Police officers = civilians or part of the armed forces?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JuanCarlos

New member
Would you explain to me why an urban SWAT team needs to wear military BDU's, many of them in Woodland Camo? In the city, will the bad guy want to know why that bush is holding a machine gun and wearing an assault vest?

I'm more worried about the guy who feels confident taking out heavily armed bad guys wearing nothing but his PJs, myself! ;)

Also, not all urban areas are entirely built-up...I can imagine there are situations where woodland camo might be appropriate. Agreed on the rest.
 

tc556guy

New member
Would you explain to me why an urban SWAT team needs to wear military BDU's, many of them in Woodland Camo? In the city, will the bad guy want to know why that bush is holding a machine gun and wearing an assault vest?

BDUs are relatively cheap, for one thing. Even before the military went to ACUs, agencies could get BDUs at surplus stores, DRMO, etc on the cheap.More agencies than you might know have to fund operations as cheaply as possible, and every administrator loves to hear that budget money is being saved.
Most teams don't use FA, actually...and if they did, so what. Nothing wrong with FA in trained hands.

They can still appear professional and not look like soldiers. They did it for a couple of hundred years, why the change now?

Does this reflect what you want to see? A 300 pound wannabe playing soldier?

That guy would be the exception rather than the norm for most officers I have seen.
For another thing, police and police agencies have not been around for "a couple hundred years". SWAT teams have only been around for about 30 years, and they were formed because of the new threats that more traditional policing methods simply were not equipped to handle. I am sure that you are aware of the history. Other than that, the older "traditional" police uniforms were not even relevant to the activities of the average officer. It was about tiem that uniforms changed to acknowledge that reality. The BDU style uniform fits the needs of what the average officer does on a daily basis, and I'm not talking about knocking in doors, I am talking about having to roll around with drunks, domestic abusers, you name it.....and the multitude of other daily 'stuff" they do....
 

johnbt

New member
"Andy Taylor was a fictional TC charecter with no connection at all to real life."

I'm not so sure about that. He reminds me in many ways of a cousin who was sheriff of a large Virginia county of over 30 years.

And yes, civil police are civilians. Military police are not civilians.

John
 

Dust Monkey

New member
SWAT teams have only been around for about 30 years, and they were formed because of the new threats that more traditional policing methods simply were not equipped to handle./QUOTE]

Yep, the were formed for extraordinary situations, like hostage taking etc... thats why they are now being used to serve mundane warrants for tickets and such...... Guess traditional police cant do that.
 

tc556guy

New member
I don't see many teams being used to serve warrants for tickets. Of course there are instances where it may seem the warrant is for something minor, but you can bet there was something unusual about the case that warranted the use of the team. Statistically, any warrant service using a team is safer for all parties involved.
 

Desslock

New member
The reason we grind axes with the police online is because you get your dupa thrown in the slammer if you try doing it in person.
 

SecDef

New member
First of all, the "civilian" thing is overblown. Its an easy way for officers to distinguish between people on the job and people not on the job. Will you similarly claim that 80 years ago Vaudeville performers were militaristic because they called anyone who was not a performer a "civilian" ( they did, BTW) ?

Please source this.

How is this not elitist and divisive? (and thus not overblown) I'm sure carnival workers referred to their marks as civilians at some point, too.
 

tc556guy

New member
Because its not "divisive". Its simply a way to distinguish between people in a group and not in a group. If people outside the group get offended, thats on them.
 

tc556guy

New member
Someone going out of their way to address an officer that way obviously has a chip on their shoulder or an agenda. If you feel the need, go ahead...obviously we get called worse on a regular occassion. More than likely you'll just get a polite brush off, because we have more important things to do than spend our day dealing with someone with an agenda. Great way to ruin the opportunity to leave a good impression, dusty.
 

Dust Monkey

New member
I dont have to leave a good impression, I dont serve the public. The reason we have an "us vs. them" war is because cops do not leave a good impression these days. And the so called good cops look the other way when the bad apples do wrong. So, guilt by association in my book.

When I interact with police officers, I am respectful and keep my answers short and to the point. One interaction still sticks out in my mind from almost 5 years ago. Little hole in the wall town, 2 stop lights, cop dressed like a ninja in grey BDU's, HK in a thigh rig, shaved head and of course the cool glasses. Pulled me over for speeding, which I was guilty of. Yet, he did not seem too concerned about that, or even introducing himself to me. He knew from my LP that I had a CC permit. First thing out of my mouth was, "officer, I have a CC permit and I am armed, how would you care to proceed?". He replied, " do you have any other illegal firearms or drugs in your vehicle?" My response was no illegal firearms, the one I have is mine, and no drugs". Next, I knew it was coming, he asked if he could search my vehicle. I told him no, I do not consent to searches. Now, instead of writing me a speeding ticket for my infraction, this wanna be got pissed at me for saying no and threw a fit at me on the side of the road.

