论文部分内容阅读
围绕具体犯罪对武装掩护展开讨论尽管可以提供具有可操性的结果,却无法证成自己有多大的普遍性。惟有走出个案,借助类型化的思维路径才能使其规范内涵范围和边界得以明确。具体而言,武装掩护与武装叛乱、暴乱罪中的“武装”刑法含义不尽相同;武装“掩护”行为需要现实化,仅携带武器不宜一概认定为武装掩护;武装“掩饰”行为同样具有提升法定刑的理由;武装掩护的侵害对象应限定为执法人员或社会公众。
The discussion of armed cover-up around specific crimes can not justify much of its own universality, though it can provide actionable results. Only out of the case, with the help of a type of thinking path to make its normative scope and boundaries can be clear. In particular, the criminal law of “armed” in armed cover-up and armed rebellion and riot crimes is not the same; the armed “cover-up” acts need to be realistic and weapons should not be regarded as armed cover only; armed “masks ”Act also has the reason to promote legal punishment; the target of armed cover should be limited to law enforcement officers or the general public.