The public security organs believe that in this case, Liu Hailong attacked with his bare hands first, and then struck with a knife continuously, which has seriously endangered the personal safety of Hamming, and his unlawful infringement should be regarded as "the crime of injury". In addition, Liu Hailong's continuous attacks on Hamming and knife robbery can show that Hamming's personal safety has been threatened by violence in Liu Hailong.
After Yu Haiming grabbed the knife, he stabbed Liu Hailong five times in seven seconds. Although there was a time interval and a space distance between them, it was a continuous act and should be regarded as self-defense.
Extended data:
Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of China's Criminal Law stipulates: "Those who take defensive actions against ongoing violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape and kidnapping that seriously endanger personal safety, resulting in unlawful infringement of personal injury or death, do not belong to excessive defense and bear no criminal responsibility."
The provincial procuratorate also gave its own analysis opinions on the identification of justifiable defense. "The law will not be enforced." The prosecution believes that in the face of escalating illegal infringement emergencies, it is difficult for ordinary people to accurately judge how much damage they may suffer, and then calmly convert the equivalent defense force.
Therefore, the criminal law stipulates that there is no limit to the defense limit when defending against serious violent crimes such as murder. In this case, Yu Haiming's counterattack against the waving long knife is a normal reaction in a hurry, and he can't be expected to accurately control the strength and position of the stab. Although it caused the death of the illegal infringer, it met the special defense requirements and did not need to bear criminal responsibility according to law.
References:
Kunshan, Jiangsu Province reported the "anti-killing case"-People's Daily Online