The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[crazy canuck]

I"ve certainly heard people within the policing community refer to non-police as "civilians". Is that what is up for debate?

The issue we are discussing is the meaning of the word civilian.  Grumbler has taken the position that it has a narrow meaning that properly only refers to all people who are not in the military.  You seemed to have been supporting that argument with some emphasis. BB, I and others have pointed out that is too narrow and that a civilian can also mean a non police officer.   Others objected to removing police officers from the meaning of civilian.   I was beginning to think Grumbler was being so vehement about this because he was correct that in the US the word does have that narrow meaning.  But it turns out he is not aware that in the US non police officers are also referred to as civilians.

edit: btw a further quick check shows that is it common in the US to distinguish between police officers and civilian employees of police departments.

For example LAPD: https://www.lapdonline.org/contact_us/content_basic_view/827

[crazy canuck]

Eh, having worked in a Federal agency with sworn law enforcement officers in the agency, the delineation I often see is "sworn" employee and "civilian" employee. So I don't actually think it's that uncommon in police orgs in the U.S. I think a big city municipal police department also usually will talk of its "sworn officers" and "civilian employees." What may be different is the courts here it seems like from other posters haven't standardized this language or codified it.

Yeah, so the US is basically the same as Canada and the word does not have the narrow meaning Grumbler asserts.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's context based of course too, like in the military they do refer to anyone who isn't in the military (including civilian police officers) as civilians. But that's not a universal standard that I'm familiar with here.

[crazy canuck]

It's context based of course too, like in the military they do refer to anyone who isn't in the military (including civilian police officers) as civilians. But that's not a universal standard that I'm familiar with here.

Yeah, that is the point.  The argument was that civilian only properly applies to non military.  Of course it can refer to non military but that is not the only proper usage of the term.

[Berkut]

I thought the point was that the term depends on the context, and you cannot just generically say that the police are not civilians. In most contexts, that is simply not true.

Honestly, I was never all that sure what the argument was about exactly, or how the distinction actually mattered in the context of police violence.

Outside some specific context, in my mind at least, "civilian" references the distinction between the military and non-military. But again....why is the distinction important here? Honest question. Is it just Languish semantics argument for its own sake?

[crazy canuck]

I thought the point was that the term depends on the context, and you cannot just generically say that the police are not civilians. In most contexts, that is simply not true.

Honestly, I was never all that sure what the argument was about exactly, or how the distinction actually mattered in the context of police violence.

Outside some specific context, in my mind at least, "civilian" references the distinction between the military and non-military. But again....why is the distinction important here? Honest question. Is it just Languish semantics argument for its own sake?

Assuming the argument is as nuanced as you say (I don't think Grumbler was), it is still not accurate.  The police themselves draw the distinction of police officers not being civilians.  Not sure why there is some general sense in which that is not accurate.  Maybe this reflects the way in which your society is more heavily influenced by the military.

[grumbler]

The issue we are discussing is the meaning of the word civilian.  Grumbler has taken the position that it has a narrow meaning that properly only refers to all people who are not in the military.  You seemed to have been supporting that argument with some emphasis. BB, I and others have pointed out that is too narrow and that a civilian can also mean a non police officer.   Others objected to removing police officers from the meaning of civilian.   I was beginning to think Grumbler was being so vehement about this because he was correct that in the US the word does have that narrow meaning.  But it turns out he is not aware that in the US non police officers are also referred to as civilians.

edit: btw a further quick check shows that is it common in the US to distinguish between police officers and civilian employees of police departments.

For example LAPD: https://www.lapdonline.org/contact_us/content_basic_view/827

My argument is that the definition of civilian is much broader than you believe.  My definition of civilian includes police, firefighters, Boy Scouts, airline pilots, etc - everyone who is not military is, for almost all purposes, a civilian: a person subject to civil and not military law, and protected by the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

I am aware, thanks to BB, that in some courts the term civilian implies unreliability, and that those courts then distinguish between "civilian," "police" and "expert" witnesses when prosecutors report to the judge on their witness list.  I don't believe that this distinction carries outside of the courtroom (e.g. that an expert is not a civilian again when he leaves the courthouse), so I appreciate BB's careful explanations but conclude that they are not relevant in the discussion of whether police are, or are not, civilians in the larger sense.

