由警械使用探討即時強制的，法理困境及解決之道

Discussion on the Dilemma and Solutions of Immediate Coercion from Using Police Weapons

警械使用條例在性質上屬於公法體系的一環，惟該條例第12條對合法使用者，卻採用刑法阻卻違法之依法令行為的概念，此為困惑之一；其次，警械使用不但包括行政預防，亦涵蓋刑事追訴之情形，分別規定於該條例第4條第1項第3款及第5款，司法實務通常僅就警械使用與條文對照作出判決，而未將之納入行政法或刑事法領域，進行類型化審查，造成體系架構不明，此為困惑之二。本文闡述行政法之行政任務、行政職權及行政執行的三階段功能，認為警械使用不屬於刑法阻卻違法架構下的依法令之行為，而是應歸類在行政法體系，融入行政執行領域中探討，進而論述我國即時強制的法理困境，剖析其繼受德國法時的誤解，並建構警械使用適用即時強制的授權基礎及合法性要件。刑事訴訟法對於強制處分中的強制力使用，並未規定使用之要件，經由法律解釋，認為強制力係得違反犯罪嫌疑人或被告之意思，且不僅僅是犯行追緝的刑事司法之思維，亦含有危害防止之行政預防的成分，因此，得援引行政法即時強制制度，然其與警察雙重功能措施及法規競合無涉，乃需辨明之處。

"The Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons is part of public law; however, the Article 12 adopts the concept of the Criminal Code to legal justification which is in confusion. As regards the use of police weapons, it includes not merely administrative prevention but criminal justice which stipulates in Subparagraphs 3 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4. Another confusion is the practice of justice usually only judge by the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons which isn’t subsumed under the Administrative Law or Criminal Law and results in an unclear system structure.This research discusses three-stage function of the Administrative Law: administrative task, administrative authority and administrative execution, and considers that using police weapons is not a conduct which performed in accordance with law or order. It should fall under the Administrative Law and expound the dilemma of immediate coercion in Taiwan. In addition, this research will analyze the misunderstanding of German Law, and construct the basic authorization and legality elements for using police weapons.The Code of Criminal Procedure does not stipulate the elements of exercising compulsion, and interpret through the law, compulsion is against a suspected or an accused will. This is not only the criminal justice thinking of pursued criminal offenses, but administrative prevention of deterrence of danger. Therefore, it has to quote from immediate coercion of the Administrative Law; nevertheless, it doesn’t involved the dual function of the police and the concurrence of regulations which need to clarify."