警察特考 警察英文 權威 - 呂艾肯老師 英文教室
從今年三月以來經濟學人就對美國的警方、槍支以及司法做了一系列的評論。本次的po文也將分成兩回來針對這三個主題重點摘錄來給大家參考。首先第一回要探討的是美國警方是否越來越像軍隊，在武器配備以及特警隊(SWAR)的派遣上似乎有點矯枉過正。
另外，在不法所得品的扣押以及不自報身分的攻堅上，是否有稍嫌侵犯人權違背憲法精神? 這一段的閱讀就讓我想到基努李維曾演過的一部片街頭霸王(Street Kings)，就有談論到這種濫權的問題。其實還有很多部片也都有談到，只是印象比較深的是這部(Persistence is a virtue)。還有丹佐華盛頓的震撼教育(Training Day)應該也算吧。
槍支問題上則討論到美國憲法第二條修正案
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
- 譯文：一支受規範的武力乃確保自由國家之安全所必需，人民持有及攜帶武器之權利不可受侵犯。
- 譯文二：紀律優良的民兵部隊對自由州的安全是必要的，因此，人民持有並攜帶武器的權利不可受侵害。
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
允許人民持有槍械對濫權的政府做出反擊，但事實上，真的是所有人都支持受到政府壓迫時，人民得以反擊嗎?一般來說，在美國要對於政府做出反擊是有兩種方式。第一種是利用制度措施，規則和法律(institutional measures, rules and laws)以限制政府不當的運用其公權力。因此，法律的訂立原則就像戰神姚立明老師曾講過的主在約束政府，有明令的法條政府才能夠行使，才能告誡人民。但法律沒規定的呢?則是政府機關不能做，但人民可以去做。
第二種反抗的方式則是，公民團體直接地行使政治活動(direct political action by groups of citizens)就像是公民不服從運動(civil disobedience) 這些活動導致的結果就像文中所提到的這種行為會影響選情與推動政策的變化(this sort of action will affect elections and drive policy change) ，對照這次的九合一大選是不是很有既視感。
另外第三種方式較為激烈，更確切來說，是美國從殖民地時期到現代的民情演進推論: 約束政府不敢侵犯公眾權力最重要的因素是普遍的槍支持有。(the most important factor constraining the government from infringing popular rights is widespread possession of firearms) 但第三種方式恐怕要保持存疑的態度。有撰文者提出，若是黑人弟兄為悍衛自身安全呢?以密蘇里州最近知名的黑人年輕人麥可布朗(Michael Brown)的案例，一樣都是受到壓迫，為何美國步槍協會不挺身而出。呼籲大眾要擁槍以對抗政府的濫權呢? 反倒是內華達白人農莊牛仔(redneck) 主人邦迪（Cliven Bundy）對於土地被公有徵收(eminent domain)的捍衛，則是大聲疾呼。這是否也算是種racism種族主義呢? 【】
* 關注 United States v Bundy. 新聞中最有趣的是武裝民兵(Armed Militia)展示的poster中引用了美國第三任總統 湯瑪斯傑弗遜(Thomas Jefferson)的話“美國人民自由的最大威脅是踐踏憲法的政府”。若是有興趣觀看此爭議的新聞可按下圖檔即會跳出相關影檔。
蠻多值得我們台灣警方以及對於人權的思考方向，所以真的需要大家來思考以上的一些問題。因為我們不知道何時都有可能會遇到這些變化這些道德的選擇。
Cops or soldiers? 是警察還是軍人?
America’s police have become too militarised 美國警察變得太過軍事化
From the way police entered the house—helmeted and masked, guns drawn and shields in front, knocking down the door with a battering ram and rushing inside—you might think they were raiding a den of armed criminals. In fact they were looking for $1,000-worth of clothes and electronics allegedly bought with a stolen credit card. They found none of these things, but arrested two people in the house on unrelated charges.
