[deport]

they were “citizens”.

***************

How do you know that? They may well be citizens but with the
illegals/others there are a lot of non citizens out there.

[Oatka]

How do you know that? They may well be citizens but with the illegals/others there are a lot of non citizens out there.

I was talking in generic military/civilian (as in anybody not in the military is a civilian) terms.

[JP1201]

He was talking about the police use of the term to divide society into cops and civilians. As if the police are subject to the UCMJ

[familyop]

deport replied:
"How do you know that? They may well be citizens but with the illegals/others there are a lot of non citizens out there."

The words, residents or bystanders would be fine. Falsely implying that police are not civilians without knowing so is incorrect and disrespectful. The trend of generally referring to those who are not civilian police as civilians was started by television police show screenwriters who sought to "deconstruct" our military forces and everything else about what they perceive to be the "patriarchy." The word was applied that way first by weirdo Hollywood English program graduates.

Linguistic activism is one of the most effective tools used by homo-activists and their feminist friends against American civilization, law and order.