I fully understand that police in some countries want to distinguish themselves from mere civilians, and that some bureaucrats find the term "civilian" to be useful in distinguishing between sworn and unsworn police department employees, but I again don't see how that determination is applicable outside of those specific circumstances.  I would not at all be surprised to find that airline pilots, nuclear power plant operators, prison guards, and any number of other groups also consider themselves to be separate from civilians. It's a natural human trait to want to be special.

What I don't understand is your insistence that your special pleading for the distinction between police and civilians should not be dismissed for the same reasons all special pleading is dismissed; that you haven't shown any reason why police, and no other group, should be distinguished (except for specific purposes in specific cases) from every other civilian.  Meaningful distinctions should be meaningful.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Outside some specific context, in my mind at least, "civilian" references the distinction between the military and non-military. But again....why is the distinction important here? Honest question. Is it just Languish semantics argument for its own sake?

From what I can tell it is this that is happening yes.

[Barrister]

My argument is that the definition of civilian is much broader than you believe.  My definition of civilian includes police, firefighters, Boy Scouts, airline pilots, etc - everyone who is not military is, for almost all purposes, a civilian: a person subject to civil and not military law, and protected by the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

I am aware, thanks to BB, that in some courts the term civilian implies unreliability, and that those courts then distinguish between "civilian," "police" and "expert" witnesses when prosecutors report to the judge on their witness list.  I don't believe that this distinction carries outside of the courtroom (e.g. that an expert is not a civilian again when he leaves the courthouse), so I appreciate BB's careful explanations but conclude that they are not relevant in the discussion of whether police are, or are not, civilians in the larger sense.

I fully understand that police in some countries want to distinguish themselves from mere civilians, and that some bureaucrats find the term "civilian" to be useful in distinguishing between sworn and unsworn police department employees, but I again don't see how that determination is applicable outside of those specific circumstances.  I would not at all be surprised to find that airline pilots, nuclear power plant operators, prison guards, and any number of other groups also consider themselves to be separate from civilians. It's a natural human trait to want to be special.

What I don't understand is your insistence that your special pleading for the distinction between police and civilians should not be dismissed for the same reasons all special pleading is dismissed; that you haven't shown any reason why police, and no other group, should be distinguished (except for specific purposes in specific cases) from every other civilian.  Meaningful distinctions should be meaningful.

grumbler, there is no doubt that in the context of a war, civilian has exactly the meaning you describe to it - that civilian means non-military.  If we get into a war there is no doubt in my mind that my local member of the Edmonton Police Service would be treated as a civilian.

And I want to clarify - being a "civilian" witness does necessarily not make one less reliable.  The law is pretty clear that police officers are not more reliable by virtue of their status.  But their status as police officers does make them noticeably different from other, civilian, witnesses.

But for someone who keeps mentioning "special pleading", with respect I think that's what you're resorting to.  We now have both dictionary definitions, and several real world reports of non-police officers being called civilians.  Other than reference to the Geneva Convention you really haven't provided any proof for your assertion that civilian = non-military (and I will freely concede that in the context of war it does have that meaning).

I don't think it's anyone claiming to be "special".  I will freely admit that anyone who serves in the armed forces puts themselves in risk far more than anyone who serves municipal police department.  Police and military are not synonymous.  I very much value and respect those who serve in our militaries.  Giving a wider, or more contextual, definition to the term "civilian" does not diminish the specialness of the military.

[Malthus]

I"ve certainly heard people within the policing community refer to non-police as "civilians". Is that what is up for debate?

The debate is whether this terminology, which all agree is being used, is incorrect or not.

One side of the debate is that the use of this terminology is incorrect. According to that side, "civilian" is a term that applies to the distinction between the military and everyone who is not in the military, and has no other legitimate use. If this is true, then police - who are not in the military - are "civilians", nothing more.

The other side of the debate is that the use of the term had more than one meaning. In the context of the laws of war and peace, the police are "civilians", just as the first side states. However, in the context of law enforcement, the police are not "civilians" (and in this context, an off-duty member of the armed forces, who is subject to civilian law rather than military law, would be a "civilian" as well).

That seems to be what the debate is about.

To my mind, what is animating the debate is the concern, most prevalent in the US but that exists elsewhere, that the police are attempting to grab a special status through the use of this term, which can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes - militarization of the police, insistence on special rights for police accused of violence, and the like. So using that distinction is seen as a bad idea. This I think has coloured the debate over whether it is logical or proper usage.

[grumbler]

The debate is whether this terminology, which all agree is being used, is incorrect or not.

