Civilians?

[KJQ6945]

Simple: one (the armed service member) is acting under the auspices and authority of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the other (the law enforcement officer) is acting under the auspices and authority of civil law.

The UCMJ grants no authority. It is a separate justice system for military members.

Military members are are still bound by civil and criminal laws. If a service member damages his off post apartment, he could be sued civilly, then given a article 15 by his commander under the UCMJ.

Where are you getting your information?

 

[2A_Tom]

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."

When the motorcycle went down and the rider landed on the lawn, I ran to him and assessed his condition, checked for bleeding, he was breathing, treated him for shock, kept him calm and everyone from trying to move him. In about 30 minutes the first responders arrived.

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

Just who are you calling "them"?

I don't see what the point of this thread is. Of course there is a them and us. look at GI Joe's murder investigation as opposed to Shequan Sanders's. Who is Shequan Sanders?


Exactly!

 

[Bfish]

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.

There you go QUE!

Unless you are currently in the military you are a civilian... Heck watch a Mat Best video they make that distinction frequently... All of them now veterans saying "Bro I'm a civilian now, I'll do whatever the #$%@ I want" and many other things showing the distinction best I think

 

[KJQ6945]

There you go QUE!

Unless you are currently in the military you are a civilian... Heck watch a Mat Best video they make that distinction frequently... All of them now veterans saying "Bro I'm a civilian now, I'll do whatever the #$%@ I want" and many other things showing the distinction best I think

Being a a civilian has its advantages.

 

[chipbennett]

The UCMJ grants no authority. It is a separate justice system for military members.

Military members are are still bound by civil and criminal laws. If a service member damages his off post apartment, he could be sued civilly, then given a article 15 by his commander under the UCMJ.

Where are you getting your information?

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Sylvain]

We don't have that problem over here were local LEOs are actually part of the military.
We also have firefighter units who are part of the military so some firefighters are civilians, others are not.

It's not a big deal if some cops reffer to non-LEO as "civilians" and think they are themselves non-civilians.
Just like a plumber has the right to call non-plumbers "civilians".It doesn't make it true.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...To some taking a oath at the police / fire academy is the same as a oath to uphold the Constitution. JMHO

Many of those oaths include those very words. Just sayin'...

 

[chipbennett]

We don't have that problem over here were local LEOs are actually part of the military.
We also have firefighter units who are part of the military so some firefighters are civilians, others are not.

It's not a big deal if some cops reffer to non-LEO as "civilians" and think they are themselves non-civilians.
Just like a plumber has the right to call non-plumbers "civilians".It doesn't make it true.

No, actually. In the words of Crazy Uncle Joe Biden, that's a pretty big f*cking deal.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

People really get hung up on this, don't they? Like civilian is less than.

If you're talking military, if you aren't a military member, you are a civilian.

If you're on a fire scene, if you aren't a firefighter, you are a civilian.

If you're on a crime scene and aren't a cop, you are a civilian.

So, depending on the context, I may be a civilian or I may not...so what?

 

[JettaKnight]

An armed security guard could be paid by anybody to guard anything. Apples to oranges.

A paid security guard fits your definition:

In all seriousness, I have a hard time differentiating between two guys who put on different uniforms and get paid to pick up arms in defense of the people.

I see the three in a Venn diagram - this one point is where they all overlap. Otherwise, LEO and military don't share much more in common, do they?

 

[JettaKnight]

The UCMJ grants no authority. It is a separate justice system for military members.

Military members are are still bound by civil and criminal laws. If a service member damages his off post apartment, he could be sued civilly, then given a article 15 by his commander under the UCMJ.

Where are you getting your information?

Didn't I recently see a thread on INGO about stolen firearms where the Army was protecting someone from prosecution?

 

[Drail]

It has become a meaningless word. Ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different definitions. Sort of like "common sense".

 

[JettaKnight]

People really get hung up on this, don't they? Like civilian is less than.

If you're talking military, if you aren't a military member, you are a civilian.

If you're on a fire scene, if you aren't a firefighter, you are a civilian.

If you're on a crime scene and aren't a cop, you are a civilian.

So, depending on the context, I may be a civilian or I may not...so what?

So, if you're in a hospital and you're not a doctor, you are a civilian?
If you're in a manufacturing plant and you don't work there, you are a civilian?
If you're in a church and you're not the preacher, you are a civilian?
If you're in a Burger King and you're not flippin' burgers, you are a civilian?

I reality, all of those EXCEPT the military member are civilians. The only difference is some have jobs to do and some are gawkers and should stay out of the way.

 

[JettaKnight]

It has become a meaningless word. Ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different definitions. Sort of like "common sense".

Maybe it should go on the banned list, like 'retard'.

If it's that muddled, then stop using it. I don't ever use the words 'peruse' or 'quantum leap' any more (look up the correct meanings) because the definition has changed and is still (somewhat) in flux. The point of speaking is to be understood. If you use words that may mean something different to the hearer, then you have a situation where you may be misunderstood. If I tell you to peruse a legal document and you merely glance at it - that's no good. If I tell you, "ah, it's just a quantum leap" and you infer that it's a really big deal - we've miscommunicated.

So, I say we just go with "general public" or "citizens".

 

[Que]

And I thought, for most my life, veteran meant either retired military or served in a combat zone.

I don't see anyone here disputing that definition?

A veteran is anyone who has served honorably, whether retired and regardless of deployment/combat action. I see too many veterans who served honorably refuse service because they didn't serve in combat.

 

[HoughMade]

What you laypersons find to argue about never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Que]

It has become a meaningless word. Ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different definitions. Sort of like "common sense".

Kind of like magazine and clip.

 

[Que]

What you laypersons find to argue about never ceases to amaze me.

 

[HoughMade]

A veteran is anyone who has served honorably, whether retired and regardless of deployment/combat action. I see too many veterans who served honorably refuse service because they didn't serve in combat.

My Dad is one of those. He spent many years working on surface to air missiles designed to stop a Soviet nuclear attack, but he pushes back at being called a veteran because it was all stateside between 1954 and 1964.

 

[17 squirrel]

Many of those oaths include those very words. Just sayin'...

I would like to read those.