(其一) 發生了意外,市民見死不救夠,是恐怕惹禍上身?
【高校民调：老人摔倒该不该扶】
《新京报》（記者杜丁）（責任編輯：史雅喬）2011年10月19日08:35
昨日（18日），首都經貿大學等三所高校聯合發佈“社會信任問題的大陸消費者民意調查”，從政治、經濟和社會三個層面來體察民眾對中國社會的信任度。就目前熱議的“老人摔倒該不該扶”問題，高達87.4%的民眾認為不能扶老人的原因是怕惹禍上身。
以下图片: 中國社會信任危機凸顯 不扶老人只因怕惹禍上身
三高校發佈“社會信任問題的大陸消費者民意調查”；民意調查顯示社會信任危機凸顯。據首經貿統計學院負責人介紹，隨著社會經濟的發展，一系列社會問題隨之湧現。為了分析這一現象，中國人民大學中國調查與數據中心、首都經濟貿易大學統計學院和中央財經大學統計學院，聯合發起了關於社會信任問題的大陸消費者民意調查。調查結果顯示，三個層面的信任危機已經凸顯，其中人與人之間的不信任現象最為突出：26%的受訪者對政府處理食品安全問題的前景持樂觀態度；12.3%的受訪者相信品牌餐飲業不會使用地溝油；只有8.1%的受訪者認為目前社會中人與人的信任度較高。
針對時下熱議的“老人摔倒該不該扶”問題，高達64.8%的受訪者認為圍觀民眾該扶起老人；26.9%的民眾認為是否該扶不好說，要視情況而定；僅8 %的民眾認為不該扶。調查組工作人員表示，該數據顯示，社會道德觀念雖然存在，但社會的信任危機導致道德判斷受到衝擊。
另一組數據調查顯示，7.2%的民眾認為不扶的主要原因是事不關己，因而冷漠置之；而高達87.4%的民眾認為不能扶老人是因為怕惹禍上身，這其實是社會信任危機的最根本體現；還有5.3%的受訪者認為醫療知識不足、怕給老人帶來更大傷害是不扶老人的主要原因。
(Source: 人民网/人民网教育频道
http://www.chinesedaily.com/news_Read.asp?no=c1027452.txt&catid=3&lanmu=Z09&ver=cn&readdate=10-19-2011)
Related Links:* Lao Luo's blog (Chinese):
Court judgment and more* Beijing Youth Daily (Chinese):
Peng Yu's case and a questionable inner conviction* The Beijing News (Chinese):
When someone falls, will you help them up?* Bloomberg News:【
In China, Don't Dare Help the Elderly】 By Adam Minter Sep 8, 2011 6:10 PM ET
(其二) 發生了意外,市民見死不救夠,是懷疑碰瓷?
根據「互動百科」: 碰瓷，屬北京方言，泛指一些投機取巧，敲詐勒索的行為。例如故意和機動車輛相撞，騙取賠償。此外，“碰瓷”也是古玩業的一句行話，意指個別不法之徒在攤位上擺賣古董時，常常別有用心地把易碎裂的瓷器往路中央擺放，專等路人不小心碰壞，他們便可以藉機訛詐。
碰瓷 - 起源
據說，“碰瓷”是清朝末年的一些沒落的八旗子弟“發明”的。這些人平日里手捧一件“名貴”的瓷器（當然是贗品），行走於鬧市街巷。然後瞅准機會，故意讓行使的馬車不小心“碰”他一下，他手中的瓷器隨即落地摔碎，於是瓷器的主人就“義正詞嚴”的纏住車主按名貴瓷器的價格給予賠償。對這個基本上是趕時間的人進行訛詐（據說成功的機會很高）。久而久之，人們就稱這種行為為“碰瓷”。
碰瓷 - 現狀
