On the evening of August 1 Sunday 1 40, 2004, when Huang Zhongquan drove a Jetta taxi to take Jiang Wei and his accomplices to the "Wang Defu" building materials supermarket in Changsha Nanhu building materials market, Jiang Wei robbed Huang Zhongquan with a fruit knife about 20 cm long. After grabbing cash 200 yuan and a mobile phone, he pulled out the taxi key and abandoned it at the left front wheel, and quickly fled the scene.
Huang Zhongquan picked up the key and drove to find Jiang Wei and his accomplices. When the car drove to the Sanjiaoping area in front of the store D 1-40 in the "Hundred Years" home building materials area of Nanhu Building Materials Market, Huang Zhongquan found that Jiang Wei and his accomplices wanted to leave on Tang's motorcycle, and Huang hit the front wheel of the motorcycle with his car. Jiang Wei and his accomplices got off the bus and fled, and Huang Zhongquan drove after them. Jiang He waved back the knife in his hand and fled separately with his accomplices.
Slightly tilted, Jiang Wei fled to the stairs at the western end of the boutique cloth city shopping mall. Huang Zhongquan drove quickly from behind Jiang Wei, causing Jiang to fall to the ground. 165438+ at 0: 09 pm, Huang Zhongquan called the police with the car phone 1 10. After forensic identification, Jiang Wei died of hemorrhagic shock.
More than five months after the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court, after a closed trial, made a final judgment on the case of Huang Ge Zhongquan killing the robber: it rejected the appeals of both the original defendant and upheld the original judgment. This means that Huang Zhongquan is still sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison. Since August last year, the case that Changsha citizens are most concerned about and debated has finally come to an end.
On March 23, 2005, the Furong District Court of Changsha made a first-instance judgment: Huang Zhongquan committed the crime of intentional injury, but surrendered after the incident, and the victim Jiang Wei was at great fault. He was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and compensated Jiang Wei's father for economic losses of 36,998.78 yuan. After receiving the verdict, Huang Zhongquan and Jiang Wei's father, Jiang Zaisheng, both expressed dissatisfaction and appealed. Jiang Zaisheng believes that the economic loss caused by Jiang Wei's death is 6.5438+0.2 million yuan, which should be fully compensated by Huang Zhongquan. Huang Zhongquan believes that it belongs to self-defense and is not guilty.
After the verdict of Huang Zhongquan's case was pronounced in the first instance, it aroused heated discussion among citizens and political and legal circles, and some units also held seminars. Lawyer Huang Zhongquan is defended free of charge by Professor Qiu Xinglong, one of the top ten outstanding young jurists in China and the most prestigious criminal law scholar in Hunan Province.
At yesterday's sentencing meeting, the collegial panel of the second instance made a more full explanation: Jiang Wei and his associates had fled from Huang Zhongquan's field of vision after the robbery, so Jiang Wei was no longer in an "ongoing state of illegal infringement", so Huang Zhongquan's behavior of driving into Jiang Wei was not excessive defense, but intentional injury. The court of second instance held that Huang Zhongquan's criminal facts and circumstances that can be given a lighter or mitigated punishment according to law have been fully reflected in the judgment of first instance. The whole case upheld the original judgment.
Three focuses of trial
Focus 1: Do robbers fight with knives or not?
During the pursuit, Huang Zhongquan and Jiang Wei confronted each other for more than 10 second, and the distance between them was only 2 meters. Prior to this, Jiang Wei and his associates waved a 20-cm-long knife at Huang Zhongquan during their escape. This plot became the basis for most people to support Huang Zhongquan.
Huang Zhongquan's defender said in the second trial: Huang Zhongquan's pursuit is absolutely legal and belongs to the category of wringing. On the way to escape, Jiang Wei and others waved knives, which were the murder weapon, and the threat had already arisen. If Huang is not blocked by vehicles, he will naturally fall into a more dangerous situation, then the other party is the murderer, and Huang Zhongquan has the conditions for self-defense again.