從警方進屋的方式，戴頭盔面具，荷槍護盾在前，用破牆槌撞開大門蜂擁而上，你可能會認為他們正在奇襲的是武裝犯罪分子的巢穴。事實上，他們據稱為搜捕要價1000美元的衣服和電子產品的信用卡盜刷而來。他們沒發現任何可疑物，但以非初衷有關的罪名逮捕房內的兩人。
* 圖解battering ram
They narrowly avoided tragedy. On hearing intruders break in, the homeowner’s son, a disabled ex-serviceman, reached for his (legal) gun. Luckily, he heard the police announce themselves and holstered it; otherwise, “they probably would have shot me,” he says. His mother, Sally Prince, says she is now traumatized.
他們只差點跟悲劇擦身而過。一聽到入侵者闖入，屋主的兒子，一位殘疾的退伍軍人，就拿起他（合法註冊）的槍。幸運的是，他聽到警方自報身分且把槍放進槍套內; 否則，他說，“他們很可能就會向我開槍”。他的母親，莎莉說，她現在還處在驚恐中。
It is easy to see why the police like to be better armed than the people they have to arrest. They risk their lives every day, and are understandably keen to get home in one piece. A big display of force can make a suspect think twice about pulling a gun. “An awful lot of SWAT tactics are focused on forcing the suspect to surrender,” says New York’s police chief.
為何警察想要能比那些該被逮捕的人配有更好的武裝是很好理解的。他們每天都冒著生命危險，而且可以理解的他們渴望能毫髮無傷的回到家。警方強大的火力展現會讓嫌犯拔槍前會再三思考。“一群厲害的特警戰術小組主要是迫使嫌犯不戰而降，”紐約警察局長表示。
But civil libertarians fret that the American police are becoming too much like soldiers. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams (ie, paramilitary police units) were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situations: shoot-outs, rescuing hostages, serving high-risk warrants and entering barricaded buildings, for instance. Their mission has crept.
但是，民間的自由派人士則擔心，美國警方變得太像士兵了。霹靂特勤小組（SWAT）（即準軍事警察單位）最初是被編制來處理暴動內亂與危害他人生命的情況，例如：槍戰，解救人質，被委任高風險任務與進入封鎖的建築。他們的任務是謹慎秘密下(緩緩)進行。
A professor at Eastern Kentucky University’s School of Justice Studies, estimates that SWAT teams were deployed about 3,000 times in 1980 but are now used around 50,000 times a year. Some cities use them for routine patrols in high-crime areas. Baltimore and Dallas have used them to break up poker games. In 2010 New Haven, Connecticut sent a SWAT team to a bar suspected of serving under-age drinkers. That same year heavily-armed police raided barber shops around Orlando, Florida; they said they were hunting for guns and drugs but ended up arresting 34 people for “barbering without a licence”. Maricopa County, Arizona sent a SWAT team into the living room of Jesus Llovera, who was suspected of organising cockfights. Police rolled a tank into Mr Llovera’s yard and killed more than 100 of his birds, as well as his dog. According to Mr Kraska, most SWAT deployments are not in response to violent, life-threatening crimes, but to serve drug-related warrants in private homes.
東肯德基大學法律學院的教授估計，特警隊在1980年出動了大約3000次，但現在一年大約是50,000次左右。有些城市甚至會在高犯罪率地區的例行行巡邏時加派。巴爾地摩和達拉斯利用他們破獲撲克賭博。2010年，康州的新港派出特警隊到疑似供應未成年者飲酒的酒吧。同年，全副武裝的警察突襲佛州奧蘭多的理髮店; 他們表示是在追緝槍支和毒品，但最後以”無營業執照”逮捕34人。亞利桑那州馬里科帕縣派出特警隊進到Llovera房間，此人涉嫌經營鬥雞。警方出動裝甲車撞進其後院搞死了他100多隻鳥，外加上他的狗。根據教授研究，大部分SWAT並非是在暴力，危及生命的犯罪行為時出動，而是在自宅內毒品相關的委任任務中。
He estimates that 89% of police departments serving American cities with more than 50,000 people had SWAT teams in the late 1990s—almost double the level in the mid-1980s. By 2007 more than 80% of police departments in cities with between 25,000 and 50,000 people had them, up from 20% in the mid-1980s (there are around 18,000 state and local police agencies in America, compared with fewer than 100 in Britain).
