Are you a Citizen or a Civilian?

eye95 · Aug 21, 2010

The problem is that many folks here define civilian as non-military. Every dictionary I have read, and the overwhelming majority of everyday folks, define civilian to be folks who are not military, not cops, and not firefighters. One dictionary I read even excluded EMTs from the definition.

I don't think cops refer to themselves as non-civilians because they are military wannabes. They are just using the common definition of the word.

Police officers who have achieved the rank of lieutenant are not using the title to indicate that they have authority over citizens, but to indicate that they are higher ranking than sergeants, corporals, etc. Their request to be referred to by their appropriate title is the same as an MD preferring to be called "doctor" rather than "mister." Personally, I have shown them, and will continue to show them, respect for the rank they have attained.

GLOCK21GB · Aug 22, 2010

Citizen said:
Hey!! What right do you have to resist their mindset!?! Bow down! Be dominated! Yield to their pretended negotiating position!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!

Just prior to the American Revolution, one of the biggest complaints from the colonials were the searches and seizures conducted under Writs of Assistance. Basically, a Writ of Assistance was a blanket search warrant, issued for the duration of the reign of the king, that allowed the king's agents to search anywhere on the agent's own judgement for goods upon which taxes had not been paid. Homes and shops were searched, wine cellars searched, bedrooms searched, trunks broken open, locks broken--a sore point. I guess locks were expensive to replace. The "Assistance" angle arose from the condition in the Writ that granted the agent authority to call on civilians to help him search.

One of the contemporary observations from an influential man at that time was to the effect that homes and shops were being searched excessively, and that the searching was being done by men of such character that no prudent person would hire them. That says something about people who gravitate to the more forceful parts of government, I think. What sort of person would find satisfaction in breaking into homes, ransacking them, and carrying off alleged untaxed goods? The same sort that would get upset by someone not calling their leader a lieutenant?

gee whiz, these people sound ALOT like the Police, Batfe, IRS, types we have now. Like I said before...we are all subjects to a - soft tyranical police state monarchy.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 22, 2010

eye95 said:
The problem is that many folks here define civilian as non-military. Every dictionary I have read, and the overwhelming majority of everyday folks, define civilian to be folks who are not military, not cops, and not firefighters. One dictionary I read even excluded EMTs from the definition.

I don't think cops refer to themselves as non-civilians because they are military wannabes. They are just using the common definition of the word.

Police officers who have achieved the rank of lieutenant are not using the title to indicate that they have authority over citizens, but to indicate that they are higher ranking than sergeants, corporals, etc. Their request to be referred to by their appropriate title is the same as an MD preferring to be called "doctor" rather than "mister." Personally, I have shown them, and will continue to show them, respect for the rank they have attained.

If they are not civilian than it is unconstitutional for them to police us. By that those definitions all gov. workers are not civilian, just don't bide well with me, if you start this sort of caste in a free society.

I take the no title of nobility part of our constitution to a more broader perspective. I would even disagree with the idea of calling judges "your honor".

In the words of Thomas Paine who felt that titles would obscure the true nature or character of an individual.

"Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders. The lustre of the Star and the title of My Lord, over-awe the superstitious vulgar, and forbid them to inquire into the character of the possessor: Nay more, they are, as it were, bewitched to admire in the great, the vices they would honestly condemn in themselves. This sacrifice of common sense is the certain badge which distinguishes slavery from freedom; for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon."

eye95 · Aug 22, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
If they are not civilian than it is unconstitutional for them to police us. By that those definitions all gov. workers are not civilian, just don't bide well with me, if you start this sort of caste in a free society.

I take the no title of nobility part of our constitution to a more broader perspective. I would even disagree with the idea of calling judges "your honor".

In the words of Thomas Paine who felt that titles would obscure the true nature or character of an individual.

"Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders. The lustre of the Star and the title of My Lord, over-awe the superstitious vulgar, and forbid them to inquire into the character of the possessor: Nay more, they are, as it were, bewitched to admire in the great, the vices they would honestly condemn in themselves. This sacrifice of common sense is the certain badge which distinguishes slavery from freedom; for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon."

Again, your first point presumes a definition of civilian as non-military. That is not the customary use of the word (except on OCDO). Civilian, as a word, carries no constitutional meaning.

Your point on titles is irrelevant to the discussion. It is referring to titles conferred, not earned. I am sure Thomas Paine would have no problem with titles earned by education and by promotion through experience and hard work.

