r*****w
发帖数: 196 | 1 左派明灯这么说
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting
-lawsuit-ruling-police.amp.html
Judge Henning found that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff’s deputy who
heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an
obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.
现在找了一堆罪 甚至虐待儿童罪 来搞这个警察 还没有判了 就一堆幺儿子出来了
要判刑也跟不是直接跟保护学生有关系。就是拿着放大镜找了14个月 找出来的罪。
估计要是这个警察没冲马桶 有这个罪 也会把他加上的。
罪名越多 说明控方也不知道哪些能成立，就先搞一堆，说不定撞大运 法官判一个 目
的就达到了。另外 搞一堆罪，逼得当事人没钱辩护，只好认几个。 | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 2 我有不同看法。如果你这理论是基于下面这个高院案子的话
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-278
这只是狭隘判决在保护令持有人而已。
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-
protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and
therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due
process.
斯佳丽亚也进一步说保护令法律里没有要求警察当保镖，只是为逮捕提供法律基础而已。
The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle
the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the
police. Instead, restraining orders only provide grounds for arresting the
subject of the order. | l**h
发帖数: 998 | 3 不知道你俩炒啥
不过police的job description真的不包括制止正在进行的犯罪活动?
这么看, 天朝警察有伪君子, 美帝警察多真小人.
job description如此 自然没话说, 但摊上事, 保安公司和雇佣兵也比警察靠铺
是这个理吧? 所以好莱坞明星和民主党大佬都用高墙和私人保镖...
and
已。
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 我有不同看法。如果你这理论是基于下面这个高院案子的话
: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-278
: 这只是狭隘判决在保护令持有人而已。
: In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-
: protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and
: therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due
: process.
: 斯佳丽亚也进一步说保护令法律里没有要求警察当保镖，只是为逮捕提供法律基础而已。
: The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle
: the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 4 如果说警察没义务这句话是基于下面这个看的人毛骨悚然义愤填膺的案子的话，俺只能
说这个案子不是高院判例。
这个案例绝对应该被推翻。警察保护公众的义务当然是针对具体的个体，否则“公众”
“人民”这种大而空的话就变成了损害个体利益的借口。这个案例就是玩弄法律的典型。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
题外话，看了这个案子维基的人都会变成第二权支持者。情节如下
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
0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, 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 0633, 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 0642 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 knife point,
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. | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
这个案子是说政府没有预防监护人虐待儿童没有违反儿童的宪法权利。
这符合保守派大法官的一贯立场，即不要什么都给扯到宪法权利上。就这个案子来说，
大法官认为due process这个具体条款里的保护是基于政府限制了你的自由，譬如把你
关起来，自然就有义务就要保护你。这个案子政府没有限制这娃娃，限制这娃娃的是他
的监护人。
保守派大法官的这个原则还可以适用于佛州枪击案呢，政府限制了学校里持枪的权利，
自然有义务保护学生。
所有宪法权利里，第十四是扯皮最多的，古人诚不欺余。。。。。 | V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 6 这个案子的影响深远
在承认这个判例的有效性的前提下，本教主对美国警察这个职业的权力与义务的平衡性
产生了很大的怀疑
本教主认为，不承担保护具体个人义务的职业，也不应该拥有除正当防卫之外的，针对
个人的暴力执法权
一方面，警察可以以“没有保护个人的义务”为借口而放任具体守法公民收到攻击，另
一方面却拥有着公民集体让渡的暴力执法权，这非常的不平衡。
如果警察“没有保护个人的义务”，那么纳税人为啥不用税款雇佣雇佣军或者安保公司
呢？
这个案子的唯一正面考量，我能想到的就是，避免某些个人以没有收到保护为借口恶意
诉讼
型。
house
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 如果说警察没义务这句话是基于下面这个看的人毛骨悚然义愤填膺的案子的话，俺只能
: 说这个案子不是高院判例。
: 这个案例绝对应该被推翻。警察保护公众的义务当然是针对具体的个体，否则“公众”
: “人民”这种大而空的话就变成了损害个体利益的借口。这个案例就是玩弄法律的典型。
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
: 题外话，看了这个案子维基的人都会变成第二权支持者。情节如下
: 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
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 7 同意。
有很多司法理由可以避免某些人以没受到保护为理由的恶意诉讼，这个案子选择了错误
的一条，更别提本案里这些原告的理由太充足了，因为完全是警方多次多人的错误。
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 这个案子的影响深远
: 在承认这个判例的有效性的前提下，本教主对美国警察这个职业的权力与义务的平衡性
: 产生了很大的怀疑
: 本教主认为，不承担保护具体个人义务的职业，也不应该拥有除正当防卫之外的，针对
: 个人的暴力执法权
: 一方面，警察可以以“没有保护个人的义务”为借口而放任具体守法公民收到攻击，另
: 一方面却拥有着公民集体让渡的暴力执法权，这非常的不平衡。
: 如果警察“没有保护个人的义务”，那么纳税人为啥不用税款雇佣雇佣军或者安保公司
: 呢？
: 这个案子的唯一正面考量，我能想到的就是，避免某些个人以没有收到保护为借口恶意
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 8 俺这个帖子纯属表明俺作了功课，虽然这功课没有意义，一点意义没有。
Warren v. District_of_Columbia里，比分四比三，法官姓名，本案投票，和提名总统
党派如下
NEWMAN N R
KELLY N D
MACK N R
KERN Y D
NEBEKER Y R
HARRIS Y R
FERREN Y D | r*****w
发帖数: 196 | 9 简短的讲，警察没有义务保护任何人
这当然有些例外，但板上的人99%不会遇到，除非被警察拷起来，那你应该受警察保护
感情上警察应该冲 但是反正不冲这个最后也是扯皮的事情
大多数人你是寄希望再这个扯皮的保护，还是预设没保护赶紧想办法
这个不是个明显的问题吗？扯那些1%的例子没什么用 |
|
