Civilians?

[eldirector]

So, what is YOUR definition?

I heard a fire chief this morning using the word "civilian" to distinguish between the general population and the ones with the hoses. Thought it odd.

The Law Enforcement community has been using the word to distinguish between themselves and non-LE for a while.

I've always thought that civilian was simply non-military. Though, in today's culture, that may actually fit with the above (in some, limited, circumstances).

Are some of those with "public" jobs close enough to "military" to no longer be considered "civilian"? Have we completely dropped the "civil servant" moniker?

Discuss.

 

[churchmouse]

I have noticed this a lot in the last few years.
There has been a disconnect between us (normal working folks.....normal, )...and those that risk their lives in their careers.
I can see it with LEO but not a firefighter.

 

[eldirector]

Lots of "civvies" are in dangerous jobs. Oil fields, mining, healthcare, etc... Public Servants aren't even in the top 10.

 

[Mgderf]

I don't know, but it seems like you here about firefighters being attacked when responding to calls.
They probably feel like they are at war at times, just as the police.

I understand the sentiment.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't know, but it seems like you here about firefighters being attacked when responding to calls.
They probably feel like they are at war at times, just as the police.

I understand the sentiment.

True but I used to get threatened in my job. I was taking care of facility's in the inner city and places that are not where most folks venture into. Hell I had issues working on the refrigeration at WalMarts after dark. Target of opportunity. I carried every where.
My job in itself was seriously dangerous. Never called folks outside my trade civilians.

 

[17 squirrel]

I was taught that anyone not in the Armed Service was a civilian.
It seems in the last ten or so years when I hear the term used incorrectly I have tried to correct them. Normally it doesn't go over well with LE when corrected.
It's generally a blue flame that I have heard use the term.
It's another term that when you look it up in the new Webster the definition is not what it was 30 years ago.
To some taking a oath at the police / fire academy is the same as a oath to uphold the Constitution. JMHO

 

[Denny347]

I believe the current use of the term dates back many decades. So much so that Websters had modified their definition. It's an easy word to use to describe non LEO and non firefighters in instances where it is appropriate to differentiate between them. There is no malice or ill intent behind it as some are taking it.

 

[churchmouse]

I believe the current use of the term dates back many decades. So much so that Websters had modified their definition. It's an easy word to use to describe non LEO and non firefighters in instances where it is appropriate to differentiate between them. There is no malice or ill intent behind it as some are taking it.

I am sure what you say is true but I have heard it used maliciously by LEO. Said in a way to differentiate from the masses. It has been leveled at me once.

 

[17 squirrel]

I don't know, but it seems like you here about firefighters being attacked when responding to calls.
They probably feel like they are at war at times, just as the police.

I understand the sentiment.

But what you never hear about is the lowly service technician ( electrician, plumber , HVAC, painter , elevator man and others ) that are attacked, robbed assaulted on a daily basis working in the slums and projects of America.
There's no statistics of that happening, but a Fireman gets hit with a rock and its on the evening news. ( and its not a knock against Fireman ) actually being a Fireman can be a really good gig.

 

[17 squirrel]

I believe the current use of the term dates back many decades. So much so that Websters had modified their definition. It's an easy word to use to describe non LEO and non firefighters in instances where it is appropriate to differentiate between them. There is no malice or ill intent behind it as some are taking it.

I don't believe there is any malice here at all Denny. But I will say many many times in the locker room and on the job I heard the term " civilians " used by others officers in a negative way.

 

[chipbennett]

It is simple: "civilian" means "one under civil law" - as distinguished from one under military law.

Our military personnel are non-civilian. Everyone else is civilian, including police officers, firefighters, first responders, and teachers (all of whom I have seen erroneously referred to as "non-civilian").

There is very real danger in ascribing an "other than civilian" designation to those who wield the power of the state, because it implies that such people are somehow above (or outside of) the civilian law. Law enforcement officers enforce civil law. They derive their power, authority, and duties from civil law. In carrying out those duties and exercising that power and authority, they remain subject to civil law.

 

[foszoe]

It is simple: "civilian" means "one under civil law" - as distinguished from one under military law.

Our military personnel are non-civilian. Everyone else is civilian, including police officers, firefighters, first responders, and teachers (all of whom I have seen erroneously referred to as "non-civilian").

There is very real danger in ascribing an "other than civilian" designation to those who wield the power of the state, because it implies that such people are somehow above (or outside of) the civilian law. Law enforcement officers enforce civil law. They derive their power, authority, and duties from civil law. In carrying out those duties and exercising that power and authority, they remain subject to civil law.

Remember words that meant one thing can change to mean other things. Denny is right, the dictionary definition has changed.

 

[chipbennett]

Remember words that meant one thing can change to mean other things. Denny is right, the dictionary definition has changed.

No. "Civilian" means exactly what it has always meant. "Civilian" must always mean what it has always meant.

Changing the definition of "civilian" to make law enforcement (or anyone else) outside or above the law can and will lead only to people so designated acting outside or above the law, with impunity.

Remember the German police state? No thanks; I refuse to accept that here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The Law Enforcement community has been using the word to distinguish between themselves and non-LE for a while.

Really? We always said "Sworn" and "Non-sworn".

 

[Denny347]

I am sure what you say is true but I have heard it used maliciously by LEO. Said in a way to differentiate from the masses. It has been leveled at me once.

It's just a word. Any word can be used that way. Saying non-LEO in that manner still stings.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The word was applied to non-law enforcement personnel in my days as a LEO as well. Whether or not it is used with malicious intent depends solely on the attitude of the user. I readily admit that there were times that I used it as a pejorative when dealing with notably idiotic behavior on the part of the public, but this was the exception, not the rule.

It is used for convenience and nothing more should be read into it.

 

[Denny347]

Really? We always said "Sworn" and "Non-sworn".

I've never heard a fireman described as that.

 

[Denny347]

The word was applied to non-law enforcement personnel in my days as a LEO as well. Whether or not it is used with malicious intent depends solely on the attitude of the user. I readily admit that there were times that I used it as a pejorative when dealing with notably idiotic behavior on the part of the public, but this was the exception, not the rule.

It is used for convenience and nothing more should be read into it.

See and he's really old ......Haha

 

[Denny347]

I'll try to remember to tell at the officers during tactical shoots at the range, "Don't shoot the non-sworns. Innocent non-sworns are behind the target. What is the non-sworns casualty count?".

 

[foszoe]

No. "Civilian" means exactly what it has always meant. "Civilian" must always mean what it has always meant.

Changing the definition of "civilian" to make law enforcement (or anyone else) outside or above the law can and will lead only to people so designated acting outside or above the law, with impunity.

Remember the German police state? No thanks; I refuse to accept that here.

We accepted it with marriage, I see no difference here.