造反無罪，違法有理？之三，回覆匿名的評論

我喜歡跟人討論，各抒己見，對於匿名在對上一篇留言所講事情，我同意警察處理得很差，你用打壓來形容，我也不為這些字眼争辯，我又不是警方的發言人，與我無關。我本着客觀批判為出發點，無意說服任何人。但匿名所舉楊美雲等人的案例(FACC19/2004)，恐怕「最明顯而且連終審法院也確認了的就有法輪功學員在中聯辦門外練功，有人覺得篤眼篤鼻而報案，導致學員被控阻街、阻差辦公和襲警一事」這講法並不正確。阻街之罪，在上訴庭已上訴得直，終審法院只處理阻差辦公和襲警的上訴，終審法院判令上訴得直是純法律觀點的判決，判辭第112段說明了理由：

Conclusion

112.  The inescapable conclusion is accordingly that the objective requirement of reasonable suspicion of a public place obstruction without lawful excuse cannot be made out either on the basis of what had been said at the briefings or of what was self-evident at the scene.  It follows that the arrests for obstruction contrary to s 4(28) were unlawful.  This in turn means that the actions taken by the officers to remove the appellants from the vehicle while keeping them in police detention were not performed in the due execution of their duty.  The appeal must therefore be allowed and the convictions on the 3^rd to 6^th charges inclusive must be quashed.

另外，終審法院對警方在該案的執法，有褒無貶，判辭第115段這樣講：

Conduct of the police

115.  This judgment should serve to clarify the law on the public obstruction offence and the law of arrest.  We wish to make clear that no criticism of the conduct of any of the police officers is intended by this judgment.  They had to cope with a difficult situation in relation to an area of the law which has been developing.  It should be acknowledged that as is shown by the evidence including the video recordings, they acted with restraint and with disciplined professionalism throughout.

我希望這課題的討論在此終結。順此一提，如果引用上訴案例，希望不要輕易自己下結論，應該盡量引用原文來說明。以上述案例而言，高等法院、上訴庭及終審法院三份判辭，共174頁，看一次很費時，讀者引用，我要看了才能回應，是十分痛苦的事。我希望讀者不要妄下結論，這樣使我花更多時間以確定有沒有走漏眼，看錯了判辭。