美国警察没有保护公民的义务？原来是真的...
在美国民间流传着一种说法：“在危险的时候相信1911（一种手枪）而不是911（报警电话）”
今年2月14日发生在佛州帕克兰的道格拉斯高中校园枪击案造成17名学生和教职工死亡，另有17人受伤，很多人对此还记忆犹新。
不过，在12月12日的一项判决中，联邦法官布鲁姆（Beth Bloom）指出，在大规模枪击发生时，学校所在的学区和当地警局没有宪法义务保护学生。
这起诉讼的原告是15名该校学生，代理律师布德拉姆（Kristoffer Budhram）称，他们因枪击受到了精神伤害。对此判决，布德拉姆称，正在审视所有可能的选项。
在枪击案发生时，彼得森（Scot Peterson）是唯一一个佩枪的校警。他第一时间听到了枪击，赶到教学楼外，却迟迟没有进入大楼。当时，他的事件中扮演的角色引发广泛质疑。之后没多久，彼得森就辞职了。
佛罗里达大学法学院教授哈奇森指出，“不管是宪法还是（佛州）州法，都没有规定警察有义务保护个人免受伤害，即使警察知道伤害确实会发生。”他说，理论上，“警察可以坐视有人攻击你，不予制止；这不违反法律。”
美国警察没有保护公民的义务
根据相关国际组织统计，美国警务人员占全国公务员的比例为63%，这一比例不仅排在世界前列，且美国的国家安全机构雇员增长速度也维持了极高的水平。
根据美国劳工统计局（BLS）的统计，截至2014年5月，全美共有警察近64万人。按理说，有这么多警察，民众不用再过多操心自身安全问题，但实际情况却并非这么简单。让我们从一个著名的案子说起。
1975年3月16日清晨，Warren、Taliaferro和Douglas三位女士在她们合租的公寓被惊醒，这处仅距离白宫几公里远的公寓迎来了两位男性不速之客。
住在二楼的Douglas成为两位强奸犯的首个猎物。三楼的Warren听到呼救声后立刻打电话报警。随后令人目瞪口呆的事情发生了：第一辆警车路过后门开走了；第二辆警车敲前门无应答也走了；第三辆警车在楼外又停留了5分钟也走了。
Warren和Taliaferro本已逃出楼外，见此情景又回去打电话求救，警察保证会再派人来，得到保证的Warren和Taliaferro下楼去救Douglas。结果是再没有警察赶来，三位女士被两名男性强奸、殴打和凌辱了14小时。
侥幸保命的三人随后立刻起诉首都警方和市政府，认为警方失职未能保护她们。这看起来合情合理天经地义的起诉，却被一审法院判败诉，再次上诉后又被华盛顿上诉法院判败诉。
判决认为，无论是警察还是政府都没有义务保护居民免受犯罪分子侵害，居民受到罪犯侵犯也无权要求警察和政府承担责任，除非原告和警察、政府之间存在特殊关系（而本案不存在这种特殊关系）。
判决书进一步解释道：警务是政府向整个社会提供的一项服务，用以维护平静、安全和秩序……政府只为“全体公众”这一整体提供警务，不向社会单个成员承担这项义务。
自此以后，全美各州立法机构开始全面下放公民自卫权。无论是民主党的蓝州还是共和党的红州，自卫权和公开持枪权开始全面放开。
由于首都的上诉法庭是联邦高级法庭，其案例宣判覆盖全美国。从此美国案例法开创了警方与普通公民之间不存在任何具体法律义务的先例。
随后类似的判决席卷全国，最著名的当属已被颁发禁止令的Simon枪杀三女儿案，母亲Jessica在五次报案后均未得到警察保护，最终全美最高法院以8比1的比例判定：警察在提供警察服务时不对任何一名公民有任何公共责任规定下的具体责任。
根据美国两位大学教授Stange和Oyster在2000年专著中的统计，在首都华盛顿和33个州，警察没有保护居民个人的法律义务。在这些州，如果居民报警后没有得到警察保护，根本就没有起诉警察的法律依据。