The judgment of the second instance affirmed the act of self-help, saying: Chinese laws encourage citizens to fight criminals, give citizens the right to arrest and hand over criminal suspects to political and legal organs, and at the same time, they can take self-help and self-defense when they are illegally infringed. In this case, Jiang Wei's robbery should undoubtedly be punished by law, and Huang Zhongquan's taking appropriate measures to save himself is beyond reproach. However, the collegiate bench believes that judging from the facts of the whole case, Jiang Wei and others are eager to escape after robbing the money, and they are in a passive position. There is no intention or possibility to hurt Huang Zhongquan again. Jiang Wei and others brandished knives at Huang on the way to escape, mainly to stop Huang Zhongquan's pursuit and facilitate his escape. Therefore, Huang Zhongquan's defense claim is not established.
Focus 2: Countering robbery, self-defense or intentional injury?
Whether it belongs to self-defense is the basic point of defending Huang Zhongquan.
The judgment of the second instance analyzed this. The court held that the key to determining whether counterattack or counterattack injury belongs to legitimate defense lies in whether the injured object is committing illegal infringement. If it is in the following four States, it does not constitute the premise of legitimate defense: 1, the object is not committing illegal infringement; 2. The object is only prepared to commit unlawful infringement; 3. The object has committed an illegal infringement, but the act has been suspended; 4. Although the object has been illegally infringed, it is in the final state. In other words, the allowable time of justifiable defense is the period from the beginning to the end of unlawful infringement.
In this case, Jiang Wei and his accomplices pulled out the key after the robbery and fled from Huang Zhongquan's field of vision, indicating that Jiang Wei and others' illegal infringement of Huang Zhongquan has come to an end and there is no real danger of continuing or attacking Huang Zhongquan again. Huang Zhongquan's driving after Jiang Wei has no defensive significance in essence. It is a new attack and injury, and it is a crime of intentional injury.
Focus 3: Is the guilty verdict affectionate or heartless?
On the night of the incident, Huang Zhongquan confronted Jiang Wei for the first time, nearly 10 seconds. After Jiang arrived at the stairs on the west side of Boutique Cloth City, Huang Zhongquan opened a brother who had the courage to fight the robbers, but he had to spend three years and six months in prison and lose money to the other party. Is this a rude judgment?
Liu, the presiding judge of the second instance, said after the verdict that the verdict had actually taken this into account. Generally, the case of intentional injury causing death is at least 10 years in prison, and the mitigated punishment in this case is close to the bottom line allowed by law. The judgment also wrote many times: "Jiang Wei's robbery has a great induction and stimulation effect on Huang Zhongquan's crime, and he has the responsibility of fault beforehand, so he can be given a lighter or mitigated punishment in combination with his surrender."
Netizen's reply to this case:
: reply to tomroo's article:
According to the judgment of the court, should we understand this: after the criminals robbed us and escaped from our sight, if we want to catch the criminals, can we only pursue them in a "civilized" way? For example, we should rationally and emotionally say to gangsters: Little darling, put down the knife and come to your uncle and aunt, and your uncle and aunt will kiss you. ...
======================================
: reply to tomroo's article:
It seems that the court suggested that the robbers should be dealt with like this after being robbed:
Xiao Min: Can I get my money back?
Bandit: Joke! Should I give it back to you and rob you? (poof! Gave the victim a knife. )
Man: ouch! It hurts like hell! This is a criminal act!
Bandit: Am I stupid? I don't know? (poof! Gave the victim a knife. )
Man: ouch! It hurts like hell! If you don't kill me again!
Bandit: How dare you! You have to bear legal responsibility! (poof! Gave the victim a knife. )
Min: Judge! What should I do?
Judge: You can defend yourself and catch robbers, but only if you can't hurt them.
Min: I can't do that! Difficult!
Judge: The law is to protect the vulnerable groups.
Bandit: Yes, I don't even know this. How did you learn the law? (poof! Gave the victim a knife. )
Min: I can't stand it!
Judge: You can call 1 10 first, and then call your lawyer if you want to go to court.
Bandit: Then I'll go first!
Min: Let's go. I'm in too much pain.
Judge: Goodbye!