Civilian vs. Officer
A disclaimer of distinction.
Before we get into some detail on present designs of law enforcement, I want to introduce a note on the semantics we’ll be using throughout this study.
The title of our undertaking, “Civilian on Patrol” is no doubt highly intentional. Oftentimes on late-night television, you’ll hear terminology misused. Civilians are often described as “perps” and Civilian officers are labeled simply as “Officers” or “Cops.” Make no mistake, no matter how militarized our modern police force may be, they are civilians in legal nature. I make this distinction both so we can heavily criticize the image of today’s “military cop” keep in memory the fact that civilians are not granted the powers or legal protections that armed servicers are. Law enforcement officers, by design, are intended to be of and amongst the people. I would argue over the last seventy-five years we’ve strayed so far from such an intention that the distinction may be permanently lost on us.
The debate on a military force, or any law enforcement’s role in the union is a debate that has been ongoing for the last 250 years and beyond. Many of our “Sons of Liberty” believed in the absolute negation of any national defense, internal or otherwise. There was an understandable aversion to quartering, following the defection from British rule. Federalists were also clearly against any kind of imperialist quartering but believed the federal government was to be strong, and capable of culling some kind of defensive power. Their opposition, however, advocated for locally-led militias to be utilized and called into action should any kind of national defense be necessary. Hearing the two visions side by side, it’s not difficult to gather that we have mechanisms resembling both visions present in today’s republic.
The uniform consensus, however, was that should a national force be situated, it must be well distinguished from the ongoings of internal enforcement. Any member of a federally ordered force should not have any role in a bar fight’s resolve, for instance. It is endearing of this principle, nearly two and a half centuries old, that we rehearse rhetoric.
Civilian on Patrol spells out the common reference, cop. Cop is a term frequently misunderstood as an acronym. Truth is, words practiced as acronyms did not become a popular exercise until the latter half of the 20th century. It is believed the acronym could stand for “Constable on Patrol” or “Citizen on Patrol.” Though equipped with careful merit, these acronyms are not the natural origin of the nickname. In fact, “cop” comes from the mid-19th-century word “copper.” Not in relation to any mineral affixed to the officers, but instead the evolution of the word cop to encompass revocation or arrest. As such in slang fashion, officers began being referred to as “coppers” and later “cops.” However, the lingual mistake in the word cop served as an inspiration for our undertaking.
Civilians are not “perps” or “perpetrators.” Such labeling, while popular, is unconstitutional. As affirmed by the supreme court in cases such as Coffin v. United States, included in the 5th and 14th amendments recitation of “due process,” is the provision of the presumption of innocence. Until a jury presents a conviction, no civilian (citizen or otherwise) is a “perpetrator.” In consideration of the “design,” such terminology is no accident and could substantially assist in painting a suspected civilian under a guise of guilt. I’d suspect this does little in the intention of any appointed judge, but can be to great effect in the court of public opinion. A court whose murk can easily infiltrate the minds of any jury, no matter their degree of bias. This sequential corrosion of justice begins with our cops.
Finally, within our borders, we are all civilians. Otherwise suggestion of any status is frankly an illegal prospect of a greater difference between law enforcement and the populations they serve. It’s greatest disservice is the manufacturing of a belief that officers are deserving of a separate or differing legal status. Should an officer strike someone, they should be investigated to the same extent as if I were to strike another. The same framing should apply to any understanding of our law. An officer’s need or use of force is no different from mine. The true difference is that officers are of greater exposure to this area of law. Just because they frequent legal protections of themselves more than others, navigation of justice should not be granted to them at any greater haste. The crux of this argument is equality, and to greater powers, equality may seem burdensome. This is a burden most necessary.
With this greater, perhaps more abstract understanding of our law, we arrive at our title. Civilians on Patrol, as members of a civilization, are designated the very title: civilians. May we keep it in mind?
