在美國民間流傳著一種說法：“在危險的時候相信1911（一種手槍）而不是911（報警電話）”
今年2月14日發生在佛州帕克蘭的道格拉斯高中校園槍擊案造成17名學生和教職工死亡，另有17人受傷，很多人對此還記憶猶新。
不過，在12月12日的一項判決中，聯邦法官布魯姆（Beth Bloom）指出，在大規模槍擊發生時，學校所在的學區和當地警局沒有憲法義務保護學生。
這起訴訟的原告是15名該校學生，代理律師布德拉姆（Kristoffer Budhram）稱，他們因槍擊受到了精神傷害。對此判決，布德拉姆稱，正在審視所有可能的選項。
在槍擊案發生時，彼得森（Scot Peterson）是唯一一個佩槍的校警。他第一時間聽到了槍擊，趕到教學樓外，卻遲遲沒有進入大樓。當時，他的事件中扮演的角色引發廣泛質疑。之後沒多久，彼得森就辭職了。
佛羅裏達大學法學院教授哈奇森指出，“不管是憲法還是（佛州）州法，都沒有規定警察有義務保護個人免受傷害，即使警察知道傷害確實會發生。”他說，理論上，“警察可以坐視有人攻擊你，不予製止；這不違反法律。”
美國警察沒有保護公民的義務
根據相關國際組織統計，美國警務人員占全國公務員的比例為63%，這一比例不僅排在世界前列，且美國的國家安全機構雇員增長速度也維持了極高的水平。
根據美國勞工統計局（BLS）的統計，截至2014年5月，全美共有警察近64萬人。按理說，有這麽多警察，民眾不用再過多操心自身安全問題，但實際情況卻並非這麽簡單。讓我們從一個著名的案子說起。
1975年3月16日清晨，Warren、Taliaferro和Douglas三位女士在她們合租的公寓被驚醒，這處僅距離白宮幾公裏遠的公寓迎來了兩位男性不速之客。
住在二樓的Douglas成為兩位強奸犯的首個獵物。三樓的Warren聽到呼救聲後立刻打電話報警。隨後令人目瞪口呆的事情發生了：第一輛警車路過後門開走了；第二輛警車敲前門無應答也走了；第三輛警車在樓外又停留了5分鍾也走了。
Warren和Taliaferro本已逃出樓外，見此情景又回去打電話求救，警察保證會再派人來，得到保證的Warren和Taliaferro下樓去救Douglas。結果是再沒有警察趕來，三位女士被兩名男性強奸、毆打和淩辱了14小時。
僥幸保命的三人隨後立刻起訴首都警方和市政府，認為警方失職未能保護她們。這看起來合情合理天經地義的起訴，卻被一審法院判敗訴，再次上訴後又被華盛頓上訴法院判敗訴。
判決認為，無論是警察還是政府都沒有義務保護居民免受犯罪分子侵害，居民受到罪犯侵犯也無權要求警察和政府承擔責任，除非原告和警察、政府之間存在特殊關係（而本案不存在這種特殊關係）。
判決書進一步解釋道：警務是政府向整個社會提供的一項服務，用以維護平靜、安全和秩序……政府隻為“全體公眾”這一整體提供警務，不向社會單個成員承擔這項義務。
自此以後，全美各州立法機構開始全麵下放公民自衛權。無論是民主黨的藍州還是共和黨的紅州，自衛權和公開持槍權開始全麵放開。
由於首都的上訴法庭是聯邦高級法庭，其案例宣判覆蓋全美國。從此美國案例法開創了警方與普通公民之間不存在任何具體法律義務的先例。
隨後類似的判決席卷全國，最著名的當屬已被頒發禁止令的Simon槍殺三女兒案，母親Jessica在五次報案後均未得到警察保護，最終全美最高法院以8比1的比例判定：警察在提供警察服務時不對任何一名公民有任何公共責任規定下的具體責任。
根據美國兩位大學教授Stange和Oyster在2000年專著中的統計，在首都華盛頓和33個州，警察沒有保護居民個人的法律義務。在這些州，如果居民報警後沒有得到警察保護，根本就沒有起訴警察的法律依據。
有9個州，法院會受理這類起訴警察的案件，但勝訴的幾乎總是警察。隻有在5個州，法院會受理這類案件，並有可能判警察敗訴。在餘下的4個州法院判決立場不一，難以歸類。
沒錯，美國警察不保護公民個人的生命和財產，那不是他們的職責。他們的職責是在犯罪發生後，逮捕犯罪分子，維護法律，完成自己對於廣義大眾的職責。
於是，在最高法院的判例影響下，2016年全美有10個無限製持槍州、32個資審持槍州、8個限槍州、0個禁槍州，總擁槍/控槍州比例是42比8。要知道，這個比例在1980年可是4比46，可見這一判決的巨大影響！
這也說明，美國現在民間擁槍數億支，絕不僅僅是憲法第二修正案規定公民有持槍權那麽簡單。而是在確認未被警察保護後，公民選擇了持槍自衛。
在美國各類擁槍協會的網站上，Warren、Taliaferro和Douglas、Simon和Jessica的案例，都會被當成經典範文一遍遍重述。
在美國民間流傳著一種說法：“在危險的時候相信1911（一種手槍）而不是911（報警電話）”。根據皮尤調查中心的數據，48%的持槍人認為擁槍是為了自衛，比為狩獵而買槍的多出了16個百分點。
前副總統拜登算是個控槍派，但就連他也在Facebook上說過：“我們家住得偏遠，但無論遇到什麽麻煩，隻要拿著霰彈槍向外放兩槍，我向你保證，原來打算進來的人就不會進來了。”
事例:華人旅巴車窗被砸 加州警察漠視 陸客傻眼
華人巴士公司一輛中巴，28日淩晨在中加州的貝克斯菲(Bakersfield)市一處旅館大堂門口被砸破兩塊玻璃，竊賊隻為偷走一個價值僅幾十元的倒車顯示屏，而這個儀器離開係統根本無用。但是，被砸破的車窗價值上千元。報警之後警察說知道了，但是不出警。來自中國廣東的34名乘客看著滿地玻璃碴當場傻眼，大呼當時“這就是美國天堂嗎？”美國治安不靖令很多中國遊客驚訝。而旅行業者也反映，由於簽證嚴審，導致中國遊客來美減少。
華人巴士公司中巴車上的倒車監控顯示屏被偷走。（讀者提供）
華人巴士公司中巴在中加州貝克斯菲(Bakersfield)被砸，車子隻能用紙夾板臨時堵住。（讀者提供）
