Police abuse and citizens

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Last thread locked.

Sturn, I didn't address a number of your points because they completely disregard the points I've already made. I was in the military 8 years, I deployed overseas. Civilians are differentiated against enemy combatants. In America we do not have a huge force of enemy combatants. As noted in the last thread crime is dropping in America.

Also you asked what term you should use in this instance:

"A witness who is a naturalized non-law enforcement citizen, reported he saw...."

First, why are you even talking like that? The military doesn't even talk like that. You could say "A witness reported he saw..."

Or if you have to have the "naturalized" thing then put "a naturalized citizen reported he saw..."

Clearly you're being obtuse, as is often the police force tactic when the evidence against them is too overbearing to handle logically.

Anyway, continue thread please...

[Sturn]

Sturn, I didn't address a number of your points because they completely disregard the points I've already made.

I did. I agreed that citizen was a more correct term then civilian even while it had it's own issues (applying to non-citizens). In fact the first half of my post in the locked thread was all about that.

Did you ever respond to the technically improper term of "cop" that you used and seemed to have no problem with? PS: I don't have a problem with it either, everyone knows cop = police officer even if it's technically wrong.

Also you asked what term you should use in this instance:

"A witness who is a naturalized non-law enforcement citizen, reported he saw...."

First, why are you even talking like that? The military doesn't even talk like that. You could say "A witness reported he saw..."

I don't. I was talking like that to make a point. I actually say citizen, civilian, 10-12, or just person. As I said before, citizen, your choice, isn't technically correct either. Not all non-cops are citizens. I think most people are not caught up in the PCness of the terms though so I think all of those are fine. It's absurd, just like you pointed out, to say something like "non-law enforcement person" when just trying to say the person who told me such and such wasn't a cop. If I say, "a civilian told me..", I think it's an extremely rare person who is going to respond with, "Dear goodness, I'm not a non-combatant, we aren't at war, you aren't a soldier!". In common spoken language it's a bit too far to get that technical with terms. If I was writing some sort of dissertation or policy I probably would be that technical. Otherwise, I'm sticking with civilian, citizen, 10-12, dude, etc depending on who I'm talking to and I don't think I'm ever going to be misunderstood or accused of being a militant cop for using it (in real life, not in forum land).

eta: some more crap and correct a butt-load of typos

[The Iceman of the North]

It's absurd, just like you pointed out, to say something like "non-law enforcement person" when just trying to say the person who told me such and such wasn't a cop.

If you just said "a person (or witness) told me", wouldn't the assumption be that it was a "non-law enforcement person"? I mean, if it was a fellow officer wouldn't you use his or her rank (or name), or another reference to their profession?

[Sturn]

If you just said "a person (or witness) told me", wouldn't the assumption be that it was a "non-law enforcement person"? I mean, if it was a fellow officer wouldn't you use his or her rank (or name), or another reference to their profession?

Yes. In fact I used, "person", and "dude" above. I just don't think I should be damned if I slip in a term like civilian from time to time. It's not evil and it gets the same point across to nearly everyone.

eta: There's a long list of more important things police need to correct long before we start getting critical of the use of civilian not being technically correct. Sorry SS if I find your disagreement silly, even when I DO understand your argument.

[polishgenius]

To carry over a response from the last thread:

I expect the police to prioritize what they spend their resources on, or "show discretion" as Strun put it.

Yeah, but there are times when they are legally able to use their discretion, and times they aren't. As Sturn put it. Like he says, if someone's called the police in and the law actually was broken, they can't go "well the law is stupid and you're being petty so nuts to you". There are obviously instances in that list where they handled it awfully (cuffing the girl in class, for example- or even at all, come on) but they couldn't not do anything.

There are laws against using narcotics (in most jurisdictions), but we don't see the police sweep through crack houses on a daily basis rounding up everyone they find using narcotics.

You also don't see police sweeping schools and arresting everyone who burps, give over. There's only a couple of instances on that list where the action was police-initiated (the ones where he'd been called in to give a talk or some such to try to improves behaviour and ended up zipcuffing/pepper spraying) and several where the police weren't involved at all, which makes titling the link '19 children arrested' frankly misleading just to start.

[The Iceman of the North]

So if someone call the police and report that drugs are sold on the street, you'd expect the police to show up every time?

[lessthanluke]

Yes. In fact I used, "person", and "dude" above. I just don't think I should be damned if I slip in a term like civilian from time to time. It's not evil and it gets the same point across to nearly everyone.

eta: There's a long list of more important things police need to correct long before we start getting critical of the use of civilian not being technically correct. Sorry SS if I find your disagreement silly, even when I DO understand your argument.

