After the incident of beating people in Tangshan, the whole network set off a wave of discussion
After the incident of beating people in Tangshan, the whole network set off a wave of discussion frenzy.
Of course, it is no problem to criticize this matter, but some people deliberately take it to the wrong rhythm, not only raising the evil deeds of sporadic bullies to the point of denying the whole of China, but also deliberately guiding it from the perspective of creating greater violence in society and advocating violence by everyone.
Even calling on everyone to hold a knife, stabbing if someone hits you, or even claiming that someone hits you and shoots with a gun, should be considered as legitimate defense. If it is not allowed, it means that the country is unfair and the law is unfair.
Police accounts in various places came out urgently to popularize the law, saying what is justifiable defense, but it was not understood by the public and was sprayed to pieces.
For example, the Shaanxi police made a video saying that they were beaten, and it is not recommended to fight back.
This law popularization video makes it very clear that if you are beaten and want to fight back, there must be a premise that the other party endangers your life.
If the other person doesn't endanger your life, then you can't fight back. All you have to do is run away immediately and call the police, and then the police will severely punish each other.
If you are slightly injured, the other party will be detained and fined.
If it is a minor injury or more, then the other party will bear criminal responsibility, and if you want a light sentence, you need to beg your forgiveness.
But Shaanxi police once again stressed that this is not endangering your life, so you can't fight back. Fight back rashly, winning the prison and losing the hospital.
It is not allowed to strike back rashly. Unless your life is in danger, you will either go to prison or be hospitalized. This is the conclusion given by Shaanxi police.
This conclusion is actually very common, and many police stations have posted such announcements at the door.
But obviously, the public cannot accept such a conclusion.
I was defeated. Why am I not allowed to fight back? If I resist, I'll go to jail or be hospitalized?
With what? I asked you why.
Shaanxi police were sprayed because they shot and sprayed everywhere, just because they only talked about conclusions and didn't talk about anything.
The police are right, the reason is hard to say, the content is a bit long, but it will definitely increase your knowledge, please wait patiently.
Many people say that China's self-defense is vague, the conditions are difficult to achieve, and ordinary people can't defend themselves at all.
But in fact, you are wrong. China's self-defense is clearly written, which is good for the whole society. As long as you know the law, it's easy to do.
Article 20 of China's Criminal Law stipulates that taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which seriously endanger personal safety, resulting in unlawful infringement of personal casualties, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
Murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, the charges are very clear. When you are subjected to such violent crimes, you have unlimited defense rights. As long as the other party does not turn around and run away, even if you cause casualties, it is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
The definition of beating is a bit vague, between intentional homicide and intentional injury. Generally speaking, the court will make a judgment according to the actual situation and has great discretion.
For example, in the Tangshan beating case, when a drunken punk dressed in green molested a woman dressed in white, he directly touched someone and committed the crime of stirring up trouble/sexual harassment.
The woman in white retaliated by calling the man in green a pervert, which is not illegal at this time.
If the man in green slaps the woman in white directly, he will continue to commit the crime of provocation or intentional injury.
At this time, the most controversial point appeared. The woman in white, the woman in black, grabbed the beer bottle directly and shot the man in green in the head.
If the time ends here and the police end the fight instantly, then the woman in black does not belong to justifiable defense, nor does it belong to a courageous act. She will be taken away by the police and the man in green and punished according to the fight.
However, the time did not end and the police did not appear. After the man in green was furious, he gathered his accomplices, including 7 men and 2 women, a total of 9 people. They besieged the white woman, beat her up and shot her in the head with beer bottles.
At this time, the accomplices of the man in green, 7 men and 2 women, committed the crime of affray, and at the same time, the act of attacking the woman in white can be upgraded to "intentional homicide".
According to the degree of public opinion and the discretion of the court, it is not a big problem to escalate this injury to "murder".
If a woman in black picks up a beer bottle and shoots her head, strictly speaking, it is not justifiable defense, because it happened before the "murder case".
However, the beer bottle of the woman in black did not hit the nail on the head, nor did it cause serious consequences such as the death or serious injury of the man in green. Even if the time is suspended, the beer bottle will be punished immediately after the head is shot, and the responsibility is very small. In addition, 20 years ago, the accomplices of nine people, including the man in green, were obviously evil forces, and the atrocities shocked the whole country, so this little thing was forgotten.
However, this does not mean that it is self-defense to strike back after being beaten or blow your head off a beer bottle. If you take a knife out of your body and stab the perpetrator on the spot, it is not self-defense.
Seven men and two women, including the man in green, will be severely punished by law. This kind of atrocity will be judged severely and quickly, but it does not mean that beer bottles can be encouraged to blow their heads or even carry knives with them to prepare thoughts and articles for stabbing people.
