正文
教授顯然過於自負，遇事不冷靜，而且咱也看不慣那種凡事動不動就往 race 上扯的人。
總統嘛，即便按政客的標準，這次的反應也大欠水準。
但是那個警察的行為似乎不見得就值得恭維。
"A man's house is his castle." 警察自己在對講機上說已經拿到教授的身份證，既然知道教授是房子的主人，警察應該已經沒有在教授房子裏繼續待下去的任何理由, 他已經沒有“公事”要在教授家裏“公辦”了。 可是呢，他還繼續在裏麵不走，咱當然不知道他心裏真正怎麽想的，實際效果是引起了教授更激烈的抗議，警察然後就根據教授的反應進行逮捕。 別的人咱不知道，這個在咱眼裏就很像典型的“baiting”。 請注意哦，最後逮捕教授的理由是“disorderly conduct”，這個理由經常被警察自己笑稱為是“contempt of cop”罪。
麻省的“disorderly conduct”指 "causing a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose"。 也許教授大聲抗議過，但是他畢竟是在自己的家裏，他的抗議如何造成了“public hazard”？ 即便是在公共場合，人不是也還有言論自由的權力嗎？ 抗議“racial profiling”又不是濫罵人，總能“serve a legitimate purpose”吧？ 教授的抗議既沒有威脅警察的人身安全，又沒有擾亂公共秩序，何來“disorderly conduct”？
警察的工作可以是辛苦的，有時甚至是危險的。 守法公民均有義務配合警察維護法律。 但是前提是警察確是在維護法律。 警察聽了舉報登門調查是維護法律，警察要求教授出示身份證明是維護法律，但是再後來呢？
一個巴掌拍不響，這三個巴掌可是拍得山響，可惜不怎麽好聽。 最後還是總統聰明，邀集三人一起喝啤酒，變被動為主動，同咱們國人熟悉的“壞事變好事”可算異曲同工。
下麵關於麻省的 “disorderly conduct”的討論供參考。
-----------------------
Under Massachusetts law, if one causes a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.
A "disorderly person" is defined as one who: with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof
engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
A disorderly conduct arrest is usually a discretionary decision by a police officer. If one can show that the officer may have been mistaken and overestimated any potential disorder created, one can get the case dismissed. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the action created a dangerous situation, and served no legitimate purpose.
Being angry and yelling at someone, even if that person is a police officer, is not sufficient cause to sustain a disorderly conduct charge. One is permitted to express oneself and one's first amendment rights to free speech.
The simple fact is that you are probably more likely to be arrested for a disorderly conduct offense if you personally annoy a police officer. But that doesn't mean that you are guilty by any means.
總統嘛，即便按政客的標準，這次的反應也大欠水準。
但是那個警察的行為似乎不見得就值得恭維。
"A man's house is his castle." 警察自己在對講機上說已經拿到教授的身份證，既然知道教授是房子的主人，警察應該已經沒有在教授房子裏繼續待下去的任何理由, 他已經沒有“公事”要在教授家裏“公辦”了。 可是呢，他還繼續在裏麵不走，咱當然不知道他心裏真正怎麽想的，實際效果是引起了教授更激烈的抗議，警察然後就根據教授的反應進行逮捕。 別的人咱不知道，這個在咱眼裏就很像典型的“baiting”。 請注意哦，最後逮捕教授的理由是“disorderly conduct”，這個理由經常被警察自己笑稱為是“contempt of cop”罪。
麻省的“disorderly conduct”指 "causing a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose"。 也許教授大聲抗議過，但是他畢竟是在自己的家裏，他的抗議如何造成了“public hazard”？ 即便是在公共場合，人不是也還有言論自由的權力嗎？ 抗議“racial profiling”又不是濫罵人，總能“serve a legitimate purpose”吧？ 教授的抗議既沒有威脅警察的人身安全，又沒有擾亂公共秩序，何來“disorderly conduct”？
警察的工作可以是辛苦的，有時甚至是危險的。 守法公民均有義務配合警察維護法律。 但是前提是警察確是在維護法律。 警察聽了舉報登門調查是維護法律，警察要求教授出示身份證明是維護法律，但是再後來呢？
一個巴掌拍不響，這三個巴掌可是拍得山響，可惜不怎麽好聽。 最後還是總統聰明，邀集三人一起喝啤酒，變被動為主動，同咱們國人熟悉的“壞事變好事”可算異曲同工。
下麵關於麻省的 “disorderly conduct”的討論供參考。
-----------------------
Under Massachusetts law, if one causes a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose, you can be charged with a disorderly person offense, also known as disorderly conduct.
A "disorderly person" is defined as one who: with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof
engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
A disorderly conduct arrest is usually a discretionary decision by a police officer. If one can show that the officer may have been mistaken and overestimated any potential disorder created, one can get the case dismissed. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the action created a dangerous situation, and served no legitimate purpose.
Being angry and yelling at someone, even if that person is a police officer, is not sufficient cause to sustain a disorderly conduct charge. One is permitted to express oneself and one's first amendment rights to free speech.
The simple fact is that you are probably more likely to be arrested for a disorderly conduct offense if you personally annoy a police officer. But that doesn't mean that you are guilty by any means.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
