首席武男潘澤康
panzerkom，中文名潘澤康，小名小潘潘，基本上是一個喜歡搞笑的人，所以他的博客注定是一個搞笑的博客。
正文
看了本壇幾位網友對協助警察逮捕了薛乃印的幾位平民的評論，覺得古人說得“仗義每從屠狗輩，負心多是讀書人。”確實有幾分道理。若是當天薛乃印在阿拉巴馬遇上的是本壇上的幾位明哲保身的讀書人，說不定現在他老人家還在全美國優哉遊哉的晃蕩呢。
當然，見義勇為、幫執法者抓嫌犯是一件危險的事情，大家應該量力而為。但是如果所有人都以自身會有危險為由，拒絕製止自己看到的犯罪行為的話，那麽強盜在眾目睽睽之下用刀捅倒剛從ATM取了錢的農婦、然後揚長而去，或者色狼在載滿人的公車上強奸女子、然後全身而退，這種事情發生也就不是不可理解的了。-- 事實上，這種事已經在中國大陸發生過。我不能保證麵對著有武器的強盜或強奸犯時，我會第一個挺身而出；但是，我至少不會在有人挺身而出之後去給挺身而出的人蓋一頂“違法”或“違反人權”的帽子。
況且，在沒有完全弄清楚薛是否真的受了傷之前，我們根本不能說那幾位平民在拘留薛時過度使用了暴力。US Marshall 的人在新聞發布會上說的是：nobody got hurt:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&fg=rss&vid=77bd8ff6-73a6-4a91-b30e-3b76033d9166
Citizen\'s Arrest 是合法的，也就是說，這幾位平民有權逮捕薛，這一點，相信大家都沒有任何異議了。那剩下來的問題就是在逮捕疑犯的過程當中能使用多少 force 的問題了。
聯邦法律中對這個問題的解讀源於憲法第四修正案：
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
也就是說，當有 probable cause 而嫌犯又是很明顯的話，arrest 或 detention 就是合法的。第四修正案的條文本身沒有明文規定執法者在 arrest 或 detain 犯人時可以使用多少 force，但是最高法院在1989年的一個判例對此有闡述：
Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of `the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual\'s Fourth Amendment interests\' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22 -27. Because [t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8 -9 (the question is whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure).
-U.S. Supreme Court, Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)
也就是說，到底多少 force 算是 reasonable，是因案而易的，主要看的是三方麵：
1. severity of the crime at issue -- 疑犯被控的罪行
2. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others -- 疑犯是否對執法者或他人有威脅
3. whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight -- 疑犯是否反抗或逃走
老薛被控殺妻、自稱武術高手且跑了大半個地球，可算是三條都占全了。
以此看來，這幾位仗義的屠狗輩抓老薛倒是完全合法的可能居多。
當然，見義勇為、幫執法者抓嫌犯是一件危險的事情，大家應該量力而為。但是如果所有人都以自身會有危險為由，拒絕製止自己看到的犯罪行為的話，那麽強盜在眾目睽睽之下用刀捅倒剛從ATM取了錢的農婦、然後揚長而去，或者色狼在載滿人的公車上強奸女子、然後全身而退，這種事情發生也就不是不可理解的了。-- 事實上，這種事已經在中國大陸發生過。我不能保證麵對著有武器的強盜或強奸犯時，我會第一個挺身而出；但是，我至少不會在有人挺身而出之後去給挺身而出的人蓋一頂“違法”或“違反人權”的帽子。
況且，在沒有完全弄清楚薛是否真的受了傷之前，我們根本不能說那幾位平民在拘留薛時過度使用了暴力。US Marshall 的人在新聞發布會上說的是：nobody got hurt:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&fg=rss&vid=77bd8ff6-73a6-4a91-b30e-3b76033d9166
Citizen\'s Arrest 是合法的，也就是說，這幾位平民有權逮捕薛，這一點，相信大家都沒有任何異議了。那剩下來的問題就是在逮捕疑犯的過程當中能使用多少 force 的問題了。
聯邦法律中對這個問題的解讀源於憲法第四修正案：
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
也就是說，當有 probable cause 而嫌犯又是很明顯的話，arrest 或 detention 就是合法的。第四修正案的條文本身沒有明文規定執法者在 arrest 或 detain 犯人時可以使用多少 force，但是最高法院在1989年的一個判例對此有闡述：
Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of `the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual\'s Fourth Amendment interests\' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22 -27. Because [t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8 -9 (the question is whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure).
-U.S. Supreme Court, Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)
也就是說，到底多少 force 算是 reasonable，是因案而易的，主要看的是三方麵：
1. severity of the crime at issue -- 疑犯被控的罪行
2. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others -- 疑犯是否對執法者或他人有威脅
3. whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight -- 疑犯是否反抗或逃走
老薛被控殺妻、自稱武術高手且跑了大半個地球，可算是三條都占全了。
以此看來，這幾位仗義的屠狗輩抓老薛倒是完全合法的可能居多。
評論
soullessbody
2008-03-14 15:18:23
回複
悄悄話
well said!
登錄後才可評論.
