NYSP Illegally Shooting Deer !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
"and in close proximity of a civilian."
Police are civilians. Every time I hear law enforcement start talking about "civilians" as a separate thing, I cringe a bit.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Yeah, but they're civilians with special privileges.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
They are, and they have authorities that normal civilians do not. Still, they are not military. We fought a war to keep the military out of our streets and homes domestically, unless there is an extreme disaster that we need to call them in to handle that the civilian police force is unable to.
Last edited:
freddy
.308 Win
"NYSP Illegally Shooting Deer !"
No NYSP illegally shooting deer according to link.
No NYSP illegally shooting deer according to link.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
peasant found shooting without the kings permission by his royal highness force 
C3D
.338 Win Mag
Is he Amish or Hasidic?
?
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Looks like chumlee from pawn stars. Looks like a scumbag.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
A civilian is "a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force".[1] The term "civilian" is slightly different from a non-combatant under the laws of war, as some non-combatants are not civilians (for example, military chaplains attached to the belligerent armed forces or neutral military personnel). Under international law, civilians in the territories of a party to an armed conflict are entitled to certain privileges under the customary laws of war and international treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The privileges that they enjoy under international law depends on whether the conflict is an internal one (a civil war) or an international one.
ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən/
noun
noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians
1.
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
[si-vil-yuh n]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
Definition of civilian
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
Me, I do not care one way or another. This is the definition from three different dictionary's.
And this one, The Oxford Dictionary:
civilian
noun
1A person not in the armed services or the police force.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
These are also generic definitions, and not US specific definitions. Looking at US code, the classification is quite different. United states code refers to LEO as a civilian agency, per Title 10 Chapter 15 (formerly Chapter 18). On multiple occasions it refers to law enforcement as a civilian agency.
[USC07] 10 USC Ch. 15: MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
The distinction matters because the mentality that civilian police are other than civilians breeds a mentality of militarization. We don't want a militarized police force. We want a police force composed of the people, and subject to the same law -- as it stands now.
Again, most of do not care about the terminology used. But in your example, they talk about Military assisting Civilian Law Enforcement, that does not say that the LE is Military; they are saying in that code that the Military can assist LE officials in the "Civilian" world. Not that the officers are Civilians.
We need @Airborneguy , he explains it better.
I just think it is funny how many get Butt hurt over the term.
I don't explain it better, I explain it more curtly. lol
The only time I hear this argument is on gun forums. Period.
The word civilian doesn't simply exist as a description opposed to military. Colloquially (holy fuck I spelled that correctly without spell check!), "civilian" is used to describe non-members by numerous different professions. Individualistic-types argue this point because they have it in their head that the police aren't different at all from anyone else not military. That's simply not true.
There are numerous examples of decisions cops can make, legally, that citizens cannot. This has been the case since the creation of the first police force and always will be the case. From simple acts such as closing a street and rerouting traffic/pedestrians to the extreme example of being authorized to use DPF in situations where a non-LEO would not have the same ability.
As Goperfect pointed out, the easy answer is that the dictionaries that define our language all (as far as I know), include cops in the definition of "non-civilian". Some even include firemen I believe.
It is what it is really, I think it's a dumb argument and the "civilians" who harp on it are reading much more into it than "our side". Nothing will convince them that I am not using the word to denote that I am "better" than them, but if you ask most cops if that's why they use the term the way they do, they'll give you a funny look and wonder why someone would even ask that.
The only time I hear this argument is on gun forums. Period.
The word civilian doesn't simply exist as a description opposed to military. Colloquially (holy fuck I spelled that correctly without spell check!), "civilian" is used to describe non-members by numerous different professions. Individualistic-types argue this point because they have it in their head that the police aren't different at all from anyone else not military. That's simply not true.
There are numerous examples of decisions cops can make, legally, that citizens cannot. This has been the case since the creation of the first police force and always will be the case. From simple acts such as closing a street and rerouting traffic/pedestrians to the extreme example of being authorized to use DPF in situations where a non-LEO would not have the same ability.
As Goperfect pointed out, the easy answer is that the dictionaries that define our language all (as far as I know), include cops in the definition of "non-civilian". Some even include firemen I believe.
It is what it is really, I think it's a dumb argument and the "civilians" who harp on it are reading much more into it than "our side". Nothing will convince them that I am not using the word to denote that I am "better" than them, but if you ask most cops if that's why they use the term the way they do, they'll give you a funny look and wonder why someone would even ask that.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
It's not harping or hate or any of that -- only you are jumping to the conclusion that our skepticism towards LEO comes from a place of hatred. It doesn't. It comes from a place of natural skepticism of government, and a demand for specificity in how our laws are enforced. Lives have been given during the founding of this country so that we don't have military in the streets, so the distinction is important here.
As for the definition itself, you're trying to argue that anyone in a position of "authority" can call others civilians. That simply makes no sense. That's like me saying "I'm the board of the HOA, so everyone I manage is a civilian." Just the sound of that statement seem incorrect in its usage. The very connotation of the word is primarily from a military nature, and thus why US code makes the distinction between civilian ran authorities and military personnel.
I didn’t use the word hate anywhere in that post or even remotely imply that you (anyone else) doesn’t like cops.
Such a stupid thing to be upset about. A fucking word. Holy shit.
I'm not arguing "can" or "can't". I'm saying we do and always will. It is what it is, but it's not changing and I don't see any negative implications involved at all.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Good, we're on the same page on this. No arguments here.
Words, particularly with regard to law, matter. Perfect example, the second amendment. Look how much trouble history has given that amendment all because people cannot understand punctuation and sentence structure.
It's an important distinction, and a valid discussion to be having.
Calling a cop a civilian or not has nothing at all to do with the law.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
My argument was that it is a distinction that is important. That's a valid discussion to have.
I will say I prefer how you discuss these issues over how others do. 
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I will say I prefer how you discuss these issues over how others do.
You mean throwing piss and eggs at each other? We're not liberals here, man. We're civilized.
Regardless of why I think the distinction is important, I would not hesitate to help LEO in need -- nor do I have any less respect for the difficulty the job entails and discretion it requires.
We like you Civilians as well.
Civvies that is.