to go around enforcing laws, capturing criminals, and granted special dispensations from the rules that applied to the rest of the populace, did not really come about until the mid-1800s, and so would have been alien to them. And while we don’t know what they would have thought, given the extreme hostility most of them had to standing armies, it seems likely that many of them would have a problem with our ever-more-military-actingpolice forces.
What did I say you said that you didn’t? I"m genuinely 
To add: Law enforcement in the 1790s looked a lot more like Neighborhood Watch, Guardian Angels, George Zimmerman, or those people that go down on the border watching for illegal immigrants than anything we’ve done for the last 100+ years.
You can certainly argue that that model is no longer feasible, but clearly the idea that the constitution did not “carve out special exceptions for police and the Guards” is accurate.
Well stated, and dead on target.
Not meaning to threadshit, but these semantic discussions always seem to me to be misplaced. Whether or not an entity fits of does not fit into a category depends entirely on the other attributes membership in that category signifies. Until it is determined what is the practical significance of police being civilians or not, it all just becomes a matter of opinion.
Take for example the word pet. Is a horse a pet? If we take pet to mean an animal that is owned, cared for and loved than any horse owner will tell you that their horse is indeed a pet. However, if you try to ride your horse around a hotel room that advertises that it allows pets, you will clearly find that this definition is not accepted.
So since this is great debates, rather than IMHO, I ask the OP what would be the significance of classifying police as civilians. Then we can have a more direct debate about whether Police should be allowed those privileges and responsibilities.