Such remarks are harmful.
Let's go back to the beginning. Suppose you were slapped. Is it excusable to strike back at this time?
Simply put, because a slap is very light, it does not belong to murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping and other acts, so as long as you fight back, no matter what means, it does not belong to self-defense.
It's actually a fight between two people. No matter who made the first move, when he saw the police at the police station, although his face was swollen, he was not slightly injured, let alone seriously injured. Then you will be regarded as a fight directly, and you will be too lazy to care about cause and effect.
Many people like to call the police after fighting, saying that he started the fight. Comrade police, you must arrest him and make him pay me back. I have proof. This is video from a camera.
Even if there is a video, even if the other party does strike first, but you strike back, it is a fight, or forget it, otherwise the police will arrest you both and punish you both.
Of course, if one party is slightly injured or seriously injured and the other party is fine, it will be treated as intentional injury, but it is still not considered who moved the hand, but who is seriously injured and who is justified.
In fact, this is how the police station works. If you don't understand this, you, not others, will suffer.
As for why this is done, there are also reasons.
First of all, when someone slaps you in the face, if you are allowed to defend yourself, to what extent?
Someone slapped you, and then you took out a knife and stabbed him to death without saying a word. Is it self-defense?
Obviously, if this kind of behavior is considered as self-defense, then the whole society will be in chaos.
Gangs specializing in crime will develop methods of killing innocent people, specifically provoking you, insulting your mother, insulting your daughter, insulting your family, breaking through your bottom line and deliberately encouraging you to do it.
As long as you are emotional, do something, such as pushing and shoving.
Then the other party will stab you with a knife, and then say it's self-defense.
You think you slapped him because he insulted your family, but after all, he just said it, and you said it, so he didn't kill you.
After my death, I went to hell. Are you satisfied?
I'm definitely not going to accept it, am I? The villain is obviously the other side. Why do I have to take full responsibility for killing me first? Even after killing you, the other party can generously say that they will not hold you accountable for the 50 taels of medical expenses you should pay, because he killed you in self-defense.
Therefore, it is impossible for someone to slap you in the face and the law allows you to directly kill the other person.
Will he be seriously injured if he is not killed?
Of course not, for the same reason.
Even minor injuries.
The minor injuries recognized by law are completely different from those recognized by ordinary people. The face is swollen and looks miserable, at most it is a minor legal injury.
Even the fracture of the inner wall of the orbit and the fracture of the nasal bone are minor injuries, not to mention the swelling of the skin.
More than 2 broken ribs are considered as minor injuries, and more than 6 broken ribs are considered as minor injuries.
A broken lung is a serious injury.
Let's give a more specific example. The little finger was cut off only slightly, and the metacarpal fracture was only slightly injured.
Therefore, it is certainly unreasonable to allow a person to have a minor injury such as an orbital fracture or a metacarpal fracture after being slapped.
Then someone slaps me, and I slap others, okay? This is not too much.
The problem is not big, but this kind of behavior is to intensify contradictions.
There are two situations at this time. The person who slaps you is either a gangster or an ordinary person.
What happens when a gangster who is used to violent crimes slaps you and then you slap him again?
Obviously, this will only stimulate the ferocity of gangsters, and then you will suffer more harm than you can imagine.
Ordinary people who can't even accept a minor injury like a broken nasal bone, it's best not to provoke gangsters who beat people into minor or even serious injuries at every turn. This is for your own good, because the police are not gods, and it is impossible to rush to the scene to save you at the moment when the gangsters commit crimes.
Wait for the gangster to finish beating you, and then the police will arrest him. Even if the punishment is severe, what can it do? You'll hurt yourself.
If the other party is an ordinary citizen, it is a typical public security case in which ordinary citizens slap you in the face. The other party does not have the ability and psychological preparation to cause great harm, and you will not be hurt too much. You can choose to call the police and give it to the police.
However, when there are conditions to call the police, don't call the police, don't let the police intervene, and slap him in the face. This is obviously an intentional attack on each other's bodies. He has the intention of hurting your body, but you also have the intention of hurting his body. It's normal to judge each other for fighting.
At the same time, your slap back will lead to the expansion of the situation, the escalation of violence on both sides, resulting in an increase in the total degree of social violence.
Obviously, the law will not support such behavior.
To sum up, when you are slapped, no matter who or what the other person is, as long as it does not endanger your life, the law does not support you to fight back. I suggest you run away immediately and call the police.
You are allowed to fight back when your life is in danger, because if you lose your life, the law can't help you even if you catch a gangster and punish him, so you are allowed to fight back indefinitely.
