在大叔，你好嘢！一文，有這段挑機的説話：
匿名2015年11月26日 上午1:27
看來內文: 老伴問我你怕他動手，我説當然不怕，有我在他動不到手，若然真的動手，肯定有人會倒地不起<---毆鬥, 參與打鬥者=犯法者, 不管先動手，還是後動手，祟尚武力算甚麼?
我當然不知這匿名崇尚甚麽，也不去考究他/她的法律知識有幾豐富，可以肯定講這人的腦袋一定有瑕疵，心思不夠周密，還以為自己很醒。留言可見，我原文講「肯定有人會倒地不起」，而不是「他」會倒地不起。我這樣講是顯示要奮力保護老伴，可能是自己搞到倒地不起也在所不惜，這叫崇尚武力嗎？Come on! Give me a break. 動手未必是毆鬥(Fighting in a Public Place). 自衛可以是抗辯理由，只要所用的武力並非過份的。虧這人夠膽來教我先動手、後動手是否違法的criminal law, 我不致於連這種基本顯淺的刑事法也不懂。我一開始已阻止老伴去斥責大叔霸車位的行徑，這還會給人崇尚武力的印象嗎？崇尚武力就下車踢走他兩張凳仔和買餸車，撩他隻揪，然後把車泊進去，反佔領那車位。
我也想趁機問下讀者，如果有人打你老婆，作為男人，你會站在那裏拍攝記録然後打電話報警，抑或即時以武制止對方，保護妻子？唔通你讀過一些狗屁不通的法律就對老婆被打視若無睹，立即找本Archbold來看下Fighting in Public Place的ingredients of offence同埋有乜抗辯理由咩？我呸！如果你是男人，我覺得你丟架。如果你是女人，我可憐你遇人不淑，嫁了個懦夫，連在精神上保護妻兒的意識也沒有，就算有心無力，起碼都有那片心。如果是找藉口來挑機，那就叫學藝不精，不自量力。
匿名2015年11月26日 上午1:27
看來內文: 老伴問我你怕他動手，我説當然不怕，有我在他動不到手，若然真的動手，肯定有人會倒地不起<---毆鬥, 參與打鬥者=犯法者, 不管先動手，還是後動手，祟尚武力算甚麼?
我當然不知這匿名崇尚甚麽，也不去考究他/她的法律知識有幾豐富，可以肯定講這人的腦袋一定有瑕疵，心思不夠周密，還以為自己很醒。留言可見，我原文講「肯定有人會倒地不起」，而不是「他」會倒地不起。我這樣講是顯示要奮力保護老伴，可能是自己搞到倒地不起也在所不惜，這叫崇尚武力嗎？Come on! Give me a break. 動手未必是毆鬥(Fighting in a Public Place). 自衛可以是抗辯理由，只要所用的武力並非過份的。虧這人夠膽來教我先動手、後動手是否違法的criminal law, 我不致於連這種基本顯淺的刑事法也不懂。我一開始已阻止老伴去斥責大叔霸車位的行徑，這還會給人崇尚武力的印象嗎？崇尚武力就下車踢走他兩張凳仔和買餸車，撩他隻揪，然後把車泊進去，反佔領那車位。
我也想趁機問下讀者，如果有人打你老婆，作為男人，你會站在那裏拍攝記録然後打電話報警，抑或即時以武制止對方，保護妻子？唔通你讀過一些狗屁不通的法律就對老婆被打視若無睹，立即找本Archbold來看下Fighting in Public Place的ingredients of offence同埋有乜抗辯理由咩？我呸！如果你是男人，我覺得你丟架。如果你是女人，我可憐你遇人不淑，嫁了個懦夫，連在精神上保護妻兒的意識也沒有，就算有心無力，起碼都有那片心。如果是找藉口來挑機，那就叫學藝不精，不自量力。
哈哈, 一段小留言, 若是豁達的人無需介意, 無需長篇大論去駁斥?
回覆刪除何故何由如此動怒, 作了一大堆假設, 為某一理論. 提出的假設是否與事實相符? 但兩者往往是互不相干的。有大量複雜變數。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100112/13617501
回覆刪除一名前警察網民在討論區留言稱：「要是老夫出手招呼他，他便大件事了，分分鐘有 BB……」。
http://static.apple.nextmedia.com/images/apple-photos/apple/20100112/large/12la2p3new.jpg
原文講「分分鐘有 BB……」，而不是「陳巧文」會分分鐘有 BB……。這樣講是顯示前警察網民要是出手招呼「陳巧文」，可能是前警察搞到自己分分鐘有 BB也在所不惜，當然這叫恐嚇嗎?
