香港昨天發生的搶槍事件，相信大家都看到了。四個暴徒從四個方向依次衝向警察，有抱腰的有奪槍的，要不是阿sir訓練有素，估計早被他們搶走了。
但是西方媒體又是怎麼報導的呢？
美聯社第一時間出了消息，原文及翻譯如下：
「一段網絡傳播的視頻顯示，一名警官抓住一名抗議者的衣領，然後朝另一名接近的(抗議者)開槍。當第三名抗議者接近時，這名警官再度開槍。」
「警方稱一名抗議者中槍，正在接受治療。」
Online video showed a police officer collaring one protester and then shooting another who approaches. The officer fired again as a third protester approached. Police said only one protester was hit and is undergoing surgery.美聯社不愧百年大社，細節描寫很到位，連「抓衣領」都沒有放過。只可惜抓了芝麻丟了西瓜，視頻裡顯示的不止一位暴徒搶槍，這麼明顯的動作，美聯社咋就沒看到呢？
What the AP did not tell you and will never tell you, as the video below shows, is the "protester" was attacking the police officer before the latter "collared" him. And the second one who was hit did more than approach — He tried to take the pistol by wrenching it away.
同樣的細節，路透社也報了。
「一名穿白色衛衣、戴面具的抗議者走向一名警察，好像要挑戰他。警察拔槍對準這個人，並勒住他脖子。」
A protester wearing a white hoodie and mask walks towards a policeman, as if to challenge him. The officer draws his gun and points it at him at close range and grabs him round the neck.「警察用左手抓住這個人的同時，向另外一名靠近的戴面具的抗議者開槍。三槍過後，此人倒地。」
As the officer holds the man with his left hand, he shoots another approaching masked protester at close range with his right hand. Three shots ring out and the man falls to the ground.細節來細節去，就是不提暴徒搶槍的事情。視頻裡顯示的清清楚楚，那幾個人是這麼「靠近」的：
在美國，誰要敢這麼「靠近」警察，早被打成篩子了……
而且西方媒體用詞都是「抗議者」。對搶警察槍的人，用這個詞，實在有點不合適。有啥不滿可以通過合法渠道反映，搶槍打人的就只能叫「暴徒」，用「抗議者」都有點侮辱這個詞。
It is doubtful whether a person trying to rob a pistol should be called a "protester". If he means to show his discontent with something, he can say so in public instead of robbing a pistol and attacking the police officer holding it. "Rioter" is a more suitable word for these hooligans.美聯社報導裡還特意提到一處細節，工作做得比檢察官都紮實：
「在一處警戒線裡邊，有一灘看似乾涸的血跡樣的東西，而圍觀者正在咒罵警察。」
"A patch of what looked like dried blood could be seen in a cordoned-off area after the shooting, as angry onlookers shouted insults at the police."
這攤所謂的「血跡」視頻裡也有，而且旁邊還有倆大活人呢。一位警察正在扶著那位中槍的暴徒，明顯想救助他。
但這一切細節，西方媒體都沒有報，就報了「警察開槍」。想想看，如果是西方國家的普通民眾讀到了，會怎樣想？腦子裡缺根弦的可能已經跑到社交媒體上罵開了……
當然，也不能說西方媒體逢警必反，那對這些同行們也不夠公正。西方國家遇到麻煩、滿大街都是靚麗的風景線的時候，西方媒體就傾向於力挺警方。
It would be unfair to say Western media always stands against the police in riots.法國「黃背心」運動是，路透社是這麼報導的：
「數十名戴黑色遮擋的示威者向警方投擲石頭，有一些還對著摩託車和垃圾箱放火——這些都發生在法國首都中心地帶。警方用催淚瓦斯和震爆彈予以回敬。」
"Dozens of black-hooded demonstrators threw rocks at police and some set fire to scooters and trash cans in the center of the French capital" and "Police responded by firing tear gas and stun grenades".巴塞隆納大示威中，路透社是這麼描述的：
「隨著夜幕降臨，戴面具的年輕人在離警方指揮部不遠處堵了一條寬闊大大道，對垃圾箱放火，並對著防暴安全人員陣列投擲了大量石頭、廢棄館子以及瓶子。」
"As night fell, masked youths blocked a broad boulevard close to the city's police headquarters, setting fire to large garbage bins and throwing a hail of stones, cans and bottles toward massed lines of security forces in full riot gear".CNN是這麼報導的：
「周五的現場視頻顯示防暴警察直面抗議者，後者有人向警方投擲物品。垃圾箱也被點燃，這在過去的一周裡是很常見的場面。」
Video from the scenes on Friday showed riot police facing off against protestors, some of whom threw objects at the police. Garbage containers were set on fire, a common sight in the past week.從這些案例中，不難總結出西方媒體的一條規律：問題發生在西方，挺警隊、挺國家。問題發生在中國香港，挺暴徒。
When things happen in Paris or Barcelona, Western media outlets side with those who defend order. When similar things happen in Hong Kong, Western media outlets side with those who demolish it.事實上，按照香港《警察通例》關於槍械使用的規定，警務人員可在下列情況下使用槍枝：
1. 為了保護包括自己在內的任何人，以免生命受到危害或身體受到損傷；
2. 有理由相信某人犯嚴重暴力罪行應當加以拘捕或犯嚴重暴力犯罪的疑犯企圖拒捕；
3. 平息騷動或暴動。
而且香港警察拔槍、拿槍指人、開槍事後都要寫報告的，被幾個人一起奪槍的情況下，拔槍開槍是完全符合程序的。
據《北京日報》報導，在警員開槍並制服暴徒後，有在場公眾鼓掌撐警員。無論是法律還是民意上，警方都做的沒問題。但西方媒體就是看不見，就報導「警察開槍了」。
還能說什麼呢？
撰稿：張周項 王晗
動圖：潘一僑