However, when your life is not threatened, the punishment for hitting people by law is far greater than the fist you strike back.
If you don't believe me, you can slap someone next time you encounter a conflict. As long as the other party doesn't fight back, just lie down and call the police, and you will know whether the punishment of fist is greater or the punishment of law is greater.
In fact, this kind of legislation in China follows a spirit, that is, the total amount of social contradictions and violence must be reduced.
If the total amount of social violence increases after the implementation of the law, then this is a bad law and should be amended.
If the total amount of social violence decreases after the implementation of the law, then this is a good law and should not be amended.
To put it simply, under the legislative spirit of China, China citizens have the obligation to make concessions.
Concession obligation runs through all the system construction and legal provisions in China, and a harmonious society is also the embodiment of this spirit.
This concession obligation is more obvious in the most common conflict field, the handling of traffic accidents.
However, China's laws also set a bottom line for the concession obligation, and you can use violence when the major vicious violence prescribed by law comes.
However, there are limits to this violence. The law allows you to use small violence to stop big violence, but never allows you to use big violence to stop small violence.
What you must do is to reduce and reduce the total amount of violence in society. This is possible, but not the opposite.
China's laws resolutely oppose the private relief of citizens, the escalation of contradictions, and the suppression of violence with violence.
You can call the police when you are attacked by violence, but you can never stop this violence with greater violence.
Whether to carry weapons is an important criterion to determine the scale of violence.
Basically, whoever is armed will be untenable, and the unarmed party will trigger self-defense.
These so-called machines refer to knives, guns, sticks, stones, bricks and so on. There is basically no controversy. In fact, tables, chairs, mazars, beer bottles, etc. , according to the specific situation analysis, to determine whether it belongs to the machine.
For example, A and B had a fight in the playground. The two sides fought a standard war. As a result, A suddenly took out a knife and planned an attack. With his bare hands, B temporarily picked up a stone from the ground, and a punch hit A in the head, causing him serious injuries, which belonged to self-defense.
This is a typical case of who is armed, because you deliberately arm to amplify social violence and increase the total social casualties.
Another example is random street clashes.
A deliberately attacked B with his fist, but B took out the knife he carried with him to fight back, causing A to be seriously injured. This is not self-defense, B is at least over-defensive, or suspected of intentional injury.
A deliberately attacked B with a knife, and then B grabbed A's knife, or temporarily picked up bricks, sticks, beer bottles, etc. Fighting back from the side of the road, causing A to die, belongs to self-defense and does not assume responsibility.
A deliberately attacked B with his fist, and then B hit back with his fist, hitting A's key. If A is not seriously injured, it is a public security case. The police each beat 50 boards and treated them with mud. If A is seriously injured, it will be classified as a criminal case, and it is difficult for B to defend himself excessively. The high probability is intentional injury. Considering A's initiative, the judge will give B a light sentence at most.
Unless B can prove with his fist that A is a threat to his life, he really has no choice. If he doesn't fight back, he will surely die. There is no better choice. This is almost impossible to prove, and it is almost impossible in practice.
Therefore, when one side takes the initiative to attack, unless a knife is used, the best result of the other side is to run away and call the police, and don't fight back.
Whoever is armed and escalated by force is indefensible, and whoever is seriously injured is indefensible, and both sides are unarmed and have not caused casualties, so it is considered a fight.
Whether to fight first will give due consideration to increasing certain guilt, but it definitely does not mean that the opponent who fights back can be exempted.
If you want to be completely exonerated, then reduce the violence to zero, fulfill the obligation of civil concession yourself, don't start work at all, and call the police directly. At this time, the police 100% is on your side.
This kind of law does not allow good people to be wronged and bad people to succeed. In order to compensate citizens who fulfill their concession obligations and punish those who increase the total amount of social violence and conflicts, the law also sets a great punishment for provocateurs.
You obviously just slapped each other, causing little harm to each other. Why do the police have to pay thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars after they come, and they may be arrested and detained?
As for it?
Just slap, really not that heavy punishment, but in order to balance, it must be done.
Knowing the above legislative spirit, you can easily understand what to do in self-defense.
First of all, the violence you use in defense must be less than or equal to the violence used by the other side, otherwise it is at least excessive defense.
Secondly, when the other party escapes and stops using violence, you can't continue to use violence, otherwise it will be too defensive.
Give a few practical cases, so that everyone can understand these two sentences more deeply.
China has a master of kung fu named Chen Hehao, who is different from the ordinary China martial arts master. His martial arts school is the only martial arts school in China with a murder record.
