Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Police aren't civilians.

Yes, they are. Or at least they're supposed to be. Thats how they were originally founded and conceptualized as, civilian law enforcement authorities sworn in to avoid resorting to military law enforcement. Historically, using the military for law enforcement has rarely ended well. See the Peelian Principles, regarding the founding of early British Police forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

There has been a modern tendency to conflate the Police with the Military. Police forces (at least in Britain) started out as sworn civilians in uniform. Today, they're at risk of becoming pseudo para-militaries. The definition you cite is a bastardization of the original meaning.

Well, according to the dictionary a civilian is anyone not in the armed forces OR a member of police or firefighters. So technically police are NOT civilians. Legal definitions may differ of course.

Police in the US are definitely considered civilians in the most common usage of the word. I don't see any reason to smudge the line between law enforcement the military any more than we already have.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Police aren't civilians.

Yes, they are. Or at least they're supposed to be. Thats how they were originally founded and conceptualized as, civilian law enforcement authorities sworn in to avoid resorting to military law enforcement. Historically, using the military for law enforcement has rarely ended well. See the Peelian Principles, regarding the founding of early British Police forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

There has been a modern tendency to conflate the Police with the Military. Police forces (at least in Britain) started out as sworn civilians in uniform. Today, they're at risk of becoming pseudo para-militaries. The definition you cite is a bastardization of the original meaning.

Whether police are military or not depends on what country and what police force you are talking about. But even non-military police like the US police aren't civilians, they are civil authorities. Technically, they are a paramilitary force because they wear uniforms and have a rank and command structure.

By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

The closest the police come to being paramilitary in the US are SWAT teams, and those are limited in number and specialized in purpose.

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

Soldiers are legitimate targets in wartime, whether they are armed or not. Police aren't, unless they shoot at you. (It's the same for civilians.)

Terrorists don't follow the laws of war. That is part of what makes them terrorists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

The legal definition in the US does not match this description. We should use the US legal definition when discussing the term civilian as it pertains to US LEOs.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Um ya. I was a former Scout.
Eagle Scout will get you E3 on joining the Army. Not sure on other branches
They do have their rank structure and are broken down into squads
Also there is a form of D&C they have but not really corrected

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

The legal definition in the US does not match this description. We should use the US legal definition when discussing the term civilian as it pertains to US LEOs.

Legal jargon and common definitions do not need to match. According to the common definition in dictionary, a police officer is not a civilian. And from browsing several US police department and other related sites, they clearly do make a distinction between sworn-in officers and civilians.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Not militarised? Apart from wearing military-style uniforms, having a clear rank and command structure and having obvious military origins? In wartime, scouts have also often take up weapons to fight or perform support duties. The heroism of the Polish boy scouts in the Warsaw Uprising is famous.
Scouting is of course not a military movement in any way, but the influences of the military on it can not be denied.

This is drifting off-topic, but paramilitary is a very broad term.
The US DoD defines it as:

Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country, but resembling them in organization, equipment, training, or mission.

Notice the 'or' in there. A paramilitary force does not need to actually do anything military-related, just resembling a military force is enough:

Merriam Webster wrote:of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force.

Free Dictionary wrote:of or designating an organization operating in place of, as a supplement to, or in a manner resembling a regular military force.

Collins English Dictionary wrote:A paramilitary organization is organized like an army and performs either civil or military functions in a country.

Let's get back on topic.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Police-Investigating-Possible-Threat-Against-Officers-After-Ambush-364790541.html

FBI is now investigating a tip indicating that the shooter is part of a 4-man terror cell.

I heard on the radio this morning the perp was allegedly radicalized in prison.

That's messed up. Hopefully if there is a conspiracy they're apprehended before they can act.

 Jihadin wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Um ya. I was a former Scout.
Eagle Scout will get you E3 on joining the Army. Not sure on other branches
They do have their rank structure and are broken down into squads
Also there is a form of D&C they have but not really corrected

A small test, college credits, higher than average pt, participation in recruiting events, asking politely, age and other things I can't remember can also net you E-3 with the Army lol. Eagle Scouts can but don't always get you all the way to E-3. I know a fair few fuzzies that got squat for it.