有9个州，法院会受理这类起诉警察的案件，但胜诉的几乎总是警察。只有在5个州，法院会受理这类案件，并有可能判警察败诉。在余下的4个州法院判决立场不一，难以归类。
没错，美国警察不保护公民个人的生命和财产，那不是他们的职责。他们的职责是在犯罪发生后，逮捕犯罪分子，维护法律，完成自己对于广义大众的职责。
于是，在最高法院的判例影响下，2016年全美有10个无限制持枪州、32个资审持枪州、8个限枪州、0个禁枪州，总拥枪/控枪州比例是42比8。要知道，这个比例在1980年可是4比46，可见这一判决的巨大影响！
这也说明，美国现在民间拥枪数亿支，绝不仅仅是宪法第二修正案规定公民有持枪权那么简单。而是在确认未被警察保护后，公民选择了持枪自卫。
在美国各类拥枪协会的网站上，Warren、Taliaferro和Douglas、Simon和Jessica的案例，都会被当成经典范文一遍遍重述。
在美国民间流传着一种说法：“在危险的时候相信1911（一种手枪）而不是911（报警电话）”。根据皮尤调查中心的数据，48%的持枪人认为拥枪是为了自卫，比为狩猎而买枪的多出了16个百分点。
前副总统拜登算是个控枪派，但就连他也在Facebook上说过：“我们家住得偏远，但无论遇到什么麻烦，只要拿着霰弹枪向外放两枪，我向你保证，原来打算进来的人就不会进来了。”
事例:华人旅巴车窗被砸 加州警察漠视 陆客傻眼
华人巴士公司一辆中巴，28日凌晨在中加州的贝克斯菲(Bakersfield)市一处旅馆大堂门口被砸破两块玻璃，窃贼只为偷走一个价值仅几十元的倒车显示屏，而这个仪器离开系统根本无用。但是，被砸破的车窗价值上千元。报警之后警察说知道了，但是不出警。来自中国广东的34名乘客看着满地玻璃碴当场傻眼，大呼当时“这就是美国天堂吗？”美国治安不靖令很多中国游客惊讶。而旅行业者也反映，由于签证严审，导致中国游客来美减少。
华人巴士公司中巴车上的倒车监控显示屏被偷走。（读者提供）
华人巴士公司中巴在中加州贝克斯菲(Bakersfield)被砸，车子只能用纸夹板临时堵住。（读者提供）
自今年3月中美贸易战以来，中国游客赴美人数已大幅减少。业者许承武表示，中国游客赴美的最高年份是280万人，今年不完全统计只有200万人。不少客人打电话询问美国是否安全？旅游探亲的意愿减少。不过最主要的原因还是签证，中美关系紧张导致美签通过率很低。首先是高科技领域不给签证，其次是学生签证收紧，航天、微波等专业的留学签证明确不批。
他说，旅游签证也趋严，甚至要求提供中国的工资证明、房地产证明等，条件不符就直接拒签。一对中国公民夫妻，一个来美一个不来，签证官也会询问不来的原因，也可能作为拒签理由。最近有个中国的旅游局要来美国推广旅游，因为签证无法成行。另外中国投资、出口和消费等行业继续下行，老百姓花钱谨慎。2019年中国游客可能更倾向去亚洲国家旅游。
中国游客减少，本地一些华资旅行社的导游只好另谋出路，有人转行做优步司机。导游Tim表示，游客团减少，低价团又挣不到钱，只能想别的办法。不少同行申请了优步司机执照，还有人考了货车司机驾照，工作时间比较弹性，门槛和成本也低，一些人做出心得就直接转行了。
旅行社业者也不得不缩小规模。巴士业者鹿强表示，现在开始精简车子，把四辆旧车换了两辆新车，因为旧车直接卖不值钱，只能用买新车卖旧车的方式。未来不确定因素太多，大家都没有信心去做更大投资。
华人巴士公司中巴在中加州贝克斯菲(Bakersfield)被砸，车子只能用纸夹板临时堵住。
【声明】素材源于网络，编辑版权归原作者所有，如有侵权或需授权，请及时与我们联系。
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.