Agreed. Does the police using the term civilian really make you annoyed SS? If so I think you are just looking for things to criticize.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Sturn--your example of cop vs. police officer doesn't matter. My job isn't to patrol the streets with a gun and make good decisions. I do, though, in my profession make a distinction between calling my students "children" or "kids". I call them students. That's the responsible thing for me to do, and I do it. I don't expect you to do it.

Agreed. Does the police using the term civilian really make you annoyed SS? If so I think you are just looking for things to criticize.

Not annoyed--but afraid. Cops believe they are an elite military force now. I've been pretty clear on why I'm not comfortable with this, but a quick rehash:

Our police force was created specifically to be separate from our military force, because countries historically who use the military as a police force run into a problem--the police/military view the citizens as an enemy force.

Our police force is not a military force, does not receive near the same level of training, nor the right kind of training to treat its populace in a civilian vs. combatant role play.

That our police force uses the terminology "civilian" shows the mentality, the very mentality of your average cop, is one that thinks he is a militarized force out there to suppress violence. That is not his job. Yes, I believe wholly, without trying to nitpick, that the words we use to describe those around us are extremely important, as they are a good window into how we view those around us.

Cops view the population as something different, something lesser. And that's what I mean by inferior training--any man or woman in the service knows how to treat a "civilian." You were military right? I think I remember seeing that somewhere. How do you refer to a civilian in the street when you're in uniform? "Yes ma'am, no sir." You afford them respect. This is obviously not the training the police force receives. If the police want to be a military force they need far more regimented training, especially in going out there and dealing with the "dangerous" populace that needs to be referred to as civilian or combatant.

[peterbound]

Sturn--your example of cop vs. police officer doesn't matter. My job isn't to patrol the streets with a gun and make good decisions. I do, though, in my profession make a distinction between calling my students "children" or "kids". I call them students. That's the responsible thing for me to do, and I do it. I don't expect you to do it.

Not annoyed--but afraid. Cops believe they are an elite military force now. I've been pretty clear on why I'm not comfortable with this, but a quick rehash:

Our police force was created specifically to be separate from our military force, because countries historically who use the military as a police force run into a problem--the police/military view the citizens as an enemy force.

Our police force is not a military force, does not receive near the same level of training, nor the right kind of training to treat its populace in a civilian vs. combatant role play.

That our police force uses the terminology "civilian" shows the mentality, the very mentality of your average cop, is one that thinks he is a militarized force out there to suppress violence. That is not his job. Yes, I believe wholly, without trying to nitpick, that the words we use to describe those around us are extremely important, as they are a good window into how we view those around us.

Cops view the population as something different, something lesser. And that's what I mean by inferior training--any man or woman in the service knows how to treat a "civilian." You were military right? I think I remember seeing that somewhere. How do you refer to a civilian in the street when you're in uniform? "Yes ma'am, no sir." You afford them respect. This is obviously not the training the police force receives. If the police want to be a military force they need far more regimented training, especially in going out there and dealing with the "dangerous" populace that needs to be referred to as civilian or combatant.

I'm a Fire Fighter, not far from your home town, and we refer to non ff/pd people as Civilians. We (police and fire) are sworn officers/fire fighters. There is a distinction between us and the rest of the world. Fact.

Your assertion that they don't have regimented training is silly. Have you ever been through an academy? My fire academy consisted of marines, soldiers, and Airman, all of which agreed the actual thing was as hard, if not harder than basic training/boot. Couple that with a shitty... shitty 1 year probation, and you have a 'regimented' training in place. PD is similar. Very hard academy, very regimented, very 'para'military. Especially in larger cities. I'd also be willing to bet that PD receives exponentially more training than any Army, AF, Marine fucker running around the streets. Have you lived in a Military town before? For Fucks sake man, goddamn e1-e4's act like fucking savages when put into a public setting. Come down to the Springs one weekend and we'll see how many fights we can get into for just walking down the street.

Most PD/Fire have SOG/P's that are very specific on how to treat the public. Sir/Ma'am is the preferred terms of address. I'm sorry you've ran into some that don't follow that, but I think you'll find that most do, indeed, try to observe proper customs and courtesies

Listen, no fan of PD am I, but you are stretching this shit a bit here, and have very little actual evidence/room to speak. Seems like you are just making shit up to somehow justify your dislike of the boys in blue.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Um nope, you're wrong.

Firemen have notoriously harder training than cops too.

