A valuable perspective.
'Police are civilians. They are the civil power. They are not soldiers. They are subject to the rule of law adjudicated within civilian courts[1] — not military justice. They are tasked with special powers and thus burdened with specific responsibilities and duties — but they’re civilians. They answer to mayors and (civilian) police commissioners and city councils and ultimately the public.
It’s an expression of the dangerous militarization of the police to distinguish them from “civilians” — those who are in fact citizens, fellow citizens, the commonwealth.'
Though I would add that the alternatives to "police and civilians" — “police and the community” and “police and the public” are similarly overlapping. Police live in the community. They are members of the public. Noting the police as something particular where pertinent is useful; separating them from the general citizenry benefits neither group.
——
[1] Though this is not entirely true. Police officers often — by law or by city/police union agreement — get deference in criminal investigations, often enjoying specific rights (delays before questioning, ability to limit the time of any given questioning period, etc.) that are denied to citizens who are not police. That said, and with these special breaks / privileges, cops are still prosecuted in civil / criminal courts, as with any other civilian. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/06/alton_sterling_police_officers_won_t_have_police_bill_of_rights_to_protect.html for more details.