“碰瓷”現象伴隨著社會發展而不斷流傳，不斷演化。尤其是進入到21世紀以來，它的花樣不斷地翻新。一般操此種手法的騙子，均具有吸引路人駐足、與陌生人攀談的本領。這種招術的表現手法有很多，其中使用得較多的應當算是“拾金平分”。此外還有：你軋我腳了、你剮了我的車、你把我撞倒了、你碰掉了我的耳挖勺等等。現代的“碰瓷”已呈現團伙作案的趨勢，在一些大城市並出現了以此謀生的人，叫“職業碰瓷黨”。而作案工具已經發生了改變，由破瓷碗改成了平光眼鏡、假手錶、破舊CD機、手機以及廢舊的手提電腦等物，而且性質更加惡劣，多為團伙作案，如敲詐不成，馬上會對事主進行毆打並轉化成搶劫、搶奪，嚴重地侵犯公民的生命、財產安全。
碰瓷 - 遇到碰瓷怎麼辦
最方便可靠，和他說打110，他就會有所顧忌。開始降低金額，如果這時不多可以接受就給他，免得麻煩，如果還是太多或者想出口惡氣就在他降低金額後還是不同意，給110打電話，警察來了和警察說明情況，說出他幾次降低金額等情況暗示他是碰瓷的（別明說，你沒證據（錄音了除外），他反而翻咬你一口說你誹謗）。警察就會明白，帶你們做個筆錄，解決問題。多半碰瓷都是慣犯，附近的片警都認識他們，你一報警來的附近警察就會把他們轟走。
碰瓷 - 防範
一）首先，及時報警，讓警察出面協助解決。敲詐者利用的就是司機怕麻煩的心理，認為司機大多會主動息事寧人，不會報警。當他們看到司機已經報警時，部分作案人在心虛膽怯之下，往往終止了違法犯罪行為，因為這些人一般在當地都有“案底”，怕面對警察後“穿幫”，只有“識趣”地放棄“索賠”了。
二）當車行駛至轉彎或交通混亂路段時要精力集中、細緻觀察，不要有交通違法行為，以防授人以柄。當確認事故與己無關時，要注意保留好現場證據，特別是想法留住目擊證人，切勿私自移動現場。夜間發生事故時，不要急於下車，在弄清情況確認安全後再下車處理，發現異常時要及時報警求助。
三）“謝絕”好心人的調停，故意虛張聲勢以引起路人的注意和同情。有的司機雖然知道自己沒有做錯事情，卻害怕被圍觀，更膽怯警察到場。其實心虛的詐騙者更怕路人看穿其中的“貓膩”，這時司機只要抱定“堅持就是勝利”的信念，以足夠好的態度去爭取圍觀群眾的同情，則會出現有利於己的局面。
四）堅決表明先去醫院為傷者檢查，否則賠款免談的態度；同時盡快通知你的車輛所在的保險公司，熟記保險有關條款，保管好相關票據和事發地事故處理部門的證明材料，以便將自己可能承擔的損失轉由保險公司承擔，達到避免或減少自己損失的目的。
五）車輛與行人發生碰撞或外地車輛在本地發生交通事故時，不能“私了”。票據和事發地事故處理部門的證明材料，以便將自己可能承擔的損失轉由保險公司承擔，達到避免或減少自己損失的目的。
碰瓷 - 法律管理
“碰瓷”其實質屬於詐騙違法犯罪的一種表現形式。嚴重擾亂了社會治安和社會秩序。因此，中華人民共和國《治安管理處罰法》和《刑法》都有相關規定。《治安管理處罰法》第四十九條盜竊、詐騙、哄搶、搶奪、敲詐勒索或者故意損毀公私財物的，處五日以上十日以下拘留，可以並處五百元以下罰款；情節較重的，處十日以上十五日以下拘留，可以並處一千元以下罰款。《刑法》第二百六十六條詐騙公私財物，數額較大的，處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，並處或者單處罰金；數額巨大或者有其他嚴重情節的，處三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，並處罰金；數額特別巨大或者有其他特別嚴重情節的，處十年以上有期徒刑或者無期徒刑，並處罰金或者沒收財產。本法另有規定的，依照規定。
(來源: 互動百科/社會/社會現象/社會問題/詞彙http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E7%A2%B0%E7%93%B7)
(其三) 發生了意外,市民見死不救夠,是人性的冷漠與麻木?