他估計，1990年代末期時，美國超過5萬人城市中的警察機關89％有特警隊，幾乎是1980年代中期的一倍。到2007年在25,000至50,000人的城市中有超過80％的警察部門有，跟1980年代中期，同比增長20％（美國大約有18000個州與地方上的警察機關，相比的英國應該是少了100個） 。
The courts have smiled on SWAT raids. They often rely on “no-knock” warrants, which authorise police to force their way into a home without announcing themselves. This was once considered constitutionally dubious. But the Supreme Court has ruled that police may enter a house without knocking if they have “a reasonable suspicion” that announcing their presence would be dangerous or allow the suspect to destroy evidence (for example, by flushing drugs down the toilet).
法院贊同SWAT的突襲行為。他們往往倚賴“不需敲門”的令狀，這授權警方強行進入房子時不需表明身分。這曾一度被認為有違憲的可疑。但最高法院裁定，如果有“合理懷疑”自報出現可能有危險或會讓嫌犯破壞證物時（例如，將毒品倒馬桶沖掉），警方可進入房子時不需敲門。
l A police officer may arrest without a warrant any person who he reasonably believes will be charged with or whom he reasonably suspects of being guilty of any offence: Police Force Ordinance (Cap 232) s 50(1).
警方可在無令狀的情況下拘捕任何他合理地相信會被以某罪名起訴的人，或拘捕任何他合理地懷疑犯了罪行的人：《警隊條例》(第 232章)第50(1)條。
l The determination of whether reasonable grounds exist for the suspicion is an objective test and the fact that an officer may have an honest belief in facts which would justify an arrest does not inevitably mean that the belief is reasonable. In order to establish a reasonable suspicion, it is not necessary that the officer have a prima facie case against the suspect and he may be arrested even if further enquiries are required.
對於涉嫌是否有合理理由的決定是種客觀的檢驗和事實且警方要真誠地信念證明相關的逮捕為正當的事實，並不可避免地表示其信念屬於合理。為確立合理懷疑，無須證明有關的警務人員有表面的案針對受疑人，而若須要進一步的查詢，他可能也會被拘捕。
* 為何沒有關於美國版的敲敲門之類的笑話阿? 答案: 因為不敲門搜索一點都不好笑!
Often these no-knock raids take place at night, accompanied by “flash-bang” grenades designed temporarily to blind, deafen and confuse their targets. They can go horribly wrong: Mr Balko has found more than 50 examples of innocent people who have died as a result of botched SWAT raids. In 2011 Eurie Stamps, the stepfather of a suspected drug-dealer but himself suspected of no crimes, was killed while lying face-down on the floor when a SWAT-team officer reportedly tripped, causing his gun to discharge.
通常，這些不敲門的奇襲發生在夜晚，伴隨設計讓人短暫失明，失聰，摸不著目標的“閃爆”手榴彈。但這可能錯誤的可怕：Balko發現超過50名無辜受害者死於拙劣的特警隊奇襲中的案例。2011年Eurie Stamps，販毒嫌犯的繼父，但本身未涉及任何犯罪，在趴在地上時被特警隊人員據報是絆倒引起槍支走火而被殺。
Householders, on hearing the door being smashed down, sometimes reach for their own guns. In 2006 Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman in Atlanta, mistook the police for robbers and fired a shot from an old pistol. Police shot her five times, killing her. After the shooting they planted marijuana in her home. It later emerged that they had falsified the information used to obtain their no-knock warrant.
