The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Maximus]

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).

But this happens all the time. When you know better, you do better.

Would you rather be ignorant of the problems with your language?

[DGuller]

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.

I think this is the crux of the issue, and why this debate started in the first place.  No matter the terms used, the problem that exists is the "us vs. them" dynamic when it comes to police and the people being policed. 

I think the reason people take issue with the word "civilian" in particular is that it places the "civilians" in a subservient position.  In the other situation where you have armed people and civilians interacting, it's the occupying military forces and the local civilian population.  The occupying forces may have policies and rules of engagement in order to be "nice" to the locals, but at the end of the day they hold all the power in the relationship, and any misunderstanding will end much worse for the civilian than for the occupying military. 

Taking the terms to the police world may risk taking the same attitude to the police world, especially with many cops being war veterans these days.  When you take that attitude to the police world, police officers may start forgetting that they don't have to respect "civilians" to be nice, they have to respect them because they have no choice over the matter.  The "civilians" are citizens, citizens have rights, and respecting them is not up to your discretion.

[PDH]

itilityu

I would like to take this time to say "OVEN MITTS, AHOY!"

[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).

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.

That's fine.  It doesn't have to have relevance outside of the criminal justice world.  I said pages and pages ago that language was contextual.

But what doesn't mean my use of the word civilian in this context is wrong.

[Barrister]

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).

But this happens all the time. When you know better, you do better.

Would you rather be ignorant of the problems with your language?

Bring them up all you want.

I have heard the comments, and reject my language as being problematic.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Its not just BB's world.  As already pointed out, referring to the police as not being civilians is wide spread throughout the US.  You have already acknowledged that you are aware of that.  You are arguing for narrow understanding of the word that does not accept that wider use.

[Razgovory]

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.

I think this is the crux of the issue, and why this debate started in the first place.  No matter the terms used, the problem that exists is the "us vs. them" dynamic when it comes to police and the people being policed. 

I think the reason people take issue with the word "civilian" in particular is that it places the "civilians" in a subservient position.  In the other situation where you have armed people and civilians interacting, it's the occupying military forces and the local civilian population.  The occupying forces may have policies and rules of engagement in order to be "nice" to the locals, but at the end of the day they hold all the power in the relationship, and any misunderstanding will end much worse for the civilian than for the occupying military. 

Taking the terms to the police world may risk taking the same attitude to the police world, especially with many cops being war veterans these days.  When you take that attitude to the police world, police officers may start forgetting that they don't have to respect "civilians" to be nice, they have to respect them because they have no choice over the matter.  The "civilians" are citizens, citizens have rights, and respecting them is not up to your discretion.

We are also questioning by what right do they consider themselves non-civilian.  The distinction seems arbitrary and the only function is create a barrier between police and the public.

[Habbaku]

Anyone know any good histories covering how occupying forces dealt with police of the occupied nations? I've had "Marianne in Chains" on my wishlist for a while now, but am wondering if there is something more specific out there.

[crazy canuck]

Anyone know any good histories covering how occupying forces dealt with police of the occupied nations? I've had "Marianne in Chains" on my wishlist for a while now, but am wondering if there is something more specific out there.

This might be of interest - also interesting in the context of our discussion, it refers to the police as a civilian force as opposed to military peacekeepers.

https://www.routledge.com/From-Congo-to-Kosovo-Civilian-Police-in-Peace-Operations/Hansen/p/book/9780198516736

[Malthus]

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.

In Canada at least, members of the military are subject to the civilian courts unless the offence is under particularly military jurisdiction. The distinction between the two is somewhat complex - in some cases, members of the military on active duty must be tried in civilian courts (such as fir serious offences committed in Canada, such as murder); in others, the military prosecutor has discretion, and so some cases may be tried in either military or civilian courts.

Source:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/jag/military-justice-overview.pdf

Obviously, different countries may do things differently.

[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.

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.

I don't think the other side is arguing vehemently that police are not civilians. I think they are arguing that the use of the distinction by the police and others in certain contexts, which we know happens, isn't incorrect.

The distinction is this: arguing that police are not civilians implies that he word is not contextual - that police go into the same category as members of the armed forces. Everyone acknowledges that this is not the case, that police are not in that category for the purposes of the laws of war and peace. What the other side is saying, is that in the context of policing, using "civilians" to mean "non-police" is not improper - and isn't intended to mean that the police have duties under the Geneva convention etc. it is just shorthand, one in wide use.

Certainly another term can be used (for example, "non-police"). Any word that distinguishes the two creates the good old euphemism treadmill, when the problem remains (that is, abuse of police authority).

[grumbler]

I don't think the other side is arguing vehemently that police are not civilians. I think they are arguing that the use of the distinction by the police and others in certain contexts, which we know happens, isn't incorrect.

The first shot fired in the discussion was from Beebs (Reply #6675 on: April 12, 2021, 09:28:16 pm):

Civillians have always excluded police.

The rest of the discussion followed from that.

The distinction is this: arguing that police are not civilians implies that he word is not contextual - that police go into the same category as members of the armed forces. Everyone acknowledges that this is not the case, that police are not in that category for the purposes of the laws of war and peace. What the other side is saying, is that in the context of policing, using "civilians" to mean "non-police" is not improper - and isn't intended to mean that the police have duties under the Geneva convention etc. it is just shorthand, one in wide use.

But that's just it:  I don't believe that the use of the term "civilian" to distinguish them from police is in wide use.  Some police use it, and some prosecutors use it.  Some languish lawyers claim that they use it because they enjoy being contrary.   And that's pretty much it.  US law doesn't use it.  International law doesn't.  The news media don't.  The US federal government lists federal police positions under their civilian regulations and job openings.

[Eddie Teach]

I think after 9 days and nearly 300 posts, it's time to give that one a rest.

[Barrister]

But that's just it:  I don't believe that the use of the term "civilian" to distinguish them from police is in wide use.  Some police use it, and some prosecutors use it.  Some languish lawyers claim that they use it because they enjoy being contrary.   And that's pretty much it.  US law doesn't use it.  International law doesn't.  The news media don't.  The US federal government lists federal police positions under their civilian regulations and job openings.

But here's the thing grumbler - the law uses language in a very special and particular way.  There's even a whole separate dictionaries for how words are legally defined.  But that has only a vague and passing familiarity to how words are used in the real world.

You have numerous examples now (including *ahem* civilian dictionaries) that include non-police being included as civilians depending on the circumstance.  I would suggest that is in fact wide use.

[Jacob]

I think after 9 days and nearly 300 posts, it's time to give that one a rest.

It would be the civil thing to do.