Tune in now on channel 9 kgmb

So do you feel safer now after watching it?

Hpd should just get a big dog instead of wasting money on this division
It will be just as effective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just their latest effort at trying to counter all the bad press they've been getting lately.
This show is part of a series they are doing.

It's just their latest effort at trying to counter all the bad press they've been getting lately.
This show is part of a series they are doing.

I think it's pretty awesome that they are trying to bridge with the community of civilians with these series.

Coffee...

Thanks for the heads up on this.  I'm DVR'ing "Inside HPD".

I think it's pretty awesome that they are trying to bridge with the community of civilians with these series.

First, HPD officers are civilians. Second, are they trying to reach out to the community or are they just posturing and showing "us" what they do and why we should just take what they say ("just buy a big dog...") as gospel?

First, HPD officers are civilians.

No. According to a training officer they are not civies.

No. According to a training officer they are not civies.

lololol

I think it's pretty awesome that they are trying to bridge with the community of civilians with these series.

Looks like the $100,000 HPD spent is working already!

EXCLUSIVE: Embattled police department spending $100K to improve image
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31625862/exclusive-embattled-police-department-spending-100k-to-improve-image

If just one dude (well one dude in each county) would just do what is right, they wouldn't need to spend one penny of the taxpayer's dollars......

First, HPD officers are civilians. Second, are they trying to reach out to the community or are they just posturing and showing "us" what they do and why we should just take what they say ("just buy a big dog...") as gospel?

Studies have shown that community relations are important and improve police ability to fight crime.


Police are civilians in the sense of military service but the word has more than one usage. It is a way that they can differentiate among groups. For example, if you tell someone you work for the police department they might assume you are an officer thus they might say civilian employee to differentiate between police and non police employees.

Studies have shown that community relations are important and improve police ability to fight crime.


Police are civilians in the sense of military service but the word has more than one usage. It is a way that they can differentiate among groups. For example, if you tell someone you work for the police department they might assume you are an officer thus they might say civilian employee to differentiate between police and non police employees.

While the term civilian has been co-opted as a means to differentiate LE from citizens, the fact is that the term means non-military. You can call something green when it's blue all you like and it still doesn't make it blue. The use of the term by police is, in my opinion, counter productive in terms of the community relations that you mention. It creates a divide or schism between "us" and "them" that is artificial and often times perceived as elitist and somewhat defamatory. "oh, them, they're just civilians..." 

And the correct way to differentiate staff at the police department is sworn versus non-sworn personnel.   

According to Webster and most modern definitions, Military, Police and a firefighting force are outside of the definition of a civilian.  I understand how some in the military may find issue here, but getting ones panties in a bunch is pointless.  As mentioned most Police tend to reference a civilian as denoting the difference between a sworn and non-sworn person generally within the employment of the agency.  This often crosses over into reference of those in the community who are non sworn or obviously not police officers, but has no derogatory connotations unless if we are about being PC then perhaps it may be an issue with the individual being referenced. 

I will note that from my perspective civilians are those who the police are in service towards and view "civilians" in a respectful manner.  I guess the translation that I would use for Hawaii, would be like respectfully calling someone auntie or uncle.  I don't view the term as derogatory.  The civilian population is who the military and all civil servants devote their lives towards while in service.  I guess civil servants should get all PC about being called servants.  Not.     

It's all well and good, however, these days the term civilian has come to denote a person under servitude vice being served.  A view obviously portrayed by the acts and demeanor of many of those in authority.

One can only conclude.... 


disclaimer: JMHO

According to Webster and most modern definitions, Military, Police and a firefighting force are outside of the definition of a civilian.  I understand how some in the military may find issue here, but getting ones panties in a bunch is pointless.  As mentioned most Police tend to reference a civilian as denoting the difference between a sworn and non-sworn person generally within the employment of the agency.  This often crosses over into reference of those in the community who are non sworn or obviously not police officers, but has no derogatory connotations unless if we are about being PC then perhaps it may be an issue with the individual being referenced. 

I will note that from my perspective civilians are those who the police are in service towards and view "civilians" in a respectful manner.  I guess the translation that I would use for Hawaii, would be like respectfully calling someone auntie or uncle.  I don't view the term as derogatory.  The civilian population is who the military and all civil servants devote their lives towards while in service.  I guess civil servants should get all PC about being called servants.  Not.     

It is only through the continued improper use of the term that it has come to mean what it was never intended to mean. When you look at Title X of the USC, it describes the relationship between the military and "civilian law enforcement." So, federal law defines what a civilian is and specifically notes that the police are "civilian law enforcement." It's not about being "PC" it's about not letting popularity and increasing incorrect usage change a term that has specific and important meanings attached to it.

I see that Merriam Webster defines a "clip" as: "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

So, a magazine and a clip are the same thing?

Heavies - So if we accept the more rigid definition that everyone outside of the military are strictly civilians, does this definition mean that everyone is under servitude to those within the armed forces?  Does this make veterans go from oppressor to the oppressed once they leave service and enter civilian life?  I don't look at it that way.

Or are we making the distinction of the JBT's who lay their boot across the throats of the populace?  Sorry but I also don't see it that way and from those in LE that I know, even as jaded as some may get, they don't have that world view of the populace that they serve.  I will say that a general lack of support from public groups supported by left fringe administrations from local all the way up to the office of the President are helping to change that us vs. them attitude that LE may have.

It is only through the continued improper use of the term that it has come to mean what it was never intended to mean. When you look at Title X of the USC, it describes the relationship between the military and "civilian law enforcement." So, federal law defines what a civilian is and specifically notes that the police are "civilian law enforcement." It's not about being "PC" it's about not letting popularity and increasing incorrect usage change a term that has specific and important meanings attached to it.

I see that Merriam Webster defines a "clip" as: "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

So, a magazine and a clip are the same thing?

My point is that anyone who gets bunched panties over the topic needs to take a breath.  I don't interchange the term clip and magazine, but don't get bunched up over it when others use the words interchangeably.  Much of that is ignorance on their part and I won't allow that to cause an undue rift between myself and individuals or groups who don't understand the definition.  Just like the word civilian.  I might offer explanation in an attempt to educate, but I am not going to let it tear a hole in the universe.  Just look at how some people demonize things.  Also police in general at least those that I am more than familiar with, understand that they are civilians and don't refer to people in general as civilians, but rather the public.  Or maybe that is derogatory also?   

So, a magazine and a clip are the same thing?

"The bottom line is that both terms, clip and magazine, are used almost interchangeably today to describe a detachable device for feeding the action of a firearm. Before purists chime in, let me add that back in 1909 and 1910--as the United States was looking at adopting its first self-loading pistol for widespread issue--in U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. documents it referred to the detachable box magazine for what would become the U.S. M1911 pistol as, well, a clip."

Brief article in American Rifleman:

Clips Vs. Magazines
by Mark Keefe

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/3/6/clips-vs-magazines/