Suppose the other party drags the woman in white out of the room and violently beats her. At this time, the woman in white killed one of them with a broken wine bottle.
Suppose in the second case, the woman in black slapped the woman in white with a wine bottle after the man in green slapped her, causing her to die on the spot.
In fact, many people's answers are based on the assumption that the woman in white who was beaten was violently exported by the other side, which is very shocking from the perspective of onlookers. As a victim, she must be extremely scared and helpless. At this point, if she used a broken wine bottle to cause one of the perpetrators to die, it was theoretically considered as self-defense. In the judicial field, there is a concept of unlimited defense right, which means that the perpetrator takes defensive actions against violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, such as beating, murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc., resulting in unlawful infringement of personal casualties, which is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. The situation faced by the woman in white can be regarded as a group of people "attacking" her, and the degree is more serious, so it meets the requirements of unlimited defense rights and does not need to bear legal responsibility for the death of the other party when resisting.
In the incident of beating people in Tangshan, the violence scene of the woman in white was worse than that of Hamming. In the face of the continuous beatings of three perpetrators and the attacks on their bodies and heads with beer bottles, the level of violence has been escalating. In this case, if the woman in white killed her opponent with a broken wine bottle, it also met the conditions of self-defense.
The only situation that may constitute excessive defense is that after the perpetrator stops the violence, the woman in white picks up the bottle and kills one of them, which is a typical after-the-fact defense and may be considered as excessive defense. However, because the attacker's behavior was too bad, the woman in white panicked and was afraid of being beaten twice, so she made a delay in defense and the judicial organs would handle it lightly. Therefore, from the perspective of the woman in white, there is basically no excessive defense, provided that she has the ability to fight back.
However, if we assume the second situation, the man in green fails to strike up a conversation and slaps each other after a physical conflict with the woman in white. The woman in black hit the man in green with a wine bottle, causing him to die on the spot. This does not constitute self-defense, but it belongs to the crime of intentional injury in criminal law, causing death, but there are circumstances that can be dealt with lightly. Because when the woman in black hits the other person's head with a wine bottle, the violence between the two sides has not escalated, from language conflict to shoving, and then to the man in green slapping the woman in white. At this time, the woman in black hit the other person's head with a wine bottle, which is actually an escalation of the conflict between the two sides.
If the man in green was violently killed here, then the tragedy behind him does not exist. After all, the main abuser has died, and several helpers who rushed in to help outside the house saw a woman who had the ability to kill her with one blow, and there was a high probability that she would be scared to death and took the initiative to call the police for asylum. Then the most serious consequences will be transferred to the bottle of the woman in black, and the direction of discussion will become "whether it is justified to kill women in public" and "whether verbal and physical harassment of men should be regarded as extreme violence".
In the judicial field, although the woman in black killed the man in green, it was the man in green who was at fault. Moreover, after the man in green slapped the woman in white, the woman in black attacked each other with a wine bottle in an emotional state, which inadvertently led to her death. This is a light plot of intentional injury to death. Yes, if this wine bottle becomes the end of the incident, then the woman in black can't be considered as a defensive act. First of all, she is not the object of direct infringement. Secondly, the other party's violent behavior can't hedge her intentional injury, and it has caused serious consequences, so it is very likely to be directly identified as intentional injury, but because the other party has provocative behavior first, it can be dealt with lightly. But we leave these hypothetical parallel universes and return to reality to reflect on this beating incident.
Several murdered women did not die in one blow, and even their resistance became an opportunity for the other side to escalate their violence. Faced with the escalating violence of several batters, several women can't even protect themselves. The most seriously injured woman in white is still lying in the hospital for treatment, and her injury determines the conviction and sentencing of several batters.
After all, keyboard superman can open God's perspective on the Internet and overlook the whole process of the whole event. However, as a person who dines at the scene, when he sees a violent conflict between the two sides, he may not even know who hit anyone, nor can he accurately judge who should be the object of being brave. Therefore, it is the greatest courage for them to help the victims afterwards and actively collect evidence and call the police. Teacher Luo Xiang's article can be said to hit the nail on the head: the law should encourage good deeds and advocate the wind of being brave. But what the law can do is not so much, and more often it depends on people's moral self-discipline. And this kind of self-discipline is far more important than heteronomy of law.