One side of the debate is that the use of this terminology is incorrect. According to that side, "civilian" is a term that applies to the distinction between the military and everyone who is not in the military, and has no other legitimate use. If this is true, then police - who are not in the military - are "civilians", nothing more.

The other side of the debate is that the use of the term had more than one meaning. In the context of the laws of war and peace, the police are "civilians", just as the first side states. However, in the context of law enforcement, the police are not "civilians" (and in this context, an off-duty member of the armed forces, who is subject to civilian law rather than military law, would be a "civilian" as well).

That seems to be what the debate is about.

To my mind, what is animating the debate is the concern, most prevalent in the US but that exists elsewhere, that the police are attempting to grab a special status through the use of this term, which can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes - militarization of the police, insistence on special rights for police accused of violence, and the like. So using that distinction is seen as a bad idea. This I think has coloured the debate over whether it is logical or proper usage.

Actually, off-duty military and naval members in the US are still subject to the UCMJ and would be tried in military courts unless they waive jurisdiction (or don't have it, in e.g. non-criminal infractions like speeding or jaywalking).

The only sense in which police don't seem to be civilians is in their own minds and some bureaucratic shorthand.  Certainly the consequences of police mentally divorcing themselves from the civilian populace cannot be good.

My argument is simply that "the police are civilians" is a true statement except under special circumstances that most people are unaware of and which amount to nothing of general concern.  The police themselves (and CC) not believing it amounts, in my argument, to special pleading.  Lots of groups distinguish themselves from ordinary civilians, but they remain civilians nonetheless.

[Berkut]

I"ve certainly heard people within the policing community refer to non-police as "civilians". Is that what is up for debate?

The debate is whether this terminology, which all agree is being used, is incorrect or not.

One side of the debate is that the use of this terminology is incorrect. According to that side, "civilian" is a term that applies to the distinction between the military and everyone who is not in the military, and has no other legitimate use. If this is true, then police - who are not in the military - are "civilians", nothing more.

The other side of the debate is that the use of the term had more than one meaning. In the context of the laws of war and peace, the police are "civilians", just as the first side states. However, in the context of law enforcement, the police are not "civilians" (and in this context, an off-duty member of the armed forces, who is subject to civilian law rather than military law, would be a "civilian" as well).

That seems to be what the debate is about.

To my mind, what is animating the debate is the concern, most prevalent in the US but that exists elsewhere, that the police are attempting to grab a special status through the use of this term, which can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes - militarization of the police, insistence on special rights for police accused of violence, and the like. So using that distinction is seen as a bad idea. This I think has coloured the debate over whether it is logical or proper usage.

Pretty much how I see it, and why it is weird that one side seems to be arguing vehemently that the cops are NOT civilians. What is the itilityu in making that distinction in this context? If anything, it would be an argument that police should be treated "more specially" rather then insisting that they do, in fact, have to abide by the basic standards that we hold each other to.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on.

[Barrister]

Actually, off-duty military and naval members in the US are still subject to the UCMJ and would be tried in military courts unless they waive jurisdiction (or don't have it, in e.g. non-criminal infractions like speeding or jaywalking).

[spock eyebrow] Fascinating [/spock eyebrow]

I am far from an expert on military courts or jurisdiction.

But I have prosecuted off-duty CF members for fairly routine crimes like drunk driving.  While I do not doubt grumbler in this, it seems surprising to me that military courts would have jurisdiction over purely "civilian" offences.

[Barrister]

Pretty much how I see it, and why it is weird that one side seems to be arguing vehemently that the cops are NOT civilians. What is the itilityu in making that distinction in this context? If anything, it would be an argument that police should be treated "more specially" rather then insisting that they do, in fact, have to abide by the basic standards that we hold each other to.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on.

Who is dying on a hill?

And I'm not arguing that police need to be treated "more specially".

But I do get my back up that language that I have used for 15+ years, and that others in my world use, is somehow wrong (or even offensive).

[Berkut]

Pretty much how I see it, and why it is weird that one side seems to be arguing vehemently that the cops are NOT civilians. What is the itilityu in making that distinction in this context? If anything, it would be an argument that police should be treated "more specially" rather then insisting that they do, in fact, have to abide by the basic standards that we hold each other to.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on.

Who is dying on a hill?

And I'm not arguing that police need to be treated "more specially".

But I do get my back up that language that I have used for 15+ years, and that others in my world use, is somehow wrong (or even offensive).

The key is "your world". I use language in my world all the time that I have zero expectation has relevance outside of it. Nor do I think that makes my use of it "wrong". Language is always contextual.