Personally, when I was in uniform, I would have preferred to be addressed as Sergeant or Master Sergeant, as such would recognize my accomplishment in having attained that rank through my efforts. I would have preferred that address (and often got it) from those to whom my rank did not need to be meaningful.

I hope you don't think that is "high-sounding" of me. However, if you do, that is your choice--saying more about you than me.

Doug Huffman · Aug 22, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
"Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders.

If Tom Paine can be aware of the effect of 'high sounding names' then I submit that low sounding names are similarly pejorative.

Citizen · Aug 22, 2010

eye95 said:
SNIP I don't think cops refer to themselves as non-civilians because they are military wannabes. They are just using the common definition of the word.

Police officers who have achieved the rank of lieutenant are not using the title to indicate that they have authority over citizens, but to indicate that they are higher ranking than sergeants, corporals, etc. Their request to be referred to by their appropriate title is the same as an MD preferring to be called "doctor" rather than "mister." Personally, I have shown them, and will continue to show them, respect for the rank they have attained.

I could agree with any of your points individually; but, I'm of the mind that the totality of the circumstances shows a little bit different picture. Using military rank system, using military insignia, paramilitary uniforms, battle-gear, and military vehicles--these add up to styling themselves after the military.

Also, in the business world, I've never heard of a junior demanding a third-party call the an executive by their title. "Personnel Director Jones." "CEO Barnes". "Secretary Smith." I can just see a group of jeans clad, sneaker-wearing programmers being required to call their supervisor, "Project Leader Donaldson."

eye95 · Aug 22, 2010

An abstraction is not the same as the thing abstracted.

The police are not the military. Except for a few freaks, they don't think that they are.

They are, however, using the most common definition of civilian, not civilian.

This argument is getting ridiculous. The last two points are all I need to say on the subject at this time. Moving on.

Brimstone Baritone · Aug 22, 2010

Doug Huffman said:
If Tom Paine can be aware of the effect of 'high sounding names' then I submit that low sounding names are similarly pejorative.

Meaning what? That calling someone 'Mister' somehow insults or demeans them in the eyes of others?

I'll give you calling the judge "Hey, Frank!" instead of "Good morning, Your Honor" lessens the judge in the eyes of anyone who hears it, but I may have missed your point.

Personally I am a Citizen and a Civilian, although I always like Heinlein's idea that Citizenship should be earned. Keep in mind, that the non-citizens still had every right and freedom we have except the right to vote. (Maybe some others, it has been a while since I read "Starship Troopers".)

Citizen · Aug 23, 2010

eye95 said:
An abstraction is not the same as the thing abstracted.

The police are not the military. Except for a few freaks, they don't think that they are.

They are, however, using the most common definition of civilian, not civilian.

This argument is getting ridiculous. The last two points are all I need to say on the subject at this time. Moving on.

OK, eye. That seems to be your usual solution, "Moving On." As though none of us recognize that you could have moved on without saying anything.

It isn't that you are "moving on". What you are really doing is cutting off communication, rudely. And, I might add, I cannot recall you using the "moving on" gambit without preceding it with negative comment.

But, please, by all means, "Move On." Don't let me stop you. I didn't ask you to come back and reply to my comment. I wasn't arguing; but its interesting that you took it as one. Your negative comment and "move on" tactic only serve to show that you really took it as an argument. Do you really think we are obligated to accept your statements? And, if we don't, we are "arguing" with you? And, you get annoyed about it? Really? (rhetorical questions)

sudden valley gunner · Aug 23, 2010

eye95 said:
Again, your first point presumes a definition of civilian as non-military. That is not the customary use of the word (except on OCDO). Civilian, as a word, carries no constitutional meaning.

Your point on titles is irrelevant to the discussion. It is referring to titles conferred, not earned. I am sure Thomas Paine would have no problem with titles earned by education and by promotion through experience and hard work.

Personally, when I was in uniform, I would have preferred to be addressed as Sergeant or Master Sergeant, as such wRills, because I am not a superior person to any one else.

And you keep skipping the fact that Police work for us they are public servants. I don't call my lead carpenters or laborers that work for me by any special title. Most people continue to grow in their professions and earn more money "rank" and seniority without needing special titles.