一聽到大門被破壞，住戶有時馬上拿起自己的槍。2006年的Kathryn Johnston，一位亞特蘭大92歲的老婦人，誤以為警方是搶匪就拿起破舊的手槍射擊。警方開了五槍殺了她。槍擊事件後，他們誣植她家有大麻。後來更出現用來不用敲門令狀的偽造訊息。
Big grants for big guns 對於火力強大槍支的龐大經費
Federal cash—first to wage war on drugs, then on terror—has paid for much of the heavy weaponry used by SWAT teams. Between 2002 and 2011 the Department of Homeland Security disbursed $35 billion in grants to state and local police. Also, the Pentagon offers surplus military kit to police departments. According to Mr Balko, by 2005 it had provided such gear to more than 17,000 law-enforcement agencies.
聯邦的資金-首先用在毒品的宣戰，之後是在反恐，已用在許多特警隊使用的重裝武器上。2002和2011年之間，美國國土安全局提撥350億資金在州與地方警力上。此外，國防部提供多出來的軍用套件給警方。根據Balko，2005年之前，國防部已提供這類裝備給17000多個執法機構了。
These programmes provide useful defensive equipment, such as body armour and helmets. But it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”. A poll found that 58% of Americans think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone “too far”.
這些方案提供有用的防禦裝備，像防彈衣和頭盔。但為何北達可達州，一座平均每年不超過兩起謀殺案的城市Fargo，需要一台配有旋轉砲塔人員裝載裝甲車就讓人百思不解。紐罕布夏一座1999年到2012年間僅發生3件兇殺案的小鎮Keene，花了將近28萬6千美元買裝甲運兵車。當地警方首長表示，它將用在Keene“南瓜節等危險情況”的巡邏上。一份民調中發現，美國有58％的人認為警方使用無人駕駛飛機，軍用武器和裝甲車已經“過猶不及”。
* drone (v./ n.) 本意有懶漢或雄峰嗡嗡聲之意，但目前則專指無人機這種科技產品
Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back.
由於法律的曲解，SWAT的奇襲可褲袋滿滿。民間資產沒收的規定讓警方可扣押任何他們振振有詞地聲稱是犯罪所得的物品。重要的是，不需要物業所有人罪刑的定罪。如果警方在屋內發現毒品，他們可以帶走現金且可能也扣押房屋。他必須要控告警方才可能要回房子。
Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion.
許多警方部門目前都靠沒收非法所得為預算中的主要部分。1986年，聯邦資產沒收基金運作的第一年，其基金為9370萬元。到2012年，該基金和相關資產查獲存款基金以將近有600億。
Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are “unfair on a very basic level”. They “disproportionately affect low-income people” and provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes, which “come with a potential kickback to the police department”, rather than rape and murder investigations, which do not. They also provide an incentive to arrest suspected drug-dealers inside their houses, which can be seized, and to bust stash houses after most of their drugs have been sold, when police can seize the cash.
Balko先生力辯，這些沒收的法條是種“極其基本的不公平”。他們“嚴重影響低收入人群”，並給警方提供了不正當的激勵將重點放在“有對警方的潛回扣”的毒品相關犯罪而非性侵和謀殺的犯罪調查的。它們也激勵在大部分毒品已售出後，當警察能夠扣押現金時，在涉嫌毒品交易商的房屋內逮捕，扣押藏匿居所。
Others retort that Mr Balko and his allies rely too much on cherry-picked examples of raids gone wrong. Tragic accidents happen and some police departments use their SWAT teams badly, but most use them well, says Lance Eldridge, a former sheriff’s deputy in Colorado.
他人則反駁說Balko與其盟友過度依賴失控的突襲理想化的案例。慘事的發生，和一些警方部門不當利用特警隊，但多數則是用得恰當，科羅拉多州前副警長蘭斯埃爾德里奇表示。
The Ferguson protests
Guns, police and the people
For the past week the people have been in the streets of the St Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri. Most have been waving placards, raising their arms in the air and shouting, "Hands up, don't shoot!" A few have tossed rocks or Molotov cocktails, and in at least one instance some seem to have fired guns. The police have been in the streets of Ferguson, too. They have been firing tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets, bearing long truncheons and automatic weapons, and pointing assault rifles at protestors from atop their armoured vehicles. (They have also manhandled and arrested reporters.)