Generally, martial arts experts are all like this, advocating that harmony is the most important thing in martial arts.
Chen Hehao's painting style is like this.
When Chen Hehao used to take part in competitions, he was characterized by shouting, messy steps and exaggerated gestures. When you hit someone, you only play the third way and try your best to kick the gear.
Normal Wulin people's comments on Chen Hehao are negative words such as "no martial arts" and "mad dog boxing", and no one has ever said anything nice about him.
Don't blame them for their negative remarks. After all, Chen Hehao invented Kung Fu, which can write biting the neck as a special action.
Biting tricks can be invented, which is really incompatible with other sects.
However, Chen Hehao's disciples killed four people and injured 1 1 people, all of whom were sentenced to self-defense.
The first method taught by Chen Hehao as a disciple was criminal law.
Disciples of Chen Hehao Education, when encountering gangsters, must make less moves, and it is best to only make moves, even if one blow kills you, you are also defending yourself legally. Secondly, you must warn the other party before you shoot, and make a very sharp animal cry to threaten the other party not to approach.
At this time, if the other party is still approaching, then you will fight back, and no one will say that you are not.
In 200 1 year, disciple Feng's father and brother were blocked by a village bully 1 1 man and a wooden stick at home and were injured. Feng killed 1 person with his bare hands, injured 2 people, scared off 9 people, and was sentenced to self-defense. The 9 people who escaped had to pay Feng's medical expenses in turn.
The core reason for being convicted of self-defense is that the other side deliberately made trouble, with many people and holding wooden sticks and other equipment, while Feng fought back passively and unarmed.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with self-defense.
In 2002, disciple Ada had an argument with seven hooligans in Dongguan. After the quarrel, seven hooligans chased Ada with watermelon knives. Then Ada took out scissors, which were handed down from the teachers in the sect. Fighting while running, 1 one person died and three people were seriously injured. She was sentenced to self-defense and did not need to bear the responsibility.
The core reason of self-defense is that seven gangsters took the lead in cutting people with controlled knives such as watermelon knives, which triggered unlimited right to fight back. Ada's scissors belong to ordinary residents. Ada didn't pursue the plot, but fled and fought just to protect himself. She stopped after the other person died 1 and was seriously injured 3.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with self-defense.
In 2005, disciple Luo Shengui and his girlfriend were stolen by thieves while taking a bus in Shenzhen. When Luo Shengui found out, he stopped it loudly. After they got off the bus, they were stopped by three thieves, and then the thieves took out a dagger.
Subsequently, Luo Shengui fought with three knife-wielding gangsters with scissors, causing three thieves 1 to die and two seriously injured, which was deemed as self-defense.
The other side starts first, with a knife. Luo Shengui is passive in self-defense, and there is nothing wrong with killing and hurting people.
Zhang Zezhong, the only disciple convicted of excessive defense, was surrounded by 1 1 in 2000. 1 died, four people were seriously injured, and the remaining six people turned and fled. Then Zhang Zezhong forgot his teaching and had the plot of pursuing six people.
Because of chasing this action, Zhang Zezhong was sentenced to be responsible for what happened after the chase, because at this time he was an active violent person.
Because there were no casualties, he was sentenced to excessive defense and compensated for medical expenses of 2000 yuan. Before the pursuit, 1 died and was seriously injured. He was not responsible because the other side was armed.
As can be seen from the above actual cases, the standard of self-defense has always been clear and has never changed in the past 20 years.
Let's review the criminal law I told you before. Taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which seriously endanger personal safety, and causing casualties to illegal infringers, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
Now your understanding should be much clearer.
In this crime, as long as the other party is equipped and the weapon level you use is not higher than the other party's weapon level, such as brick-to-brick, stick-to-stick, knife-to-knife, then there is no dispute that can trigger unlimited defense rights.
Because the violence you exercise is low, you are using small violence to stop big violence and belittle the whole social violence, instead of using big violence to stop small violence and escalate the whole social violence.
Understand this jurisprudence thoroughly, and you will understand what self-defense is.
On March 20 14, at a construction site in Sanya, Hainan Province, Jie's wife was molested and touched by several drunken men. After the quarrel, Chen Mou Jie was surrounded by drunken men with fists and steel pipes. After protecting his wife, Chen Mou Jie took out a folding knife (the length of the knife is about 6cm), causing three injuries to the other party 1 death.
The court of first instance ruled that Chen Mou Jie defended himself and was acquitted. The prosecution refused to accept the verdict and lodged a protest. The court of second instance upheld the original judgment and still found that Jie defended himself.
Please pay attention to the key points of the court's decision here. First of all, specify that several drunken people use steel pipes as weapons, and then specify the blade length of the knife used by Jay.