I am not the one who brought up titles so why is my point irrelevant because you don't agree with it?, I was just contributing to the discussion. Look at the title the founders gave our President. it is simply Mr. President. I don't think he would want civilian/citizen police force to have high titles, ( I don't think the founders would want such a police force). The point I was making was that the titles change how one might judge the character of the person and I see this happen all the time. Doctors who insist on my being called Doctor by non doctors are plainly arrogant asses. Their title means nothing to me. I don't see any distinction made in Pain's statement between titles given or earned ( an earned title is still given to you by someone).

eye95 · Aug 23, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
eye95 said:

Again, your first point presumes a definition of civilian as non-military. That is not the customary use of the word (except on OCDO). Civilian, as a word, carries no constitutional meaning.

Your point on titles is irrelevant to the discussion. It is referring to titles conferred, not earned. I am sure Thomas Paine would have no problem with titles earned by education and by promotion through experience and hard work.

Personally, when I was in uniform, I would have preferred to be addressed as Sergeant or Master Sergeant, as such wRills, because I am not a superior person to any one else.

Click to expand...

And you keep skipping the fact that Police work for us they are public servants. I don't call my lead carpenters or laborers that work for me by any special title. Most people continue to grow in their professions and earn more money "rank" and seniority without needing special titles.

I am not the one who brought up titles so why is my point irrelevant because you don't agree with it?, I was just contributing to the discussion. Look at the title the founders gave our President. it is simply Mr. President. I don't think he would want civilian/citizen police force to have high titles, ( I don't think the founders would want such a police force). The point I was making was that the titles change how one might judge the character of the person and I see this happen all the time. Doctors who insist on my being called Doctor by non doctors are plainly arrogant asses. Their title means nothing to me. I don't see any distinction made in Pain's statement between titles given or earned ( an earned title is still given to you by someone).

Yeah, like the judge someone else mentioned works for you.

Try calling him "Frank" in his courtroom. He'll be happy to introduce you to some others who "work for you," the jail guards.

The don't work for you like your plumber does. You can fire your plumber. You cannot fire the policeman.

Bottom line, you don't have to address an officer by his rank. It is a common courtesy. And all that binds us to common courtesy is a desire to be civil to each other.

And, now I will move on from this subdiscussion as well.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 23, 2010

Ive been to court several times, and I simply call him "judge" ("yes judge","no judge"), just like I call police officers , "officer". Works great for me never been sent to jail. Why is it common courtesy to call officers, by their rank? Who came up with that? Oh wait, officers did.

My opinion is that if Cops are not civilians than it is unconstitutional for them to police us. Since we are a civilian ran country and state. If you want to us civilian in the broader sense than any persons excluded from any group are civilians. If I have a motorcycle club, in my club we could refer to others not part of my club as "civilians" this would meet most dictionary definitions too. We could also come up with ranks and insist in our club we call each other by our ranks.

When you apply this thinking to Law Enforcement you are reenforcing the idea that they are seperate group from the rest of the population and does no good for the us vs. them attitude fostered.

fully_armed_biker · Aug 23, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
Ive been to court several times, and I simply call him "judge" ("yes judge","no judge"), just like I call police officers , "officer". Works great for me never been sent to jail. Why is it common courtesy to call officers, by their rank? Who came up with that? Oh wait, officers did.

My opinion is that if Cops are not civilians than it is unconstitutional for them to police us. Since we are a civilian ran country and state. If you want to us civilian in the broader sense than any persons excluded from any group are civilians. If I have a motorcycle club, in my club we could refer to others not part of my club as "civilians" this would meet most dictionary definitions too. We could also come up with ranks and insist in our club we call each other by our ranks.

When you apply this thinking to Law Enforcement you are reenforcing the idea that they are seperate group from the rest of the population and does no good for the us vs. them attitude fostered.

+1000!!!

Any LEO that DEMANDS he/she be called by their rank is nothing more than an LEO on a power trip....period! And yes, they are civilians as their power is derived from CIVIL[IAN] authority, not military authority. They may use the word "civilian" to describe anybody who isn't an LEO as part of their radio nomenclature...as in, "We have 2 civilians and one officer, down...." but, that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make them non-civilians.

eye95 · Aug 23, 2010

biker-

Here is the first definition of civilian an Internet search produced:

civilian

ci·vil·ian
/sɪˈvɪlyən/ Show Spelled[si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective
4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.

Origin:
1350–1400; ME: student of civil law < OF civilien (adj.); see civil, -ian

Please note the bolded parts, including the origin of the word, which has nothing to do with civil, as opposed to military, authority.