Is that what they teach these days???
 

mpage

New member
Dust Monkey made some excellent points. And the OP is spot on; cops' use of the word "civilians" has been a pet peeve of mine for a while.

Here's an informative article about cops' attitudes:
THE ELITIST AND CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDES OF OUR "PROTECTORS"

"I work for a major Sheriff's Department in southern California. I am a non-sworn public officer, which means I carry a gun on duty and perform most of the same tasks that sworn deputies do. I am supervised by and work closely with police officers from my own department and other agencies in the L.A. area. You must understand that there is definitely an elitist attitude amongst many police officers. While I share your sentiments regarding my respect for police and the tough job they (we) do, I can provide a unique perspective on the us vs. them mind-set which most police share.

I have been trained to the exact same level as sworn personnel when it comes to arrest and firearms. I have to qualify and maintain proficiency with my weapons just like the sworn personnel. I have been in many situations where I have had to use my weapon to affect an arrest. I have been in fights and I have taken many felony suspects to jail. However I am considered a wanna-be, rent-a-cop in my department. The average citizen does not realize just how low they are in the food chain in the mind of many cops. Almost every agency looks at other agencies as inferior. Hell, even in my own department, if a deputy did field training at a slow station they are immediately dismissed as inexperienced and sub-standard. If your a federal police officer, a county safety police officer, or any one of the many police designations in L.A County which are not working the mean streets, you are nothing in the eyes of the elite cops. If the cops think other cops are losers, how do you think they see you?

Although I and many of my fellow officers have used our departmentally issued firearms in the line of duty to effect arrests of violent felons, we are required to lock-up our weapons every night before going home. I and my partners are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons off-duty. Most of my fellow officers work in extremely violent neighborhoods, yet we are forced to travel home unprotected. I know exactly how the average citizen in California feels.

Although we have fought for the right to carry concealed we are always denied on the basis that we are not sworn and really have no need to be armed. No different from the accountant or the cook in the eyes of the law. Yet politicians, judges, attorneys and the high profile people somehow merit the protection of a CCW.

I know that police officers have to maintain a level of awareness and suspicion when encountering the public during the course of their duty. But I also know first-hand that cops see you and even me, as the enemy. I have even heard officers say that they are glad that the general public can't carry guns, because what fun would it be if everyone could carry. It truly saddens me when I see a police officer confiscate and either arrest or cite-out for a misdemeanor an otherwise law abiding citizen, caught with a handgun in their vehicle or on their person. To be put through the legal system just for wanting to make it home safely every night is immoral. My Sheriff's department badge and civilian I.D. won't get me a cup of coffee at local police station let alone out of trouble if I attempted to carry off-duty. The attitude in CA law enforcement is that only (sworn) police carry guns. Everyone else needs to dial 911.

Now I'm certainly not accusing every police officer of this attitude. And there is a percentage who are pro-CCW for civilians. But I am pointing out that it permeates the majority of the law enforcement community here. And is not helped by the liberal political hacks.

In my opinion law enforcement suffers from the mis-conception that they are truly protectors of the public. While most would like this to be true, it just isn't. We will only rarely stop a crime in progress. Anti-gun elitist politicians prop-up law enforcement officers as god-like heroes who are so well trained, that the average citizen could never hope to match their ability to thwart criminal attack. You must be joking! The average police officer can barely re-qualify each tri-mester at my department. I know private security guards who are more proficient and train harder with their firearms than veteran cops. And I'm not exaggerating. People need to speak-up and take back their right to self-defense through the second amendment. Until then we are all at the mercy of the criminals who are enabled by the out of touch members of our legislature."
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_archive.html
 

tc556guy

New member
I dont have to leave a good impression, I dont serve the public. The reason we have an "us vs. them" war is because cops do not leave a good impression these days. And the so called good cops look the other way when the bad apples do wrong. So, guilt by association in my book.

You should leave a good impression because, if you needlessly go stiring stuff up by needlessly confronting him with the "civilian with a badge" comment, you're going to find yourself written off as just another jerk the officer had to encounter. We prefer to have good encounters with people, not have to deal with another jerk. We already deal with enough of those.

Once again, the "us vs them" stuff doesn't start with officers.

As for corruption, the career field polices itself better now than ever before. If you want to have rose colored glasses on about what the career field was like 50, 60 or however many years ago, thats on you.

Guilt by association? By going out of your way to be a jerk, you are associating yourself by default with every criminal who ever gave that officer you were giving a hard time to.

Here's an informative article about cops' attitudes:

Sounds like some griping froma Reservist. If you saw the types of Reservists many agencies have to deal with (" wanna be" comes to mind ) , you might not be so quick to cite that article as justification for anything.
 