And having been in the military and having lived in military towns, yeah I'm qualified to talk about that as you are. We had a corporal get an article 15 for running his mouth at a civilian worker overseas. That's the way it should be here. Edit: The soldier in question was in uniform, sounds like you're talking about off duty soldiers, which is exactly the problem with releasing your military force into the public. Exactly the reason those guys aren't supposed to be protecting the citizens of our country. Because they're trained to engage enemies, and the younger they are the more they buy into it. Our police force should not act like that. But you're part of the "mentality" so that's cool, I wouldn't expect you to change it. It feels good to believe you're in an elite force that makes you better than all the civies running around.

Maybe I should say I am more willing to give a firefighter a pass on the elite status stuff, because they are more elite than any other civilian based response force. I've never seen an overweight firefighter, and I've always seen them be kind to people, helpful, and most often peacemakers. I had an infantry friend in my unit who went into the reserves and joined the Denver FireD, and he would always talked about how tough it was, tougher than the infantry. Firefighters do a great public service. A different friend of mine was going to get arrested one night for drunken disorderly and we couldn't calm him down and he was getting into it with a cop (who was acting like an arrogant dick), and it was a firefighter who was on scene because of an accident that went and talked my friend down. No condescension. It took very little for him to do it. I was always impressed by that. But I don't want to derail the thread.

[Sturn]

Sturn--your example of cop vs. police officer doesn't matter.

Yes it does. In your opinion perhaps no. In my opinion it's completely comparable. eta: In fact cop could be worse. It actual began as a deragatory term, civilian didn't. I still haven't ever heard of a cop complaining about being called a cop. It's trivial, like being called popo or pig.

My job isn't to patrol the streets with a gun and make good decisions. I do, though, in my profession make a distinction between calling my students "children" or "kids". I call them students. That's the responsible thing for me to do, and I do it. I don't expect you to do it.

Civilian sounds as professional and courteous as student is. You're making like "civilian" is a horrible, degrading, term. It's not at all. It's not like I'm going up to citizens and calling them peon, puke, youngster, old man, etc.

Not annoyed--but afraid. Cops believe they are an elite military force now.

We do?

Our police force was created specifically to be separate from our military force, because countries historically who use the military as a police force run into a problem--the police/military view the citizens as an enemy force.

I and every cop I've met agree. eta - I meant with the first part of the sentence. I'm not saying I or other cops view our citizens as an enemy force. Ridiculous. Our hardened criminals (the ones that have guns, the ones who assault us)? Perhaps.

Our police force is not a military force, does not receive near the same level of training, nor the right kind of training to treat its populace in a civilian vs. combatant role play.

My military police training was juvenile compared to my civilian police training (hey I used civilian referring to myself, didn't feel like I was degrading myself at all). A recruit at my department within the first 6 months of training is more well trained in law enforcement then MP's with 5 years in. Comparing to military training only (not the cop stuff), I don't recall nearly as much required yearly training in the Army as I do as a cop.

That our police force uses the terminology "civilian" shows the mentality, the very mentality of your average cop, is one that thinks he is a militarized force out there to suppress violence.

No it doesn't and no we don't. To use your own words, um nope, you're wrong. It's a common term used for decades in law enforcement, long before any notions of over-militarization of police came about. You are reading into it way, way too much. I've used civilian countless times and never considered the military vs combatant slant until reading it here.

[Rorshach]

Cops believe they are an elite military force now.

That our police force uses the terminology "civilian" shows the mentality, the very mentality of your average cop, is one that thinks he is a militarized force out there to suppress violence.

I have just been reading the discussion in the last thread, and I don't see how you have supported these statements. To assume from the fact that "civilian" is used that the mentality of the PD of the US (note, me Norwegian. Therefore mentioning US) has changed to some draconian paramilitary force, is quite a few bridges too far.

For all I know, you may have the evidence to back your assertion up. You have, however, not done so thus far.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Sturn, you're wrong.

I have just been reading the discussion in the last thread, and I don't see how you have supported these statements. To assume from the fact that "civilian" is used that the mentality of the PD of the US (note, me Norwegian. Therefore mentioning US) has changed to some draconian paramilitary force, is quite a few bridges too far.

For all I know, you may have the evidence to back your assertion up. You have, however, not done so thus far.

Don't know what to tell ya, pal--go read the other four threads before this one and see if you can gain some clarity?

[drawkcabi]

Yes it does. In your opinion perhaps no. In my opinion it's completely comparable. eta: In fact cop could be worse. It actual began as a deragatory term, civilian didn't. I still haven't ever heard of a cop complaining about being called a cop. It's trivial, like being called popo or pig.

Just anecdotal, but since you said you never heard of it. I remember when I was sitting waiting for my eyeglasses at a vision store and I overheard a conversation between the lady behind the counter in a customer.

She said, "Could I ask you a question about being a cop?" and he corrected her "police officer" and she quickly apologized.

