Personally, I think this lawsuit should pay attention to the following points:
First, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means needs to be deducted from your father's subjective intention. In other words, you need your father to deliberately endanger public safety. But judging from your father's constant emphasis that these things have no real harm, it's hard to say that they are intentional. But there is another kind of intention, which is indirect intention. Simply put, we can think of harmful consequences and social harm, but let it be. Presumably, the procuratorate is likely to start from this angle. From the perspective of public prosecution by the procuratorate: "Although the bullet has no substantial harm, you know it, but how can you know it in the eyes of the public?" In the eyes of the public, an environment of social panic and terror has emerged, and the criminal suspect's release behavior is obviously intentional. He should meet such a harmful result (the public thinks it is legally possible for you to meet) and it is indirect and intentional. Then the facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient. After 3 to 10 years of sentencing.
Two. Personal suggestions should focus on this. Your father knows that bullets are not dangerous. Subjectively, he knew that they would not cause substantial harm, so he piled them up. Naturally, there is no intention to endanger public safety. Even if it is possible to encounter social panic, it will not cause substantial harm, but indirectly deliberately ask for knowing that it may harm the result and let it happen. The actual situation is knowing that there will be no social harm. Indirect intention is difficult to determine.
Three. As long as it is deliberately said that this point has won, personally, the whole lawsuit has won more than half. Although there is a crime of negligent endangering public security in the criminal law, and the punishment is not light, the establishment of the crime of negligent endangering public security needs the occurrence of harmful results. If the lawsuit reaches this point, it will be easier, because there must be serious consequences such as serious injury, death or heavy losses to public and private property to constitute this crime. Your dad's place is a bit of a traffic jam at best, and he's a little panicked. It's too reluctant to set up.
Fourth, according to this view, the case should basically be acquitted, but the case has been reported by major media and the court will pay more attention to it. There will be some leaders who think that these guys have a very bad influence and cannot be innocent. How can they convict him? In that case, it will be in trouble. Under pressure, the court may not adopt the above opinions, and it is very likely that it will be sentenced to four to eight years.
The above is purely a personal opinion, and the specific operation depends on the lawyer you hire.
Hire a better lawyer, this lawsuit is still very popular.