Civilians?

[Bfish]

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.

This hits it squarely on the head! Atta boy Chip!
If you are NOT in the military and you don't have to do what Uncle Sam says, you are a civilian

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

If police and fire fighters are "civil servants," then the people they serve are, and be referred to as ",civilians." I think you answered your own question.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

O'rly? So what are people called that find themselves under military rule of law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

Well dang, I better stop using it. I'm positive that I haven't met that many Roman/French experts in civil law.

 

[M67]

Thread kinda reminds me of the movie Starship Troopers with you either being a "civilian" or a "citizen"

 

[17 squirrel]

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

I guess this is the old prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate. Should a dictionary tell us what words mean, or reflect how we use those words? In this particular case, because of where I think a police/civilian distinction leads us (call this the consequentialist position), I think dictionaries should not cave to common usage and the first definition above should remain the primary one. The militarization of police is a real problem. Police are supposed to be of the people, not an army at war against the people. I understand fully how, when police see what they see every day of how people can be, they can feel that their contempt is justified. Such feelings can be an occupational hazard, just like doctors who start to see people as bags of malfunctioning bits, but they’re the sort of feelings that anyone truly committed to their profession would learn to resist. Any police officer who calls someone “civilian” shouldn’t take offense when “bully” comes back at them. And that’s in the dictionary too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thread kinda reminds me of the movie Starship Troopers with you either being a "civilian" or a "citizen"

Johnny Rico, from Buenos Aires, was a "citizen." Rico's Roughnecks!

 

[cosermann]

. . . first responders . . .

Another interesting term. As much as I deeply appreciate the efforts and dedication of those commonly referred to as "first responders," and I do, they're almost always "second responders."

Those involved in an incident are the true first responders.

Words mean things. Words affect/influence people's thinking in subtle and not-so-subtile ways. Control the words and you control the debate.

Other examples "assault weapon," "high capacity magazine," "Saturday Night Special," "cop-killer bullets," "gun violence," etc.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess this is the old prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate. Should a dictionary tell us what words mean, or reflect how we use those words? In this particular case, because of where I think a police/civilian distinction leads us (call this the consequentialist position), I think dictionaries should not cave to common usage and the first definition above should remain the primary one. The militarization of police is a real problem. Police are supposed to be of the people, not an army at war against the people. I understand fully how, when police see what they see every day of how people can be, they can feel that their contempt is justified. Such feelings can be an occupational hazard, just like doctors who start to see people as bags of malfunctioning bits, but they’re the sort of feelings that anyone truly committed to their profession would learn to resist. Any police officer who calls someone “civilian” shouldn’t take offense when “bully” comes back at them. And that’s in the dictionary too.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you write.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I wonder what would happen if people started telling non-retired soldiers they weren't veterans?

 

[chipbennett]

How about this?

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

Or this?

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

Edited to add: there's also nothing wrong with this:

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

There is nothing wrong with referring to civilians as civilians. The problem arises when referring to civilians as something other than civilians - i.e. when law enforcement view themselves as non-civilian.

 

[chipbennett]

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

The definition of marriage has not changed. What the State calls a "marriage" and what the church/God call a "marriage" are simply two different things.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'll be honest, I didn't know there was so much butthurt over who could call civilians, civilians.

 

[cosermann]

The definition of marriage has not changed. What the State calls a "marriage" and what the church/God call a "marriage" are simply two different things.

Which is why it's been modified to "gay marriage," or "same-sex marriage" as they've pushed that agenda - such terms are really an admission that it's a different thing. (Which is why I'd now expect a push to strip the modifiers asap.)

 

[Spear Dane]

It doesn't bother me. They willingly walk into burning buildings to save people. They can call me whatever they like.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll be honest, I didn't know there was so much butthurt over who could call civilians, civilians.

That misses the point, completely. The point is: law enforcement (et al) are included as civilians.

 

[17 squirrel]

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you write.

I believe everything I write.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I believe everything I write.

Ok, and what about when you type?

Kut (see's he's going to get some mileage out this)

 

[17 squirrel]

" Fishing " because thats what Kut does.

 

[Que]

I have never believed there was malicious intent most of the time. I do believe the service aspect associated with the term is missing when used by most LEOs and others. And to make it clear, a military veteran is also a civilian.