過去一周，人們聚在密蘇里州聖路易斯弗格森的郊區街道上。大部分一直揮舞著標語牌，高舉手臂在空中大喊，“高舉雙手，別開槍！”少部分人扔擲石塊或瓶裝汽油彈，至少有起事件是有些人似乎持槍。警方也已在弗格森的街道上。他們發射催淚彈和橡皮子彈，帶長警棍和自動步槍，並在裝甲車頂用突擊步槍指著抗議群眾。 （他們還動粗，並逮捕採訪記者。）
A makeshift bomb made of a breakable container filled with flammable liquid and provided with a usually rag wick that is lighted just before being hurled.
燃燒彈：一種用裝滿可燃液體的可炸裂性容器制成的臨時替用炸彈，通常用碎布撚成引線，在扔出前點燃
The cause of the conflict is the latest in a string of police killings of unarmed black men across America. The police chief in St Louis has said Michael Brown, aged 18, was going for an officer's gun when the officer shot him. Multiple eyewitnesses have stated that the officer shot Mr Brown as he was trying to get away, after an argument that started (according to a friend of Mr Brown) when the policeman issued an expletive-laden command for the two friends to walk on the sidewalk, not in the street.
衝突的起因在最近全美國各處有一連串警方殺害手無寸鐵黑人的案例。聖路易斯的警察局長表示18歲的邁克爾·布朗，當警方向他開槍時，他試圖搶奪警方的配槍。多位目擊者表示，在警察對走在人行道上，而不是在大街上的這兩名難兄難弟發出咒罵命令（根據布朗的朋友）的爭執過後，警方在布朗試圖逃跑時開槍。
Confrontations between angry citizens and oppressive authorities figure prominently in the American political imagination. Americans are educated to believe that their country was established to end arbitrary government repression and tyranny, to make government accountable to the people. For the people of Ferguson that is precisely what fighting police brutality is all about. So it's worth revisiting how Americans conceive of the struggle to restrict the government's use of coercive force.
在美國的政治成見中，憤怒市民與威迫人的當局之間的對抗很明顯地點出來。美國人被教育要相信其國家的建立是為了終止專制政府的壓迫與暴政，要使政府對人民負起責任。對於弗格森的居民，這正是對抗警方的暴行。所以這值得重新審視美國人是如何理解限制政府在強制力上的使用。
There are several ways to constrain government agents from employing their power tyrannically. First, you have institutional measures, rules and laws. The police are subordinate to democratically elected officials. Their actions are limited by laws and regulations, undergirded by the rights enumerated in the constitution: limits on the duration for which suspects can be detained without charge, requirements for warrants for searches and arrests, situational rules governing the use of force. They must justify their actions to judges. Officers who break the law can be jailed themselves. These cross-limiting institutional checks and balances are supposed to prevent those who enjoy the privilege of state-sanctioned use of force from wielding it indiscriminately.
有幾種方法來限制政府人員不能暴虐地使用其權力。首先，有制度措施，規則和法律。警方隸屬於民選官員的監督。其行為是受到法律和法規的限制，受到憲法列舉的權利所支持：嫌犯在沒有起訴的狀況下可以持續拘留的時限，搜索和逮捕令狀的要求，管理武器使用的情境規定。他們須向法官證明自己的行動合法。犯法的官員自己將入獄。這些交互限制的機構性制衡應預防那些享有國家允許武力使用之特權的人不會隨意濫用。
A second way to push back against arbitrary state force is direct political action by groups of citizens. When large numbers of people demonstrate in the streets, when they boycott businesses, occupy buildings or neighbourhoods, or engage in civil disobedience, even authoritarian governments generally have to respond. In democracies, this sort of action will affect elections and drive policy change: either compromises will be struck, or aldermen, governors, perhaps even occasionally a member of Congress or two will lose their jobs. Run hard against police brutality and you may just find yourself mayor of New York City. Indeed, the demonstrations in Ferguson had already forced changes in tone and policy. Jay Nixon, Missouri's governor, took control over the town's security away from the local, nearly all-white, police department, which had botched the job, and handed it to Ron Johnson, head of the state's highway patrol, who is black. Mr Johnson quickly exhibited a deft touch, walking in a memorial march with protestors and dishing out hugs and empathy. Political action of this sort depends on an aggressive free press, and on citizens' liberty to communicate and organise.
