Violation of the law generally bears administrative and civil responsibilities, and laws other than criminal law are generally illegal.
For example, pedestrians running red lights constitute a violation of traffic laws, and general illegal acts violate administrative laws. To bear the administrative responsibility, the law enforcers of the administrative organs can give him administrative penalties such as warnings and fines.
The same behavior may bear different legal responsibilities, and the possible evaluation results in an attack on people are also different. A person's illegal behavior may bear four kinds of responsibilities, from low to high: civil responsibility, administrative responsibility, criminal responsibility and unconstitutional responsibility.
For example:
When Party A quarreled with Party B, it slapped Party B in the face, which constituted a civil tort (infringement of personal rights) against Party B and violated the civil law (such as the General Principles of Civil Law). Party A shall bear civil liabilities, including apologizing and compensating for losses.
When Party A quarreled with Party B, Party A punched Party B in the face and Party B was slightly injured. Party A's behavior violates the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (administrative law) and the General Principles of Civil Law (civil law), and Party A's behavior has to bear two kinds of responsibilities. The first responsibility is the same as above. We should bear civil liability, apologize and compensate for losses (such as compensation for medical expenses, nutrition expenses, lost time and hospitalization expenses). The legal basis is the personal injury of the Supreme Court. A's behavior should bear the second-level responsibility and administrative responsibility, that is, the public security organ can impose administrative punishment on A according to the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, according to the specific circumstances: warning, fine and public security detention.
There is no competition between administrative liability and civil liability. Because, although A has only one behavior, A's behavior not only infringes on B's personal rights and interests, but also infringes on the interests of citizens protected by the state.
When Party A quarreled with Party B, Party A punched Party B several times in the face, and Party B was slightly injured (if two teeth were lost, it would constitute a minor injury). At this time, Party A's behavior violated the Criminal Law (Intentional Injury), the Public Security Administration Punishment Law and the General Principles of Civil Law.
In other words, A's behavior violated three kinds of laws at the same time. At this time, administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility are competing, so we can only choose to apply high-level criminal responsibility, because both are to protect public interests or national interests.
However, there is no competition between criminal liability and civil liability, and they should be borne at the same time.
In this case, Zhang Yamin's behavior is of course a crime. In criminal proceedings, in order to protect the victims' rights and interests at the same time of prosecution, the victims or their families can file a public prosecution with the procuratorate, which is called criminal incidental civil action in law, requiring the actor to bear civil liability as well as criminal liability.
In order to make the victim or the victim's family get civil compensation, the court will give the offender a lighter punishment and encourage him to bear civil liability according to whether the offender compensates the victim or the victim's family in time and in full.
The legal punishment range of intentional injury (causing death) is: fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years, life imprisonment and death penalty. The so-called lighter punishment means a lighter punishment within the range, which shall not be less than ten years in prison.
Self-defense is innocent and does not bear criminal responsibility; Excessive defense should bear criminal responsibility, but the punishment should be mitigated or exempted (from harmless consequences).
In the case of Deng Yujiao, Deng Yujiao's excessive defense constitutes the crime of intentional injury (causing death) and should be mitigated (because the harmful consequences cannot be exempted). The so-called mitigation means that the statutory penalty range is directly downgraded, and the result of the downgrade is 3 to 10 years in prison. However, Deng Yujiao was also identified as bipolar disorder (bipolar mania and depression), which belongs to limited capacity (generally speaking, she has certain mental illness), so she was identified as exempt from punishment.
Whether an act constitutes justifiable defense or excessive defense is a very complicated issue. It should be judged according to the specific objective behavior. First, the right of defense in fighting should be excluded, that is to say, as long as the perpetrator has the intention of fighting, there is no possibility of defense. Secondly, defense is forced, not provocative, and deliberate provocation cannot be used to identify justifiable defense or excessive defense. Finally, the establishment of justifiable defense needs to meet five elements: the existence of infringement, the ongoing infringement, the awareness of defense, and the defense of the infringer not obviously beyond the necessary limit.
############################
The establishment of legitimate defense needs to meet five conditions: the infringement exists, the infringement is ongoing, the defense consciousness is possessed, and the defense is aimed at the infringed person and does not obviously exceed the necessary limit.