It is a dubious threat but not criminal intimidation.
刪除有些人喜歡要求別人大方，正義，忍耐，甚麼甚麼一大堆，而他們自己只要唔衰得就可以。
回覆刪除若有人欺負我家大爺，我都會盡力保護。我是人啊！
From previous news reports it seems that the usual practice of police officers in HK is to arrest everybody for fighting in public place when there are cross allegations of assault, even when it comes to unrelated bystanders who intervened to stop the assailant, or where there is independent witness to testify for the victim who only acted in self defence. Do you think that is justified?
回覆刪除In some cases, prosecuting both parties for Fighting in PP is not justified. It is difficult to make a generalized comment. The police's general mentality is to let the court decide. Sometimes the difficulty lies in the factual decision as to what is self defence and what is excess force. There is no definition in law. The safest way the police to protect themselves from allegation of bias is to pass the bucket to the court.
刪除Bill's reply is not convincing. For example, if it's a murder case, it's the police's duty to investigate whose has killed the victim and support with sufficient evidence for the court to make the factual decision. If the police do not investigate, how the court make the factual decision with no supporting information? It's the police's duty to gathering information for court to decide.
刪除You may argue that the police's duty on gathering evidence only limited on gathering evidence to an extend that it's sufficient for a charge being proceeded to court. However, it's where the problem arises, as it's the police's duty to supply information to court and the court decision is based on the available information. If the police stop gathering information, then the court's ability to achieve justice may be impaired.
Back to the public fighting case, if the police do their job to investigate cases, such as gathering information from CCTV, ask the shopkeeper nearby or asking people nearby at the scene, and submit more information to the court, I think many public frighting cases result might be different.
Protect? Yes, I think they do protect themselves from doing less job by persuading potential defendant to admit guilt rather than from allegation of bias.
In reality, the different seriousness of the crime deserves different level of attention.
刪除In the previous blog on the same subject, the crux of what I said was to emphasize my basic instinct of rendering my unreserved protection to my wife if she were subject to violence. It was never meant to bear a truculent attitude to invite for public fighting
I agree that different seriousness of the crime deserves different level of attention, but does it mean that no effort should be putted on an investigation for a simple CCTV collection?
刪除I doubt it. More than 90% of such case would not be investigated any further.
The main problem still unsolved.
In case there is a fright in street, the police would not consider who bear a truculent attitude to invite for public fighting or not. Both will be charged.
To avoid from that, maybe the only option is to escape and call police. However, would the police investigate? it also remains a question.
It may be a norm for the police to handle a minor case in this manner. I cannot argue with you about that. The quality of investigation varies. HK Island is perhaps the best in term of quality of police work. During the trial, the deft can be acquitted when self defence is employed as the defence for the charge.
刪除有時我會想.
回覆刪除如果套用在香港, 警察只會唔理誰對誰錯, 只會告公共場所打鬥. 更只會叫你認罪. 如雙方没有明顯傷. 所謂的defense 也只是各執一詞. 而找證人根本是不可能.
如果本身没有PC , 没有所謂. 但有professional license 後果可以好嚴重. 讀左咁多年書, 牌都可能會冇埋.
標少或許未親身體會過所謂警察既處理手法.
對於無案底，在公眾地方打架，無用武器，沒有嚴重傷勢的，不管是否專業人士，我都ONE/BO不少，當然是遠年的事。那些年跟警察交往多，他們的MO我尚算清楚。
刪除星宿派之首: xxx------生平最大的癖好，便是聽旁人的諂諛之言，別人越說得肉麻，他越聽得開心，這般給群弟子捧了數十年，早已深信群弟子的歌功頌德句句是真。
回覆刪除請勿對號
在澳洲的戲院不設劃位，入座不用對號。不過，最怕買錯戲票看錯戲。這裏找諂媚言詞恐怕像看錯戲一樣。我都想找班羊子、公主之類的弟子，左右參扶，任我差譴，坐下花轎。
刪除如果有中出羊子這般的弟子,死了去算吧!哈哈!
刪除US
人有人的弟子，妖的跟前有妖魔鬼怪，神就有天兵天將，物以類聚。崇尚理性討論的人，不論意是相同或相悖，說的是理據，贊同並非附和，贊賞並非奉承，反對也非為敵，因為論的為事，而非論人。
刪除