抵制不受控的國家機器的第二種方法是通過公民團體直接性政治行動。當大批民眾上街示威，當他們抵制企業，佔據建築物或街區，或進行公民不服從的權力，即使獨裁政府通常會回應。在民主國家，這種行為會影響選舉和推動政策變化：要嘛妥協不成，不然就是市議員，州長，甚至偶爾是一兩位國會議員丟了工作。競選主打警方暴行，可能發現只有是紐約市市長。的確，弗格森的示威已迫使調性跟政策的變化。密蘇里州州長Jay Nixon，從當地幾乎清一色是白人且將事情搞砸的警方部門中接管該鎮的保安，並交與國道巡警的黑人局長Ron Johnson。Ron Johnson明快地展現打動人心的靈敏行為，在紀念遊行中抗議群眾同行，並拋出擁抱和同理心。這種政治行動取決在積極自由的新聞媒體，以及對人民自由的溝通與組織。
l civil disobedience （n.） 非暴力反抗又稱消極抵抗(passive resistance)。
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
文明抵制，非暴力反抗：為引發政府政策或立法的改變而拒絕服從政府法令，其以消極抵制和其它非暴力方式為特徵
指拒絕服從政府當局的要求或命令，也不抵抗政府後續的逮捕和懲罰。特別用作一種非暴力和通常是集體運動的手段，以迫使政府讓步，它已成為非洲和印度民族運動、美國民權運動和許多國家的工人運動和反戰運動的重要手段。非暴力反抗者認為自己有責任以更高的原則來打破某特定的法律。這種哲學思想根源於西塞羅、聖托馬斯·阿奎那和H.D.梭羅；甘地是現代最明確地表達非暴力反抗觀念的代表。在美國，馬丁·路德·金最充分表達和運用非暴力反抗的策略和哲學。
Action on the part of citizens in protest against laws regarded by them as unjust. Examples may be refusing to pay taxes, or breaching regulations pertaining to public meetings or public processions. Questions about what (if any) civil disobedience is permissible are related to the jurisprudential debate over whether or not an unjust law is in fact a law and also whether a citizen’s obligation to obey the laws of his community is unqualified.
公民就其視為不公平的法律而提出的抗議行動，例如拒付稅項、違反有關公眾集會或公眾遊行的規例。就何等公民不服從的行為（如有的話）是可獲容許，則與以下的法學辯論有關：不公平法律事實上是否法律，及公民遵從其社會的法律上的義務是否絕對的。
In recent years, a third theory about how to restrain arbitrary government power has become popular in America. Increasing numbers of Americans have become convinced that the most important factor constraining the government from infringing popular rights is widespread possession of firearms. Since the 1990s the National Rifle Association (NRA) has insistently argued that the right to bear arms is the "first freedom" from which all other freedoms flow, and that governments will eliminate the rights to freedom of speech, religion, association and so on unless citizens are able to shoot back at government agents. The NRA and the more radical group Gun Owners of America have used confrontations between federal agents and cantankerous gun-owning dissidents to make the case that only gun ownership stands between individual freedoms and government oppression. "The founders warned of the 'monopoly of violence,'" said Glenn Beck in his keynote address to the NRA convention in 2013, "because they knew that governments could turn against their people. And if the government had a monopoly of violence, tyranny would go undefeated." (The concept "monopoly of violence" was not used by America's 18th-century founders; Max Weber coined the idea in 1919. But you get the gist.)
