civilian
The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., “civilian clothes” or “civilian life.”
So, the police have managed to change the definition of civilian in a few cases.
And firefighters managed to get tacked on post - 9/11.
The first reference is to the definition I previously linked. The second one is to dictionary.com, which has a nearly identical definition:
Those are the only references in the article that pertain to definition.
Cambridge, Macillan, Oxford Advanced Learner’s also include police in the definition.
You are declaring someone wrong based on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe various ways people use words.
I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones.
Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source.
What value it has comes from being a quick and easy way to find proper references, if the article is properly cited. And in this case, despite what the text of the article says, the references cited in the article concerning the definition agree with what I linked. The first citation IS what I linked. The author misquotes the definition cited as "a person who is not a member of the military” when it in fact says “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force”
That you are attempting to discredit Wikipedia as an entity instead of solely attacking the facts in the article is telling.
“The” references, eh? I made it clear I am talking about “legal” references. Go attack those and get back to me.
Assuming the vehicle was NOT used in a burglary, you’d win that lawsuit so fast the lawyers would get whiplash.
When I was in the military, they sure seemed civilian to me.
Just because they often have ARs instead of shotguns now, or might have surplus military gear on hand, does not make civil police (nor firefighters) noncivilian. I understand this a pooly expressed way to say “us” and “them” to each other, but that does not make the expression correct.
These are anomalies. Usually doesn’t happen this way. And it’s better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab. And those payouts are ludicrous! Bad arrests are truly a terrible, terrible thing to happen, but those made on good faith don’t result in payouts that high around here.
Asking for permission to search your vehicle isn’t “pressuring” you.
So what? “Not usually” and “anomalies” doesn’t equal rare. From that same article:
It’s even better to not give the cops permission to field test your doughnut crumbs.
If I’m “discrediting” Wikipedia, then so is Wikipedia. Those were their words, not mine. And I’m not attacking anything. “The” references are the references cited IN THE ARTICLE.
I’ve already demonstrated that the cite given for the definition at the beginning of the article doesn’t support the author’s definition. The line the author put in quotes is not in the footnoted reference.
The document linked at the end that is claimed to be the DoD “definition” of civilian does not itself claim to be a legal definition of civilian. It’s a directive for cooperating with “civilian law enforcement officials”. The definition section just clarifies what the word means in the context of that directive, not what it means outside that context.
It’s more the other way around. The military thinking of police as civilian matches Oxford’s informal definition, “A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group,” but like it or not the formal definition of civilian excludes police.
You’re not getting my point. Going after Wikipedia as a whole instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article is what’s telling.
That happens as the content in links change. Since it’s a link to an online dictionary page, it’s not surprising. Dictionaries change definitions. It’s not necessarily a case of misquoting as you contended. But I don’t really care as I have pointed out, I obviously did not link to the entry for dictionary definitions- I obviously quoted the entry for the legal definitions as I keep telling you.
“Claimed” to be? It’s a direct link to a DoD Directive on fas.org. Seriously?
Hell, I’ll just spoon feed it to you:
Technical and legal. That trumps dictionary definitions by far.
As far as a DoD directive not being a legal definition, it is a technical one. Again, trumping dictionary definitions. BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don’t include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong?
Post #51.
But that’s me. If other people want to give permission that’s their choice. And in my experience about 80%+ give permission, including those that have something to hide.
Really? Assuming anyone would take (or allow to proceed to trial) a Section 1983 case where there are no damages, what evidence can I offer that overcomes the cop’s testimony that he thought the dispatcher said “it’s dirty.” Or that the dispatcher heard “five” when he’d said “nine?”
True, though I’ll say sometimes it feels like pressure. Maybe it’s the circumstance or maybe some of these guys are really good at making questions sound very unquestionable. Which I suppose could be an advantageous ability.
For my part, I would refuse permission. If he’s got his cause or can manufacture one he’ll search anyways and if he doesn’t he won’t. Hell, I won’t even give my name unless our specific interaction demands it.
I lived in Japan for 25 years over almost 40! year period. (Damn, I’m getting old.)
It interesting to compare the differences in the legal systems and how police act, etc.
Police in Japan and Taiwan are much less active(?) in terms of searching out people to search. Fewer traffic stops, fewer tickets and not really the issue with searching.
However, if you get on the wrong side of the things, there are fewer safeguards. There is a huge problem with forced confessions in Japan. The conviction rate is something like 99%, which is insanely high. There’s just no way that the police and DAs are that good. Many of the convictions are from forced confessions.
In America, I’m another middle age, middle class white guy. The only interaction I’ve had with American LEO in the last 30 years was quite professional. I was stopped in Georgia for going over a double yellow line. I only had my Taiwanese drivers license on me. My wife had our International Permits (which are just a translations anyway) but they were really cool about it. They were quite polite and professional. They asked if I had been drinking, which is a reasonable thing to ask, and I laughed because I had just pulled out from the parking lot for the AA meeting.
Officers should be doing their work, which is to not waste time on fishing expeditions. If there are reasonable grounds for a search, do the search. If there isn’t, then the responsibility for not wasting the officer’s time doesn’t fall on the driver; it’s up to the officer to take a “no” and ove one.
Other people have commented on this, but declining a search is not treating someone like an enemy nor is it being disrespectful. One can be respectful while declining. There isn’t a need to go all sovereign citizen on the officer. Just say no.
An excuse for what?
It’s better for you, I fail to see how it’s better for me.
Do you think you get 80% acceptance without the people you ask feeling pressure to acquiesce?
You’re a cop. You have me in a compromised position, a position of extreme uncertainty. Uncertainty that you, the cop, are in absolute control over. You then suggest that this position of uncertainty (of which you are in complete control) will end favorably if I agree to something. If that’s not pressure, I’m happy to use an alternate word to describe it, but it’s why people agree to it.
Pointing out that Wikipedia acknowledges being an unreliable source is a response to this:
And I have dug into the sources for the opening section. They don’t support the opening section.
The content of the link has not changed since at least 2009, which is as far back as the Wayback Machine goes. What has changed is the text of the article. And less than two months ago. Here’s how the article began until 12/23/2018
The link to the DoD directive reads “US DoD definition of the term Civilian, refers to civilian law enforcement agencies”. The document linked includes definitions for “Civilian Agency” and “Civilian Law Enforcement Official”, but not for “Civilian”, although their definitions imply that they are using the term in the “specialist in Roman or modern civil law” sense.
I’ve already read the section on Geneva Convention protocols, and I also checked those references. Article 50 is defining who is covered by article 51, but it doesn’t dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions.
Nope. I am innocent, which means someone else did it. I want that someone else caught and convicted. If I can tell the police anything that will assist that, I am willing to take the chance.
Yes, of course I am going to make mistakes and there will be inconsistencies. All stories, true and false, have inconsistencies. So what if I said I left work at 5:30 and it was really 5:45? I didn’t do it. If inconsistencies in an alibi were all that it took to convict someone, nobody would ever be acquitted.
Sorry - I don’t believe this. “We don’t care if you are guilty or innocent as long as we can clear the case” - not buying it.
TV isn’t real, and false convictions are man bites dog cases. Besides - I am upper-middle class, boringly conventional, and I didn’t do it.
Regards,
Shodan