外行又可笑蠢蛋，自以為跟法律系室友住四年就自動懂英美法？ 會拿provocation來說嘴很明顯只是一知半解。 Provocation is no ground for exempting one from criminal liability for one’s act, but only maybe ground for mitigating the punishment. （義憤從來都不是阻卻違法事由，只能當做法官減刑的參考之一。） 如果連這點都不知道，還敢出來扯，就真只是丟自己跟法律系室友的臉。 關於義憤 provocation在英美法上的進一步討論，我就懶得翻譯成中文了： At common law, provocation will sustain only if met four tests: a. the provocation must have been one that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control; b. the defendant must have in face been provoked; c. there must have been no sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool; and d. the defendant in fact did not cool off between the provocation and the killing. Usually, the rule would be applied narrowly onto limited scenarios, such as ” a personally serious battery,” “a threat of deadly force,” or “discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person.” In this case, the taxi driver may claim provocation for that he had been surrounded by angry riots with possible threats of deadly force. This was why I said that the taxi driver may be incriminated as murder or voluntary manslaughter. People could claim self-defense on the behavior of dragging the driver out of the cab. However, these attackers can never successfully claim that they were defending themselves by using such brutal violence on the driver in a coma. Of course, the “provocation rule” does not apply here. Since once the driver had been out of the cab, there was no provocation at all. And the violence they used exceeded the necessary standard of self-defense.
The Chinese workers in the Province of Anhui are diligently working on Trump’s next campaign flags by the due date, and Mr. Trump himself has kept declaring to urge and require the American firms to move their manufacturing lines back to the US.
Action speaks louder than words, you bet.
No wonder priorly Mr. Trump suspended the possible raise of the tariffs. He is still waiting for the delivery. LOL
此例重點不僅僅是點出美國怎樣雙重標準，更是要說明「人權」的概念本質其實是一整組錯綜複雜的權利義務內涵，更準確的說是一種「express and implied contractual arrangements」。而權利範圍的釐定與真實可執行背後都要付出「成本」！也就是我一貫主張的：當整體社會財富不夠，人權喊得再高大上實質上根本做不到也就沒有任何意義；當整體社會財富夠支撐某種程度的契約組合時，人權自然會逐漸獲得改善。
（當然更困難的還有許多基本權利並未明文在憲法之中，而是寄生在他種基本權利之內，因此其權利範疇的劃定又受到他種權利的影響，這一塊我不打算深談，我簡單舉一例：可能多數人並不知道，「墮胎權（abortion）」在美國憲法結構中並非明文的基本權利，最早是從「隱私權（right of privacy）」下派生出來。 「閱讀色情物品（freedom to read obscene materials）」也是從隱私權為權利基礎衍生，這使得此權利早期被認為不包含散佈、販賣或購買的自由。這是說：若此權利一開始被認為是言論自由的一部分，則權利範圍劃定將大為不同）
I was planning to write an article to explain why the HK protestors have a very long shot to “move” the HK dollars and the Linked Exchange Rate System by their teeny tiny deposits. But I found that Professor Lui has explained this issue very well.
Note! The HK Linked Exchange Rate System is a de facto monetary system but not a simple exchange-rater-fixing control. The M0 supply of HK dollars is fully promised by the total amount the US dollar reserves at the ratio of 1:7.8. The fluctuation of the market exchange rate will directly change the quantity of the M0, which means the HK money issuing banks have incentives to buy or sell the currencies and maintain the rate fluctuate in a very narrow range.
The demands for more US dollar will directly shrink the quantity of the HK dollar, and the rising short-term interest rate will accelerate the process. Both will raise the exchange rate of the HK dollar. If every US dollar is taken away, there will be no HK dollars in the market at all. Here comes the problem: what currency a citizen must use to pay her tickets, punishments, taxes, and rents? There are always demands for HK dollars and people who have all US dollars in hands will have to bear the risk of loss. People will be forced to crazily trace the small quantity of the HK dollars.