最近幾年來，關於如何抑制專橫政府權力的第三種理論在美國廣為風行。越來越多美國人確信，約束政府不敢侵犯大眾權力最重要的因素是普遍的槍支持有。自1990年代的全國步槍協會（NRA）執意認為，在所有其他的自由洪流中，攜帶武器的權利是“自由的濫觴”，以及除非人民有能力回擊政府官員，否則政府將剔除言論自由，宗教自由，結社等自由的權力。全國步槍協會和更激進的美國擁槍團體利用聯邦特工和在槍支擁有理念不同的脾氣古怪者之間的對立，挑起個人自由與政府壓迫之間槍支擁有權的情況。“創辦人警告”暴力的壟斷，“Glenn Beck在2013年NRA會議其主題演講中表示，“因為他們知道，政府可能會對付人民。而且如果政府能壟斷暴力，暴政將無人能敵。
“（ “暴力壟斷” 此概念並非是美國18世紀的創辦人的原意; 1919年馬克斯·韋伯杜撰了該理念，但你了的。）
Curiously, observes Francis Wilkinson in Bloomberg View, gun-rights advocates have not used the confrontation in Ferguson as an example of a situation where possession of a gun might have protected a citizen from the illegitimate use of force by a government agent. They have not argued that Michael Brown might be alive now if he had been able to shoot back at the police officer who killed him, or that the demonstrators who fired warning shots when police tried to shut down protests would have been justified in shooting officers to defend their right to freedom of association. No such arguments have been heard with regard to any of the unarmed black men killed by American police officers over the past few years. One wonders what might account for the fact that gun-rights advocates defend the right of a white Nevada rancher to shoot agents of the Bureau of Land Management, but not the right of young black men to shoot police officers.
令人好奇的是，觀察在彭博觀點的Francis Wilkinson，槍支權利擁護者並未利用Ferguson的對立來當成若擁槍的話可能可以保護人民不被政府人員不法使用武力的情境案例。他們並未爭論若布朗先前可以對殺了他的警察回擊，他可能現在還活著，或者說當警方試圖中止示威抗議時，鳴槍示警的抗議群眾在對警方開槍上可被理解是捍衛自己結社自由權利的合法行為。至於過去幾年中手無寸鐵的黑人男子被美國警方殺害上，在這樣議論從所未聞。人們不禁要問，槍支權利擁護者對於捍衛內華達州白人牧場主人對土地管理局的官員開槍，但卻隻字不提年輕黑人男子對警察開槍的權利，此事上的解釋。
In his 2013 speech Mr Beck actually argued that black men ought to buy guns to defend themselves from racist violence, decrying the fact that Martin Luther King was denied a gun permit in Alabama in 1956 "because he was considered a challenge to the people who were in control of the system." It is not clear whether Mr Beck was arguing that King should have shot police officers in Birmingham when they beat peaceful civil-rights protestors and set dogs on them. It's such an interesting lacuna, really: to argue that government officers are agents of oppression, that people should own guns to defend themselves against government oppression, that not just whites but above all blacks should recognise the need to own guns to protect oneself against government oppression, yet somehow to pass in silence over the question of whether black people should actually shoot government officers to defend themselves from oppression.
2013貝克演講中實際上主張黑人應購買槍支以保護自己避免種族主義暴力，並公開譴責，馬丁·路德·金恩在1956年時阿拉巴馬州被拒絕持槍允許證“此事，因為他被認為是對掌控體制一群人的挑戰。“目前尚不清楚貝克是否主張當伯明翰警方毆打平和的民權運動人士並放狗咬人時，金恩博士該對警方開槍。這是片有趣的空白，真的：要主張，政府官員是壓迫人民的工具，人們應該擁有槍支以自衛並對抗政府壓迫，這不僅只限於白人，而是所有黑人應體認擁槍保衛自己免於政府壓迫的需要，然而不知為何，黑人們是否的確應為自保不被壓迫而對政府官員開槍的問題卻是安靜的跳過。
But perhaps we should be grateful for the inconsistency. The killing of Mr Brown did not happen because America's citizens or its police are too lightly armed, or too reluctant to believe they have a legitimate right to shoot someone in a disagreement. It happened because America's citizens and its police are too heavily armed, and too quick to believe they have a legitimate right to shoot someone in a disagreement. It happened because Americans are losing the talent for solving social conflicts by building responsive institutions, and are instead of embracing video-game fantasies of solving social conflicts through violence.
