Good morning!

We don’t typically do a lot of language policing, so to speak, but the verbal distinction between police officers and “civilians” is unfortunate and should be avoided.

In theory, at least, American policing is part of the British tradition of police departments created by Sir Robert Peel that were specifically intended to avoid militarized law enforcement as was common in Europe.

https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-principles/

Here’s one of Peel’s principles of policing:

“To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police...”

....the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.“

(That language is modernized, but w/e).

Over time, police have obtained certain statutory powers and responsibilities that are different than those that apply to the rest of us. Some of that is probably necessary. Some probably is not (looking at you, qualified immunity).

That said, it’s important to maintain the conviction that police officers and the communities they serve are fellow citizens.

The military/civilian distinction, by contrast, is critically important for legal and ethical reasons in the conduct of war.

But policing is not war. And to the extent it resembles it, that’s a problem.

A lot of pro-police rhetoric (“thin blue line” and so on) tends to reinforce this idea of cops as a class apart. But that mentality has destructive effects.

You can support the lawful mission of police departments and appreciate their sacrifices without making this mistake.