香港文匯報訊 【網友哀別：悅悅走好 天堂無車】 「小寶貝，天堂上不會再有車來車往，也不會再有人性的冷漠與麻木，我們為你祈福！也希望這次小生命的代價換來的是人們的良知。」
「那邊充滿了溫暖的陽光，不再有傷痛，不再有麻木，那裡有的只是快樂和溫馨！更多的孩子平安和庇護。」（記者 敖敏輝 廣州報道）佛山女童被輾事件，最後的遺憾終究還是沒能避免。21日上午，廣州軍區總醫院緊急召開通報會，遺憾地宣佈小悅悅已於當日零時32分因搶救無效死亡。最近幾天，小悅悅牽動著所有人的心。在獲悉小悅悅離開的消息後，無數網友在微博上發帖，寄託哀思。小悅悅事件影響已擴散至全國，這幾天，小悅悅的搶救情況備受關注，不斷傳來病情惡化的消息讓公眾揪心不已。多日以來，來自全國各地的媒體駐守在廣州軍區總醫院，持續報道小悅悅的救治進展。
21日一大早，院方緊急約見媒體，結果，消息印證了眾記者不祥的預感。8時30分，主治醫生蘇磊攜專家組代表，召開了一個短暫的通報會。面對記者，蘇磊遺憾地表示，雖然醫院啟動最高等級搶救方案，集合軍內外最權威專家救治，但因為傷情過重救治無效，於今天零時32分離世。消息公佈，媒體席一片窒息的沉寂。醫院方面表示，對於小悅悅的去世，醫院深感痛惜，也對於連日以來各界媒體的關注表示感謝。蘇磊進一步解釋，小悅悅死亡的重要原因，是因為全腦功能衰竭，接近腦死亡以及全身多個重要器官衰竭。零時32分，小悅悅的心臟停止了調動。
通報會後，不少記者試圖尋找到小悅悅的父母，但都沒有結果。有不願透露姓名的工作人員透露，21日凌晨3時12分，搶救無效的小悅悅的遺體被送出了ICU病房。小悅悅父親在後面跟隨著，神情麻木，雙眼空洞；母親悲慟欲絕，癱坐在椅子上，巨大悲傷徹底擊倒她，她甚至無法起身送別女兒。據介紹，當時小悅悅的父母也一直在搶救現場，他們一直呼喚女兒名字希望奇跡發生，事後，夫妻倆一直沒有現身，醫院沒有透露他們的狀況。小悅悅的離世消息迅速在網上傳開，網友紛紛發言，給小悅悅及其父母最後的留言。「小寶貝，天堂上不會再有車來車往，也不會再有人性的冷漠與麻木，我們為你祈福！也希望這次小生命的代價換來的是人們的良知。」「那邊充滿了溫暖的陽光，不再有傷痛，不再有麻木，那裡有的只是快樂和溫馨！更多的孩子平安和庇護。」(新聞源自: http://trans.wenweipo.com/b5/paper.wenweipo.com/2011/10/22/CH1110220017.htm)
後話:
Just like the reactions of many ppl all over the world (the news was in the Toronto Globe and Mail and other newspaper), the title speaks for itself. RIP Little One !!!
Haricot
(Canada)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Additional readings:【
Ignored toddler doesn’t tell the whole story about China】
Globe and Mail / Beijing — MARK MACKINNON
Update Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:38AM EDT
Shortly after my wife and I first arrived in Beijing three years ago, we went out for dinner at a trendy Yunnanese restaurant not far from the apartment block in the east of the city where we now live. After a fine dinner of spicy chicken, lotus root and the mushrooms for which China’s Yunnan province is famous, we paid our bill and walked out, leaving a modest tip behind as thanks for a dinner well-made and well-served. A few minutes later, the waitress came running up the dark street behind us. “You forgot your change,” she told us, panting. Tipping, we hadn’t yet learned, is not common in China. And as the waitress showed, the vast majority of people here – like anywhere – are honest to a fault. No big revelations in what I just wrote, but it nonetheless felt like it needed to be said.
In the days since the appalling CCTV footage of little
Yueyue being run over twice – and then ignored by an astonishing 18 passersby – has gone viral, tough questions have been asked about how those who walked by could act the way they did (answers are difficult) and whether or not there’s something larger that’s wrong with Chinese society (a fair question being asked by the country’s own citizens and, less directly, its government).
But at times, the discussion – including on The Globe and Mail's website – has struck an uncomfortably racist tone. Some commentators, to my eyes and ears, seemed to suggest that Chinese people were somehow less moral than the rest of us. That’s utter nonsense, and misses what really happened in that Foshan market. Several of the 18 passersby have since been tracked down by Chinese media and questioned about their behaviour. While a few have claimed – improbably – that they didn’t notice the little girl bleeding at their feet, others are clearly wracked with guilt. Why didn’t they intervene? The word “
fear” keeps coming up.
“I was scared,” a woman named Lin – infamous for walking by Yueyue with her own 5-year-old daughter – told Chinese media. “If someone (else) was helping at that time, I would have done the same.”