自今年3月中美貿易戰以來，中國遊客赴美人數已大幅減少。業者許承武表示，中國遊客赴美的最高年份是280萬人，今年不完全統計隻有200萬人。不少客人打電話詢問美國是否安全？旅遊探親的意願減少。不過最主要的原因還是簽證，中美關係緊張導致美簽通過率很低。首先是高科技領域不給簽證，其次是學生簽證收緊，航天、微波等專業的留學簽證明確不批。
他說，旅遊簽證也趨嚴，甚至要求提供中國的工資證明、房地產證明等，條件不符就直接拒簽。一對中國公民夫妻，一個來美一個不來，簽證官也會詢問不來的原因，也可能作為拒簽理由。最近有個中國的旅遊局要來美國推廣旅遊，因為簽證無法成行。另外中國投資、出口和消費等行業繼續下行，老百姓花錢謹慎。2019年中國遊客可能更傾向去亞洲國家旅遊。
中國遊客減少，本地一些華資旅行社的導遊隻好另謀出路，有人轉行做優步司機。導遊Tim表示，遊客團減少，低價團又掙不到錢，隻能想別的辦法。不少同行申請了優步司機執照，還有人考了貨車司機駕照，工作時間比較彈性，門檻和成本也低，一些人做出心得就直接轉行了。
旅行社業者也不得不縮小規模。巴士業者鹿強表示，現在開始精簡車子，把四輛舊車換了兩輛新車，因為舊車直接賣不值錢，隻能用買新車賣舊車的方式。未來不確定因素太多，大家都沒有信心去做更大投資。
華人巴士公司中巴在中加州貝克斯菲(Bakersfield)被砸，車子隻能用紙夾板臨時堵住。
【聲明】素材源於網絡，編輯版權歸原作者所有，如有侵權或需授權，請及時與我們聯係。
Warren v. District of Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Procedural history[edit]
In separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. In a 2–1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In a unanimous decision, the court also held that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the defendant (District of Columbia) prevailed.
Background[edit]
Warren, Taliaferro, and Douglas[edit]
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to perform oral sex on him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 am, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 6:26, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 am, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 am and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knifepoint, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Warren, Taliaferro, and Douglas brought the following claims of negligence against the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department: (1) the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 am call with the proper degree of urgency; (2) the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and (3) the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 am call.
Nichol[edit]
On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 pm, appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head, breaking his jaw.
A Metropolitan Police Department officer arrived at the scene. In response to the officer's direction, appellant's companion ceased any further efforts to obtain identification information of the assailants. When the officer then failed to get the information, leaving Nichol unable to institute legal action against his assailants, Nichol brought a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia.
Decision[edit]
In a 4–3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