Erik

New member
The thread's topic is one of terminology, and to an extent attitude can be linked to terminology, but when it comes down to it the terminology has evolved to the point that the dictionary recognizes it as nothing more than an expedient way of denoting, in the context of the thread, LEOs and non-LEOs. (Which, as I touched on earlier, is largely due to the masses of ex-military guys found through federal, state, and local government and emergency services over the past 60 or more years. Whta next, anti-them threads?)

Something tells me if a supervisor somewhere stopped using the word civilian and stated non-LEO we'd be having a similar debate; at least some of us would, as if it is unherantly wrong to denote those "on the job" froim those off.
 

FireMax

New member
In my opinion law enforcement suffers from the mis-conception that they are truly protectors of the public. While most would like this to be true, it just isn't. We will only rarely stop a crime in progress.

How true. I appreciate LEO for what they do, but I realize that they are not my first defense against crime. Further, I do realize that many LEO look at non-LEO as different... maybe even inferior. It has always been that way to an extent, and there are reasons for it I suppose. However, personally, I don't feel "inferior" to anyone, and that includes to any LEO of any agency.
 

hammer4nc

Moderator
Example of policing oneself?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352471,00.html

Massachusetts Police Get Black Uniforms to Instill Sense of 'Fear'

Thursday, April 24, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — Springfield's men in black are returning.

The city's new police commissioner, William Fitchet, says members of the department's Street Crime Unit will again don black, military-style uniforms as part of his strategy to deal with youth violence.

Fitchet's predecessor, Edward Flynn, had ditched the black attire as part of an effort to soften the image of the unit. Flynn left Springfield in January to become the police chief in Milwaukee.

Sgt. John Delaney told a city council hearing Wednesday that the stark uniforms send a message to criminals that officers are serious about making arrests.

Delaney said a sense of "fear" has been missing for the past few years.
 

tc556guy

New member
Quote:
In my opinion law enforcement suffers from the mis-conception that they are truly protectors of the public. While most would like this to be true, it just isn't. We will only rarely stop a crime in progress.

How true. I appreciate LEO for what they do, but I realize that they are not my first defense against crime. Further, I do realize that many LEO look at non-LEO as different... maybe even inferior. It has always been that way to an extent, and there are reasons for it I suppose. However, personally, I don't feel "inferior" to anyone, and that includes to any LEO of any agency.

Officers will generally tell you that the best way they stop crime is being able to put guys away. That guy behind bars wont be able to victimize anyone ( except the COs or a cell mate ) for the term of the sentence. Thats one reason officers are not big fans of ATI programs or reduced sentences. Officers will be the first ones tro tell you that they can't be every place at the same time.

No officer I know sees the public as inferior...just not understanding where the officer is coming from. It is the same as a plumber being frustrated when non-plumbers try to twell him how to do plumbing.

Oh, and Fire, can you show a verifiable source for your second Jefferson quote....that quote is widely attributed to Jefferson, but has never definitively shown to be an actual real Jefferson comment.
 

SteelJM1

New member
Massachusetts Police Get Black Uniforms to Instill Sense of 'Fear'

Thursday, April 24, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — Springfield's men in black are returning.

The city's new police commissioner, William Fitchet, says members of the department's Street Crime Unit will again don black, military-style uniforms as part of his strategy to deal with youth violence.

Fitchet's predecessor, Edward Flynn, had ditched the black attire as part of an effort to soften the image of the unit. Flynn left Springfield in January to become the police chief in Milwaukee.

Sgt. John Delaney told a city council hearing Wednesday that the stark uniforms send a message to criminals that officers are serious about making arrests.

Delaney said a sense of "fear" has been missing for the past few years.

Springfield cops aren't bad actually (not yet anyway). They are pretty fair in their dealings with people, I haven't had a problem with them. Now the Worcester Mass. cops on the other hand are a different story. I'm kind of mad at them for arresting me for having an open container... Was I drunk, acting drunk, belligerant, loud, disrespectful, or any of the above? Nope. Just walking to a concert with a beer (paperbagged beer nonetheless) And one came running up behind me yelling, and within 5 seconds before I knew it, I was in cuffs. Apparently getting the real criminals is too hard there, so they'll bust petty offenses such as that... (Even the booking officer was surprised they actually busted me for that).

Sorry guys, but I've lost a LOT of respect for police officers in my last few years of dealing with them. Yes, I'll have run-ins with the cool nice ones, but those are few and far in between. The rest of them have a paramilitary mentality which is easily seen from their high-and-tight haircut wearing tac-boots and black fatigue pants instead of the normal nice pressed slacks and polished shoes of the police that I remember as a kid. And their attitude portrays that too - everyone is a criminal and should be treated as such with no respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top