When I was in the Corps we were military and everyone else was "civilians." To me, it simply meant I had more rules to follow - UCMJ. If I was stupid out there in civilianland I could get in trouble with the local civilian authorities THEN I could get reamed by my chain of command. Therefore, I never got into trouble (ie. I was never caught 
.) 
I have always understood civilian to simply mean "non military." Not even noncombatant. A civilian could be a combatant or a noncombatant. It was my understanding that the rules of war as applied under the Geneva Convention were different for interacting with civilians unless/until they were proven (somehow?) to be combatants. Enemy military would fall under different rules than enemy civilians who were noncombatants. It would have been left up to an officer to guide us if we were ever deployed.
I don' think that the use by firefighters or LEOs of the word civilian is derogatory - today. I don't think it is meant to put people down, yet. I do, however, believe that by constantly using the term "civilian" to apply to a potentially skilled, heroic person of action who acted in a positive and productive manner during a high risk situation is a bit of an understatement. If there is a kitchen fire burning and a nonprofessional firefighter runs in and takes action to put it out does that make them a civilian instead of a hero? Does a person who confronts an armed bad guy acting in defense of others get relegated to the simple descriptive of "civilian" or could we find some other word?
Obviously trained firefighters are professionals who have specialized training and tools to operate in unique situations, so the term "professional" definitely applies. Also, a LEO who responds to a conflict has specialized tools and training to deal with situations such as these, so the term "professional" applies here as well.
But when I look specifically at LEOs I always start with Sir Robert Peel. His 7th rule, "...the police are the public and the public are the police; the police the are only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of community welfare." Ergo, both LEOs and nonLEOs are civilians.
I also believe that by constantly using the term "civilian" it is indirectly implying a "person who acted outside of the scope of their duties AND that should not be done." This is a broad brush, but I do think there is some subconscious or subtle hint that you, gentle reader, shouldn't step outside of your area of expertise. Let the professionals handle it and don't get involved. AGAIN, I am not saying that this is in all uses of the word today, but I do see some morphing of this word toward a slightly inferior status.
Regards,
Doug
.) I have always understood civilian to simply mean "non military." Not even noncombatant. A civilian could be a combatant or a noncombatant. It was my understanding that the rules of war as applied under the Geneva Convention were different for interacting with civilians unless/until they were proven (somehow?) to be combatants. Enemy military would fall under different rules than enemy civilians who were noncombatants. It would have been left up to an officer to guide us if we were ever deployed.
I don' think that the use by firefighters or LEOs of the word civilian is derogatory - today. I don't think it is meant to put people down, yet. I do, however, believe that by constantly using the term "civilian" to apply to a potentially skilled, heroic person of action who acted in a positive and productive manner during a high risk situation is a bit of an understatement. If there is a kitchen fire burning and a nonprofessional firefighter runs in and takes action to put it out does that make them a civilian instead of a hero? Does a person who confronts an armed bad guy acting in defense of others get relegated to the simple descriptive of "civilian" or could we find some other word?
Obviously trained firefighters are professionals who have specialized training and tools to operate in unique situations, so the term "professional" definitely applies. Also, a LEO who responds to a conflict has specialized tools and training to deal with situations such as these, so the term "professional" applies here as well.
But when I look specifically at LEOs I always start with Sir Robert Peel. His 7th rule, "...the police are the public and the public are the police; the police the are only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of community welfare." Ergo, both LEOs and nonLEOs are civilians.
I also believe that by constantly using the term "civilian" it is indirectly implying a "person who acted outside of the scope of their duties AND that should not be done." This is a broad brush, but I do think there is some subconscious or subtle hint that you, gentle reader, shouldn't step outside of your area of expertise. Let the professionals handle it and don't get involved. AGAIN, I am not saying that this is in all uses of the word today, but I do see some morphing of this word toward a slightly inferior status.
Regards,
Doug
