On this issue, I think many people will think of the word self-defense. Let's see what the law says.
Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates that in order to protect the state, public interests, personal, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, stopping illegal infringement and causing damage to the illegal infringer, it belongs to self-defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
What is said here must meet five conditions:
1, legitimate defense must be aimed at illegal infringement;
2. It must be that the illegal infringement is in progress;
3. Self-defense must be aimed at illegal infringers;
4. Self-defense cannot exceed a certain limit;
5, for the illegal infringer, in the act of stopping illegal infringement, the damage caused by the act.
In fact, people still don't understand this explanation, and they still don't know whether to fight back.
Let's look at an example.
One day, in order to compete for the best "stall position", A and B had an argument. First, A punched B 45, which was very arrogant. At first, B didn't fight back and chose to retreat. Then A punched B three or four times, and B began to fight back. Then, like boxing, they punched each other for more than a dozen times and were finally pulled away by the masses.
A said: if he scolds me, I will hit him!
B said: He hit me, and I will definitely fight back. This is self-defense. Should he be killed?
Legally speaking, B's behavior is not self-defense. Let me explain to you that B was beaten, but he was in an open environment, so he could run to the police. The urgency of this matter and the degree of A's infringement are not enough for B to beat A to the point where he can't move.
B, on the other hand, took "no escape" and "no alarm", but directly hit back and punched A for more than a dozen times. Its subjective intention and objective behavior exposed its "subjective revenge motive" and "objective violation of the facts", so it did not belong to self-defense. Both belong to "fighting behavior".
Actually, there is another situation. You know, I can still remember the video of the "Kunshan Longge" case that caused a sensation throughout the country. In the end, men belong to self-defense rather than over-defense. At that time, the perpetrator was very powerful and took out a K knife and jumped directly. This kind of subjective behavior is obvious. He must want to kill someone. Fortunately, the white shirt finally protected itself.
This result is very popular and gives a comfort to the just people in this country.
Legally speaking, it also explains why the behavior of the man in white belongs to self-defense. Although the white-shirted man was also in an open environment at that time, the urgency and the degree of infringement at that time had to beat Long Ge to the point where he could not move. So, this is self-defense.
You may not understand the legitimate defense stipulated by law clearly. I checked whether you should fight back when you are defeated. The more official and popular explanation is this: if the other party obviously threatens your life safety, fight back decisively to ensure that you are not hurt. This situation basically belongs to self-defense. If your life is threatened by an emergency, you must protect yourself at the first time and then choose to call the police.
Shaanxi police Tik Tok screenshot
Shaanxi police Tik Tok screenshot 2
Regarding whether to fight or not, I want to tell you that as long as the evidence is conclusive, you can directly punish, and you don't have to fight "minor injuries". Detention is the first choice. Generally speaking, if you punch, kick or slap each other, you are likely to face detention and fines. "Strike back" does not mean "legitimate defense", and any "strike back" that does not aim at "stopping illegal infringement" is intentional injury.
There is no particularly clear definition of "whether to fight back after being beaten". Many experts and officials are ambiguous, which also leads us not to know when we can fight back. What do you think of this?