但也許我們應該感謝這樣的不一致。布朗的命案並未發生是因為美國人民或警方還武裝太過輕便，或太過抗拒而不相信他們有合法權利對他人開槍上起了分歧。它會發生是因為美國人民和警察太過全副武裝，而且太快無法相信他們不同意有合法權利對人開槍。它會發生是因為美國人正失去透過建立反應機制以解決社會衝突的能力，而不是擁抱透過暴力解決社會衝突的電動遊戲幻想。
#警察英文-呂艾肯老師
【國土安全系列文章-發表預告】
個人自發性的獨狼式攻擊來對於國土安全的威脅
【第二篇│巴黎恐攻事件】
難民潮中夾帶恐怖分子的組織性攻擊對於國土安全的威脅
分享更多英文文章
更多警察英文相關文章可以上網搜尋
〝警察英文 呂艾肯老師〞目前正在保一、保四、保五、竹山接受教育訓練
也就是考上104年四等一般警察特考考生
可以參加105年、106年三等警察特考-內軌考試？
我們透過這邊發一篇文章和各位正在受訓學生(非警專，警大畢業)做統一回應
※若報考時間沒有變更，警察特考內外軌制度沒有變更的前提以下，答案就不會變
NO！不行！
104考上四等一般行政、消防警察特考的考生，最快只能參加107年警察特考的內軌考試
我們來個圖片說明：
104年特-四等一般警察特考的學員完成實務訓練後
可參加2018年(107年)的三等警察特考內軌考試
第一，您完成四等一般警察教育訓練後，取得警專結業證書，就不能考警察外軌考試。
第二，參加警察特考內軌考試必須要有警察考試及格證書，也就是你實務訓練完成取得的證書。
目前警察特考對四等一般受訓學員存在一個Bug~
也就是104年特警特受訓學員2017年1月~7月(預估)期間，無法參加內外軌警察考試。
這BUG要怎麼修正呢？
若警察特考內外軌改制或是2017年(106年)警察特考報名時間改成8月報考或是考選部有考慮到您們受訓學員取得考試及格證書的時間點，這BUG就會被修正。
將這考試訊息分享給你們班吧~
警大研究所碩士班入學將在105年4月23日至4月24日考試
警察英文權威-呂艾肯講師將陸續分享近日重要時事新聞以及其他關於美國政治的一些評論。
--------------------------------------
隨著美國選情逐漸加溫，相信大家都注意到可能即將代表共和黨競選總統大位的川普這號人物吧。
唐納川普(Donald J. Trump)在2015年6月16日宣布角逐2016年美國總統選舉的共和黨初選。
其語不驚人死不休的言論在競選造勢場合中，竟然意外的擄獲了許多保守派人士的認同!
聲勢驚人到目前共和黨不得不正視其出線的可能!
但此人爭議言論不斷，許多報章雜誌與名人對他也是諸多批評，甚至經濟學人在3月15號下了一個(The Economist: Trump presidency one of top 10 global risks) 全球十大危機之川普總統的標題，可見其人之作風。
雖然在寫這篇文章的時候，川普出線還仍有許多變數，但為了解其人，以下摘錄十二句他所說過最駭人的「驚世奇言」，偉哉此人，能活在當世看到此活寶賣力演出也是種幸運吧。
“I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
“It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!”
紐約在下雪又冷死了--我們需要全球暖化啦！
“Part of beauty of me is I’m very rich.”
哥的美麗有部分是因為我是土豪。
警察英文-呂艾肯講師將會陸續提供時事性的英文文章
有要考警大研究所的學員一定要看這些文章喔~
沒有留言:
張貼留言