Are cops civilians?

[Flyer]

@kenobi_65

Several years ago, I was jury foreman for a criminal trial in suburban Chicago. The core charge against the defendant was DUI, but there were several other charges, including resisting arrest.

During testimony, we learned that the defendant was one of two people in a car. The arresting officer claimed that the defendant was the driver, while the defendant claimed to have been a passenger (and, in fact, the other occupant of the car testified to having been behind the wheel).

The state’s testimony and evidence was full of holes – their timelines didn’t line up, and their one piece of physical evidence – a photograph of several liquor bottles which were allegedly found in the defendant’s car – was taken with bottles lined up on the arresting officer’s desk, back at the police station.

What became clear to us in the jury was that, after the officer pulled the car over, the defendant was belligerent, and the cop decided to hang as many charges on the defendant as he could.

We threw out most of the charges, but we did find the defendant guilty on resisting arrest – the defendant, himself, admitted that, as the officer was cuffing him, he was wrestling and trying to get away. By the reading of Illinois law (as well as the defendant’s admission), he resisted arrest, and there was no provision in the law for it not being a case of resisting arrest if the arrest itself was unlawful. As Shodan notes, that’s a matter for a court to decide, not the suspect.

We actually considered asking the judge if we could address the defendant after we returned the sentence, and say, “if a cop tells you to shut up, shut up!”

This sort of thing is tailor-made for jury nullification.

There are times when a jury is the last defense between a citizen and an unjust, unlawful abuse of power. As far as I’m concerned, you and your fellow jury members were guilty of dereliction of duty that day.

[friedo]

@Johnny_L.A

So by definition, police are not civilians?

There is a concept in human languages called “context.” You learned about this in elementary school. The same word can have varying meanings at different times. Let’s rehash this for the seventh time today:

Cop: “civilian” means “not a cop.”
Military: “civilian” means “not in the military.”

Clear as mud?

[kenobi_65]

@Flyer

This sort of thing is tailor-made for jury nullification.

There are times when a jury is the last defense between a citizen and an unjust, unlawful abuse of power. As far as I’m concerned, you and your fellow jury members were guilty of dereliction of duty that day.

I should point out that we found him not guilty of 2 DUI counts, a count of battery against the police officer (the cop accused him of spitting in his face), and a count of destruction of private property (he was accused of trashing the back of an ambulance, but the state provided no evidence of that, other than the testimony of an ambulance driver, whose story didn’t line up at all with the story that the arresting officer gave).

The defendant, while being cross-examined, admitted that he resisted arrest.

[Loach]

@Johnny_L.A

So… They’re civilians and know that they are not military, but they consider themselves ‘military’ because they are above ‘civilians’ and are therefore not civilians?

No.

@Johnny_L.A

So by definition, police are not civilians?

I know you know how to read a dictionary. Are you protesting the dictionary definition?

[Shakester]

I’ve heard people use the word Muggles in the same way.

Formally, civilian means non-military. Informally, it means not-one-of-us.

Either usage is understood by pretty much everyone, because the context is usually obvious. To most people.

[Flyer]

@Shakester

I’ve heard people use the word Muggles in the same way.

Formally, civilian means non-military. Informally, it means not-one-of-us.

Either usage is understood by pretty much everyone, because the context is usually obvious. To most people.

I’ve occasionally looked at a police-centric message board. Now sure, a lot of cops are nice, who got into the job for the right reasons. But an alarming percentage have a very, very strong “us vs them” mentality. I’ve seen the term “civilian” used in almost a derogatory way. Among other things, they are absolutely, 110% committed to doing anything that will allow them to “go home at night.” That’s the wrong attitude–police should be in the job to serve their fellow citizens, regardless of the personal cost or consequences, not do their best to kill the other person preemptively. There are far too many cops who genuinely view the public as a lethal threat that just hasn’t quite materialized for them yet.

[Colibri]

@Flyer

As far as I’m concerned, you and your fellow jury members were guilty of dereliction of duty that day.

@Flyer

There are far too many cops who genuinely view the public as a lethal threat that just hasn’t quite materialized for them yet.

Moderator Warning

As I’m sure you know, political commentary of this kind is not permitted in GQ. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[kaylasdad99]

@md2000

Nitpick - IANAL but… constitution does not have any provisions that someone could be arrested under. The constitution tells us what the government may and may not do. Then congress passes laws that must adhere to the limits of the constitution, and spell out the penalties for breaking those laws.

I was given to understand that there are exactly two crimes named in the text of the Constitution: treason and counterfeiting. In that sense, the Constitution DOES have provisions that someone could be arrested under.

*IIRC some lesser crimes do not call for arrest. Can you arrest someone for littering?

Arrests do not have to involve an accused person being taken into custody. An officer can issue a citation for littering, and the blank on which he signs the ticket/summons will be labeled “arresting officer.”

[Lord_Feldon]

@kaylasdad99

I was given to understand that there are exactly two crimes named in the text of the Constitution: treason and counterfeiting.

But counterfeiting isn’t explicitly criminalized by the text of the Constitution. Congress is just authorized to make laws about it. And treason is arguably the same way.

But the 21st Amendment does directly prohibit the violation of state liquor laws.