Her reaction is one many Chinese citizens can understand well. The video of the 18 people ignoring the prone toddler has spawned comment threads millions of posts long on Chinese websites. Many Internet commentators admit they’re not sure they would have done any different. Why? Indifference isn’t the answer. The Chinese I’ve met are anything but indifferent. Going for a walk in Beijing with our own 20-month-old daughter often draws a small crowd of locals. She’s precious, they remind us. Is she warm enough? But the same people will hurry by without stopping if they see someone knocked off their bicycle by a taxi cab (something else that happens regularly in Beijing). Why? The legal system here is unpredictable and unfair to those without money and political connections. Getting involved can often get you in trouble.
The most oft-cited case is that of
Peng Yu, a Nanjing man who stopped to help an elderly lady who fell and broke her hip five years ago. Faced with sky-high medical costs, the 65-year-old lady turned on the Good Samaritan and alleged that he had caused her to fall. In a ruling that cites no evidence whatsoever, the Nanjing court accepted the woman's claims, finding it “at odds with reason” that Mr. Peng would have helped her merely out of the goodness of his heart. He was ordered to pay $6,000 towards the woman’s medical bill.
Mr. Peng’s case is known by an astonishing number of people here, and there are many others like it. The phenomenon is so widespread that when a 75-year-old man fell at a Nanjing bus stop in 2009, no one helped him up until he yelled out “I fell on my own, you all do not need to worry, it had nothing to do with you all.”
As improbable as it may seem to those of us who grew up in Canada, at least some of those 18 passersby were likely frozen by the thought that stopping to help the toddler could lead to being charged with involvement in a horrible crime. The point is, the same people, in another place, might have acted very differently in the same situation. And no one who didn’t grow up in China can know for sure how they would have acted if they were a citizen of the People’s Republic when they came upon little Yueyue. (I was a guest on a BBC World Radio program that discussed Yueyue's case this week. A caller from the Czech Republic reminded listeners that there was nothing uniquely Chinese about the reaction of the 18 passersby, but that anyone who had grown up in an authoritarian state could understand what was going through their minds.) As even China’s official People’s Daily newspaper acknowledged in an editorial this week: “We could all be the pedestrians that walk past the injured girl.”
For all those wondering, little Yueyue remains in intensive care in a Guangzhou hospital, and the doctors treating her
aren’t optimistic she’ll make it. Hearteningly,
donations to help pay for her medical treatment have been pouring in from all over China.
(Haricot: Unfortunately, the little girl died).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
China Daily 【Toddler's fate remains in limbo】
Updated: 2011-10-19 07:53 By Li Wenfang (China Daily)
GUANGZHOU - Yue Yue, the 2-year-old girl who was run over by two vehicles in Foshan, Guangdong province last week, remained close to brain dead as donations poured in for her and her rescuer. "Her situation somewhat meets the standard of brain death," said Wang Weimin with the General Hospital of the Guangzhou Military Command of the People's Liberation Army. "We can say she is close to brain dead, but her pain reflex is very sensitive, which is the only feature not matching brain death," Wang said on Tuesday. Yue Yue still relies on machines for maintaining blood pressure and respiration. Tests on Monday found severe damage in the functions of her brainstem and cerebral cortex. There are a lot of possibilities in the development of her situation and she remains in critical condition, said Su Lei, director of the intensive care unit of the hospital.
Donations have poured in for Yue Yue and her rescuer, the 57-year-old woman Chen Xianmei, who moved the girl to the side of the road and shouted for her parents after the accident.A company based in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, gave 50,000 yuan ($7,850) cash to the girl's father, Wang Chichang, at the hospital on Tuesday. It pledged another 50,000 yuan and a cleaning job at the Foshan branch for Chen. Another company in Dongguan, Guangdong province pledged 500,000 yuan to Yue Yue's family, Chen and the fund in Guangzhou for rewarding those who help others in danger. Representatives from the Guangdong provincial women's federation visited the girl's family at the hospital and called for the public to help others in need. The father said they would go to the bank to check how much they had received and decide what to do with the donations. "We may open an independent account and put it under the supervision of the media," he said.