Folks, one of the great things about this site is that we deal with facts. More so than any other site I have posted on, folks here don't bend or invent the facts to fit their view.

If you need a word that means "not in the military," I suggest that you find one or develop one, but that is not the meaning of the word "civilian." To continue to argue that that is the meaning is to be in denial.

fully_armed_biker · Aug 23, 2010

eye95 said:
biker-

Here is the first definition of civilian an Internet search produced:

Please note the bolded parts, including the origin of the word, which has nothing to do with civil, as opposed to military, authority.

Folks, one of the great things about this site is that we deal with facts. More so than any other site I have posted on, folks here don't bend or invent the facts to fit their view.

If you need a word that means "not in the military," I suggest that you find one or develop one, but that is not the meaning of the word "civilian." To continue to argue that that is the meaning is to be in denial.

I don't give a good g-d damn what you found in the dictionary...dictionary definitions are commonly updated and revised based on their USAGE, not their MEANING...their power is derived from civil authority...they are civilians....now go and pull your patented "I'm taking my ball and going home" tactic...and move on like you've already said you were going to twice, if you have nothing further to add to this discussion.

Butch00 · Aug 23, 2010

Cops are employees of a private Corporation nothing more.
I call judges by their first name brings them down to the peoples level,
they are not special.
Contempt of court.....Civil Contempt has to have a contract.
Criminal Contempt has to have a damaged party.

eye95 · Aug 23, 2010

fully_armed_biker said:
I don't give a good g-d damn what you found in the dictionary...dictionary definitions are commonly updated and revised based on their USAGE, not their MEANING...their power is derived from civil authority...they are civilians....now go and pull your patented "I'm taking my ball and going home" tactic...and move on like you've already said you were going to twice, if you have nothing further to add to this discussion.

Actually, I moved on from discussions with two other posters because those discussions became repetitive, and twenty pages of repeated arguments does nothing to advance the rational POV.

So, I will make this second post to you, and move on to discuss stuff with other folks:

You are lamenting the common usage of civilian that includes non-police. Yet, when the dictionary definition is provided, you claim that it does not accurately present usage!

Anyway, that's how modern dictionary definitions come about. Usage is explored. In usage and in the dictionary, civilians are folks who are non-military, non-police, and non-firefighters.

You are wrong about usage. You are wrong about the dictionary definition. And, worst yet, your "origin" of the word was fabricated and wrong.

fully_armed_biker · Aug 23, 2010

eye95 said:
Actually, I moved on from discussions with two other posters because those discussions became repetitive, and twenty pages of repeated arguments does nothing to advance the rational POV.

So, I will make this second post to you, and move on to discuss stuff with other folks:

You are lamenting the common usage of civilian that includes non-police. Yet, when the dictionary definition is provided, you claim that it does not accurately present usage!

Anyway, that's how modern dictionary definitions come about. Usage is explored. In usage and in the dictionary, civilians are folks who are non-military, non-police, and non-firefighters.

You are wrong about usage. You are wrong about the dictionary definition. And, worst yet, your "origin" of the word was fabricated and wrong.

I made NO claim that the definition didn't refelct it's usage...I said it's dictionary definition has been revised to reflect not only its meaning; but, it's usage as well. I made NO claim as to what the dictionary definition was, to be "wrong" about. And as for the origin of the word.....Okay genius....please look up the definition of civilianize ...Never mind...I've already done it for you....it means to move from military status or control, to non-military status or control ....the ROOT of the word [civilian] meaning NON-MILITARY.... So, once again, take your ball and run home on home little boy!

Gunslinger · Aug 23, 2010

I'm a citizen. I was military, then became a civilian. I work for the military, but as still a civilian. Cops work for some city or town entity. They are employees of that entity. They are civilians--a great many could never be military because they are too stupid or gutless. In their room temperature IQs they seem to think they are something above a civilian. They are not. IF they convince us we are subjects, THEN they are elevated as WE are reduced. I'll never be a subject. So they stay employees of some city or town entity to me. Nothing more. I have the same respect for them that I do the worker at the town dump. Another employee of some city or town entity.

RockyMtnScotsman · Aug 23, 2010

I intensely dislike the label "civilian" for a number of reasons. Not least among these is that those of us who know the history and purpose of the second amendment recognize that NO mature, responsible adult can ever be a "civilian".

Are you a Citizen or a Civilian?

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Well-known member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member