Infringe on real existence
The reason of self-defense must be the objective illegal infringement. "Illegal" means that laws and regulations do not allow it, and infringement does not necessarily constitute a crime. It is generally believed that self-defense can be implemented against the aggression of mental patients. However, not all criminal acts can be justified, such as corruption, dereliction of duty and other crimes that are not urgent and aggressive, and the self-defense system is generally not applicable.
Illegal infringement should be carried out by people. In principle, it is an emergency refuge, not a self-defense to counter animal harm.
Unlawful infringement must exist in reality. If the defender mistakenly believes that there is illegal infringement, it constitutes imaginary defense. Imaginary defense is not justifiable defense. If it is subjective negligence, the criminal law stipulates that negligent crime constitutes a crime, otherwise it is an accident.
Infringement is in progress
Only when the illegal infringement is going on can the legitimate interests pose a threat and urgency, so the defensive behavior can be justified.
The starting time of illegal infringement-generally speaking, it begins when the illegal infringer begins to commit the infringement, but when the real threat of illegal infringement is obvious and urgent, and irreparable damage will be caused after implementation, it can be considered that the infringement has begun. For example, after placing a bomb, even if the bomb is not detonated, it constitutes illegal infringement; Anyone who invades another person's house for the purpose of killing people, even if he has not started killing people, is regarded as the beginning of illegal infringement.
The end time of illegal infringement-when the legitimate rights and interests are no longer threatened by urgent and realistic infringement, illegal infringement is considered to be over. Specifically, the actor was subdued, lost the ability to infringe, took the initiative to stop the infringement, and fled the scene, which had already caused harmful results and could not continue to cause more serious consequences. In property crimes, even if the infringement has been completed, if the loss can be recovered in time, it can be considered that the illegal infringement is not over yet. For example, a robber took someone else's property. Although the robbery has been completed, the defender can still use violence on the spot to get back the property, which is also considered as self-defense.
It is not appropriate to defend before or after the above-mentioned start time. Specifically divided into: before defense (before injury) or after defense (after injury). The former is commonly known as "first strike is strong". Excessive defense does not belong to justifiable defense, but may also constitute a criminal act.
Have a sense of defense
Justifiable defense requires the defender to have defense consciousness and defense will. The former means that the defender realizes that illegal infringement is going on; The latter refers to the motivation of defenders to protect legitimate rights and interests.
Defensive provocation, fighting with each other, unexpected defense, etc. It's all defenseless behavior.
Defensive provocation-deliberately causing the other party to infringe on itself first, and then infringing on the other party on the grounds of self-defense. This is commonly known as the "challenge method". Because the perpetrator has subjectively felt guilty, it is impossible to defend himself properly. But this is still an illegal injury.
Fight with each other-both sides have the intention of hurting each other's health. In this case, both sides have no sense of defense, so it is not justifiable defense, which may constitute crimes such as provocation and intentional injury. However, after a fight, if one side begged for mercy or fled, and the other side continued to invade, it might constitute self-defense.
Accidental defense-one party intentionally infringes on others and accidentally meets other defense conditions. For example, A tried to kill B with a car, and B was about to rob C. A knew nothing about B's criminal behavior. In this case, A does not have the subjective intention to protect interests, so it does not constitute justifiable defense.
A defense against the infringer
Self-defense can only be directed at the infringer himself. Because the infringement is caused by the infringer himself, only by defending himself can the legitimate rights and interests be protected. Even if it is a joint crime, it can only defend the person who is committing illegal infringement, but not the accomplice who has not committed infringement.
If you defend a third person, it may constitute intentional crime or imaginary defense or emergency avoidance.
Not significantly beyond the necessary limit.
The defensive behavior must be carried out within the necessary and reasonable limits, otherwise it will constitute excessive defense. For example, A wants to flirt with B, and B's companion C knocks A to the ground and then kills A with a heavy object. This obviously exceeds the necessary limit of self-defense. It must be noted that anything that does not exceed the necessary limit constitutes excessive defense, and only those that "obviously" exceed the necessary limit and cause great damage are excessive defense.
Excessive defense is a violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety and does not constitute excessive defense. For example, if A wants to rape B, even if B kills A through excessive defense, it still falls within the scope of self-defense.
Consequences of justifiable defense
Self-defense behavior often meets the constitutive requirements of crime in criminal law on the surface, but because it has the above five characteristics, the perpetrator has no criminal intention or negligence subjectively, so the possibility of criminal behavior is ruled out. The criminal law clearly stipulates two reasons for excluding crimes: self-defense and emergency avoidance. There are other reasons.