Chen at first refused to take the reward and then decided she would share it with Yue Yue. "I didn't do it for money. I didn't earn the money. I will feel uneasy if I take it. My daughter asked me not to take any money for fear of unkind words from others," Chen was quoted saying by Southern Metropolitan News. While Chen hoped for a normal life after the bombardments of media interviews, Yue Yue's family also had to deal with a lot they had not expected. Responding to remarks that they had opened a micro blog account for publicity and donations, the father said the micro blog service operator opened the account for them and wrote the micro blogs after learning of Yue Yue's latest situation."I can't express my feelings. I'm only thinking of saving my child. I didn't expect so many unrelated things to happen. I would like to stress that we didn't call for donations."
Many of the 18 people who passed by the girl at the accident scene and did not help denied that they saw the girl or were aware of the situation. One of them, a mother of a five-year-old girl, said she felt "regretful, compassionate, painful at heart and guilty," for seeing Yue Yue but not helping her. "I thought she had fallen down from playing and didn't know she was run over by vehicles until her mother came in tears. "She was bleeding from the mouth and nose and crying faintly. I was scared and my daughter was scared to cry. So we left in a hurry," said the woman surnamed Lin, cited by Guangzhou Daily. "I wanted to lift her, but there was so much blood. I was scared. If someone was helping at that time, I would have done the same."
A lawyer association will be set up as part of the Guangdong Law Society, which will study the practice of refusing to help dying people and push for legislation, said Zhu Yongping, a well-known lawyer at Datong Law Firm in Guangzhou.
Tan Xuezhen contributed to this story.
(Source: China Daily 10/19/2011 page 5 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-10/19/content_13929301.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
新京报网 / 观点 / 综合评论 / 正文
【有人摔倒，你扶不扶？】 · 2007-9-7 7:46:29 · 来源： 新京报
记得小时候写作文时，动辄就是扶老奶奶过马路，要不就扶摔倒的人上医院。那个时候，做好事的代价通常只是上学迟到，虽然会挨老师的批，但“我们的心里却暖烘烘的”。
但近日南京发生的一件事却比较复杂。小伙子（彭某）看到一位老太太倒在公交车站，于是就送她去了医院。这一送的后果惹出了大麻烦。老太太认定这小伙撞了她，还把小伙告上了法庭，索赔13万余元。近日南京市鼓楼区法院作出一审判决，法院认为：小伙子的见义勇为一说缺乏事实证据，不予采信。依据公平原则，判决小伙赔偿老太各项损失45876.36元。(《扬子晚报》9月5日)
这是一场民事侵权赔偿诉讼，适用的是“谁主张谁举证”。老太太要向小伙子索赔，需要先证明确是小伙子撞了自己，而且因为撞了她给她造成了损失。在老太太的证明未成立之前，小伙子是不需要承担证明责任的。换言之，在这个案件中，只要老太太不能证明小伙子撞了她，小伙子对老太太的摔倒就无需承担任何责任。
在民事诉讼中，原告对其主张有举证的义务，这是诉讼公正的前提。否则的话，我们每一个人都可能被卷入到无穷无尽的诉争中去。小伙子是不需要证明他当时确在“见义勇为”。这种简单的举证责任分配，是民事诉讼的常识。
据报道，法院认为：根据彭某自认，他是第一个下车的人，从常理分析，他与老太相撞的可能性较大。如果彭某是见义勇为做好事，更符合实际的做法应是抓住撞倒老太的人，而不仅仅是好心相扶；如果彭某是做好事，根据社会情理，在老太的家人到达后，他完全可以在言明事实经过并让老太的家人将老太送往医院，然后自行离开，但彭某的行为显然与情理相悖。
我们从中可以看出，法官的整个认定过程，都是“根据社会情理”或“从常理分析”，而不是依据老太太提出的证据来加以证明。正是在这样“情理证明”之下，法官将举证责任从原告转移给了被告，进而认定小伙子无法证明其扶老太太进医院是“见义勇为”。
当然，老太太也始终没能证明是小伙子撞了她。或许这就是法官各打五十大板的“理论基础”吧，在“公平原则”之下，小伙子被判令承担部分赔偿责任。
以我等旁观者看来，依据这样的“情理”和“常理”有些可怕，可怕到被告要为原告不能证明的事实埋单。照这样下去，我们以后见人跌倒，扶还是不扶？
王琳（海南 学者）
(Source:
http://www.thebeijingnews.com/comment/zonghe/1044/2007/09-07/018@074629.htm)
***** UPDATED 2011-11-27 *****
Posts