All this is to illustrate the level of force used by both sides, which is also the biggest legal support point for the court to reject the prosecution's prosecution.
If the drunken man only used his fist and didn't use steel pipes and other weapons, and Chen Mou Jie took out a 6 cm knife, causing 1 person to die and three people to be injured, then it is no problem for the prosecution to sue for excessive defense.
If Chen Mou Jie illegally carries a controlled knife with a blade length of more than 15cm, resulting in 1 death, then the prosecution can even sue for intentional injury or even homicide, and consider the circumstances of hooliganism at most, and give a lighter sentence.
Therefore, if there is a fight, one side is armed and takes the lead in using high-grade violent items such as knives, sticks and stones, which is equivalent to giving the other side unlimited defense rights and taking full responsibility for the casualties before fleeing, while the other side is irresponsible for the casualties, then how to fight is its own loss.
The purpose of this law is to reduce the level of violence in the whole society and establish a punishment tendency for those who use high-level violence.
Fist is the lowest force tolerated by law, because it grows on people and can't be thrown away, so the other party's use of fist can't trigger your unlimited right of self-defense, and you also hit the other party with your fist.
If it is not stipulated in this way, it will increase the total amount of social violence and the total number of casualties.
If you want to punch, with a force lower than that of your fist, you can only do nothing.
In order to balance and prevent people who don't do it from feeling wronged, the law gives people who don't do it a high degree of protection, which makes people who use their fists suffer big losses.
Many people lie on the ground at the touch, and then the police's decision will make you feel that the other person is wrong.
Not wrong, but for balance and compensation.
Because of this legal tendency, in the past 20 years, fewer and fewer gangsters dare to carry knives, guns and clubs in China, and the total social casualties are getting lower and lower because of the steady loss of money.
Up to now, even fewer hooligans dare to use their fists. It is more and more common for big men to spit on each other and lie on the ground when touched, because this is the direction encouraged by law.
Some people say that this is not manly enough and stifles men's masculinity.
Why is fighting called masculinity? Is it really bad to reduce the total social violence?
In the Tangshan beating case, 7 men, 2 women and 9 gangsters beat people in public, which shocked the whole country of China.
Ask yourself, this level of violence is extremely common in Europe and America, and it is impossible to shock anyone, even China 20 years ago.
Hooligans and hooligans hit people with beer bottles. This is too common for people who didn't know it when they went to school in the 1990s.
Do you know that the murder rate in Europe and America is several times that in China? Do you know that the annual violent attack crime rate in Europe and America is several times that in China?
You can check the data, 10 jumps, and the total amount of violence in the whole society is outrageous.
The total amount of violence in developing countries in Southeast Asia is much higher than that in Europe and America.
Twenty years ago, the violent crime rate in China was more like a "normal" developing country. Now, the violent crime rate in China has been pushed to a level far from matching its own economic level, which is outrageous.
In this wave of Tangshan incident, many so-called lawyers advocated some ideas. For example, China law destroyed the moral spirit of China citizens to help each other with their swords, China did not encourage you to resist from the legislative spirit, and some rhythmic V simply advocated negativity, praised violence against violence, and advocated that stabbing people with knives was also a legitimate defense.
They are either stupid or bad.
Judging from the violence rate of the same economic level in the world, China's current laws can reduce the total amount of social violence by dozens of times. On the other hand, if China implements the same laws as Europe, America or Southeast Asian countries, the number of violent injuries and murders in society is likely to increase by dozens of times.
If you think this is a good thing and want to return to the state where the road ahead was overrun 20 years ago, then I won't argue with you. After the epidemic, you can go to Southeast Asian countries to experience it, and the air tickets are not expensive.
But as long as you live in China, I advise you not to listen to the online saying that carrying a knife can make you safer. Anyone who intentionally carries a knife with him in a judicial judgment will be regarded as a bad citizen as long as it causes casualties.
If you really want the right to self-defense, remember, let the other party bring a knife and a stick. As long as he attacks you with machinery first, then you have unlimited self-defense ability, and all casualties between you and him are borne by the other party.
Never the other way around.
After reading this article, you should have a clear understanding of how to obtain the right of self-defense, but I hope you will never use this right.
Stay away from all violence, live in peace, never get hurt once, live in a society where everyone dares not resist and will be severely punished as long as they start, and all daggers, sticks and stones will never hit you. This is our best choice.
Remember, everything you say and do is in the direction of reducing the total amount of social violence. The police and the law will help you severely punish those who fail to fulfill their civil concession obligations and deliberately increase the total amount of social violence.
This is completely self-defense.