TexasCHLforum.com

Man, we are totally off subject...
My 1980 Oxford American Dictionary simply state "a person not serving in the armed forces"
My 1990 World Book Dictionary says the same thing but has this caveat " Policeman and sometimes firemen and other government officials are distinguished from civilians, in additions to members of the Army, Navy and Air Force and often members of the clergy."

Oh well, times change. Maybe when you take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution", you cease being a civilian. I knew I should not discard those old dictionaries. We still have our set of World Book Encyclopedias just in case someone needs to know how things were done in the past.

I have to agree that civilian applies to anyone not in the military and not subjected to the UCMJ. Until your life is controlled 24/7 365 days a year like in the armed forces, then you are just a civilian. No job controls your life 24/7 like the military. You just can't say oops I don't like this job anymore and quit or fail to show up. Nothing like handing your life over to the military.

howdy wrote:Man, we are totally off subject...
My 1980 Oxford American Dictionary simply state "a person not serving in the armed forces"
My 1990 World Book Dictionary says the same thing but has this caveat " Policeman and sometimes firemen and other government officials are distinguished from civilians, in additions to members of the Army, Navy and Air Force and often members of the clergy."

Oh well, times change. Maybe when you take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution", you cease being a civilian. I knew I should not discard those old dictionaries. :

I'd hang onto your 1980 OAD because I agree with it, but honestly, I really don't care what a book editor says something means. There is sometimes a difference between the correct usage and the popular vernacular...times may change but that doesn't change what is technically correct. I've taken "the oath" several times in "civilian" life when sworn into public service of various types...almost any public office or governmental public service position...but I've never viewed any of them as changing my civilian status.

I was in law enforcement for 10 years and 11 months, but I got out of it (to enter ministry) before CHL entered the picture. I was recently stopped in Cross Plains by one of the local officers. I was with my son in law who had also been with Lubbock P.D. We both are CHL. It had been over 25 years since I had been pulled over, and now I was being pulled over as a CHL carrier. It brought back memories. Officers are human beings, and human beings have different personalities. Some are friendly and easy going, others are super-strict over-professional. I have known officers who could remain calm, professional and yet be prepared...and others who went an entire shift with their hand on their gun grip constantly looking over both shoulders. I don't know why she (the officer) was acting that way unless she (for some reason) felt threatened and was going to make it clear she was the authority on scene and was "in control." If someone makes it known they are CHL then it's rather clear they aren't trying to hide anything or pull a surprise. After two years on the street she should have been a bit more in control of herself. What you were probably seeing was mostly her personality. I myself used the approach of standing slightly just behind the car window back in the day. In Cross Plains the officer used the same position. As he approached my vehicle he no doubt saw my NRA, TSRA, GOA and JPFO stickers on the back window. As I handed him my DL and CHL all he said was "Where do you have it, sir?" I said "On my hip." He just said "Okay. I stopped you for speeding. I'm going back to my car and I'll be back in a minute." He came back...with a citation .... which I deserved....47 in a 30. It was a rather uneventful stop....which is how it should have been. The officer was polite, calm and used officer safety. The lady officer needs to be reminded that any CHL she pulls over will most likely be the one on her side in a bad situation. We're here to help...not hurt.

I've seen the drive for diversity do crazy things in the corporate (and military) world.

Wonder if that is what is driving the constant news about LEO's these days ? Did they do away with the pre-hire psychological testing ?

SA_Steve wrote:I've seen the drive for diversity do crazy things in the corporate (and military) world.

Wonder if that is what is driving the constant news about LEO's these days ? Did they do away with the pre-hire psychological testing ?

It isn't the "diversity hires" that are on CNN every time they have to make a judgement call, with the exception of the Baltimore situation. LE is a job, just like any other. There are good cops, bad cops and a whole lot of in between. The current atmosphere is drawing stuff to the surface that wouldn't have gotten a second thought in the past.

Whether that's a good thing or not is all a matter of perspective.

Double post