I was only a kid then, maybe 12, so this was more than 20 years ago, a different generation. But it stuck in my memory because I was surprised myself, I didn't know there way anything bad about using the word "cop".

[Lord O' Bones]

My military police training was juvenile compared to my civilian police training (hey I used civilian referring to myself, didn't feel like I was degrading myself at all). A recruit at my department within the first 6 months of training is more well trained in law enforcement then MP's with 5 years in. Comparing to military training only (not the cop stuff), I don't recall nearly as much required yearly training in the Army as I do as a cop.

Could you be more specific if you get the time? I myself was never in the Security Forces, but I stood Shore Patrol more times than I can count. My rank alone was often enough to gain compliance even with out the armband because the people I was policing were also trained to respond to me in that way. A dynamic often not repeated between the police and the average person.

And training on both sides still bely's the anecdata I have aquired that even when a Marine, Sailor, or Airman was being unruly it always felt like when I was involved in that situation (from either side) they always seemed to prioritize 1.The public's safety 2. Their safety 3. The subject's safety 4. Property

5. Busting your ass.

It doesn't often feel the way when dealing with civilian police. It feels like busting your ass is 2 or 3 positions too high on that list.

[Sturn]

Could you be more specific if you get the time?

What exactly do you wish me to be more specific on? I will try to cover everything below.

I myself was never in the Security Forces, but I stood Shore Patrol more times than I can count. My rank alone was often enough to gain compliance even with out the armband because the people I was policing were also trained to respond to me in that way. A dynamic often not repeated between the police and the average person.

I agree in that as an MP it was much easier to get compliance from soldiers then as a civilian cop with civilians. An MP could actually give a person a lawful order. If you didn't obey, that was a crime in itself. Imagine how well that would go over in the civilian world. It's a completely different environment in civilian law enforcement.

And training on both sides still bely's the anecdata I have aquired that even when a Marine, Sailor, or Airman was being unruly it always felt like when I was involved in that situation (from either side) they always seemed to prioritize 1.The public's safety 2. Their safety 3. The subject's safety 4. Property

5. Busting your ass.

It doesn't often feel the way when dealing with civilian police. It feels like busting your ass is 2 or 3 positions too high on that list.

I don't recall a priority list from my MP days. I would agree civilian police do arrest more often then military police. Part of this could be the civilian system itself, but part of it is the easier nature and options offered to an MP. An MP can simply give an order and 99% of the time that is enough to solve the situation. You're being an idiot, I'm ordering you to go to your barracks and not come out again for 12 hours. You could also send formal reports to a soldier's commander to have him/her deal out punish instead without having to make an arrest. If a civilian cop could get compliance with simple commands at that high rate or have the person's manager at Walmart punish them instead of making an arrest; yep that would lead to less arrests.

Training. My comments are dated from 20 years ago. Perhaps things have changed. I actual recall after becoming a civilian cop that I wanted to go back to my old MP units and give them actual, good, training that could someday save an MP's life. That was how large the difference in law enforcement training was. To be fair, an MP did not train only for law enforcement. Half of the time I was training for combat situations. Today, I think it is even rare to see an MP doing law enforcement so it's probably even worse. But, today's MPs probably aren't doing much law enforcement, if any. As a personal example, as an MP I went to the range once a YEAR and got to shoot 50 rounds out of my service handgun to qualify. That was it. 50 rounds per year. That is ridiculous and dangerous compared to civilian police training. Civilian police have a set number of hours of training (say 50) that they must complete every year just to remain an officer. The state (at least mine does) requires certain hours of training in certain subjects such as racial profiling, domestic violence, etc. In the military, I recall basic testing from time to time (STX's with training stations), but nothing that would compare to the amount of my required civilian training.

edit to correct a misquote

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I fire 50 rounds a year and I'm in the AF working in comminication. Ive always assumed security forces do more, but I never asked.

[Sturn]

Sturn, you're wrong. (nothing follows)

Simon, you're wrong.

Now we both feel superior. We've discussed this ad naseum. We won't agree. Let's shake hands and move on to a different topic.

[Rorshach]

Don't know what to tell ya, pal--go read the other four threads before this one and see if you can gain some clarity?

I didn't. I did, however, look up "civilian" in the Oxford dictionary. I do not see it carrying the implications you claim. And even though these threads certainly do document abusive behaviour from police, they are miles away from proving your assertion. Sorry.

[lessthanluke]

I didn't. I did, however, look up "civilian" in the Oxford dictionary. I do not see it carrying the implications you claim. And even though these threads certainly do document abusive behaviour from police, they are miles away from proving your assertion. Sorry.

Again agreed.