也说藤大教授和警察。
教授显然过于自负，遇事不冷静，而且咱也看不惯那种凡事动不动就往 race 上扯的人。
总统嘛，即便按政客的标准，这次的反应也大欠水准。
但是那个警察的行为似乎不见得就值得恭维。
"A man's house is his castle." 警察自己在对讲机上说已经拿到教授的身份证，既然知道教授是房子的主人，警察应该已经没有在教授房子里继续待下去的任何理由, 他已经没有“公事”要在教授家里“公办”了。 可是呢，他还继续在里面不走，咱当然不知道他心里真正怎么想的，实际效果是引起了教授更激烈的抗议，警察然后就根据教授的反应进行逮捕。 别的人咱不知道，这个在咱眼里就很像典型的“baiting”。 请注意哦，最后逮捕教授的理由是“disorderly conduct”，这个理由经常被警察自己笑称为是“contempt of cop”罪。
麻省的“disorderly conduct”指 "causing a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose"。 也许教授大声抗议过，但是他毕竟是在自己的家里，他的抗议如何造成了“public hazard”？ 即便是在公共场合，人不是也还有言论自由的权力吗？ 抗议“racial profiling”又不是滥骂人，总能“serve a legitimate purpose”吧？ 教授的抗议既没有威胁警察的人身安全，又没有扰乱公共秩序，何来“disorderly conduct”？
警察的工作可以是辛苦的，有时甚至是危险的。 守法公民均有义务配合警察维护法律。 但是前提是警察确是在维护法律。 警察听了举报登门调查是维护法律，警察要求教授出示身份证明是维护法律，但是再后来呢？
一个巴掌拍不响，这三个巴掌可是拍得山响，可惜不怎么好听。 最后还是总统聪明，邀集三人一起喝啤酒，变被动为主动，同咱们国人熟悉的“坏事变好事”可算异曲同工。
下面关于麻省的 “disorderly conduct”的讨论供参考。
-----------------------
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.
总统嘛，即便按政客的标准，这次的反应也大欠水准。
但是那个警察的行为似乎不见得就值得恭维。
"A man's house is his castle." 警察自己在对讲机上说已经拿到教授的身份证，既然知道教授是房子的主人，警察应该已经没有在教授房子里继续待下去的任何理由, 他已经没有“公事”要在教授家里“公办”了。 可是呢，他还继续在里面不走，咱当然不知道他心里真正怎么想的，实际效果是引起了教授更激烈的抗议，警察然后就根据教授的反应进行逮捕。 别的人咱不知道，这个在咱眼里就很像典型的“baiting”。 请注意哦，最后逮捕教授的理由是“disorderly conduct”，这个理由经常被警察自己笑称为是“contempt of cop”罪。
麻省的“disorderly conduct”指 "causing a disturbance which creates a public hazard, and serves no legitimate purpose"。 也许教授大声抗议过，但是他毕竟是在自己的家里，他的抗议如何造成了“public hazard”？ 即便是在公共场合，人不是也还有言论自由的权力吗？ 抗议“racial profiling”又不是滥骂人，总能“serve a legitimate purpose”吧？ 教授的抗议既没有威胁警察的人身安全，又没有扰乱公共秩序，何来“disorderly conduct”？
警察的工作可以是辛苦的，有时甚至是危险的。 守法公民均有义务配合警察维护法律。 但是前提是警察确是在维护法律。 警察听了举报登门调查是维护法律，警察要求教授出示身份证明是维护法律，但是再后来呢？
一个巴掌拍不响，这三个巴掌可是拍得山响，可惜不怎么好听。 最后还是总统聪明，邀集三人一起喝啤酒，变被动为主动，同咱们国人熟悉的“坏事变好事”可算异曲同工。
下面关于麻省的 “disorderly conduct”的讨论供参考。
-----------------------
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.
戳这里 Claim your page
来源: 文学城-ibelieu