"If the demolition team had injured your mother and brother with such ferocity, would you have been desperate?" Zhou Haomin of Hengyang, Hunan Province, is also a seven-foot boy with a flesh and blood fang, and his car directly hit the demolition personnel. Previously, the first-instance trial convicted Zhou Haomin of endangering public safety and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. Now that the second-instance judgment has come down, the summary is that the crime must be convicted and the punishment can be waived.
【Hot Spot Review】
It has been reported that in the absence of an announcement, without signing a demolition compensation agreement, and without obtaining economic compensation, on October 12, 2019, Zhou Haomin, Zhou Jiejin, brothers and mother Long Dongxiu, a native of Qidong, Hunan Province, prevented the demolition team members from working, and Zhou Jiejin called the police twice, but under the witness of many police officers at the scene, the mother and brother were still beaten by each other, and even once unconscious, in a hurry, Zhou Haomin drove a car into the scene and injured 2 people. (Source: Upstream News)
Afterwards, it was found that Zhou Haomin's mother was broken by Xiao Mou, a demolition offender, who broke 3 ribs, constituting a minor injury, and the demolition offender Xiao was sentenced to 8 months for intentional injury, and two demolition violators were knocked into slight injuries by Zhou Haomin, so in the first trial Zhou Haomin was sentenced to 3 years for committing the crime of endangering public safety.
According to the second-instance judgment, Zhou Haomin's family's self-retained land has been expropriated, and Hunan Runhe Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd. has obtained relevant land use rights in accordance with the law.
Although, after the Zhou family passed an administrative lawsuit, the court finally ruled that the demolition was illegal and the compulsory land was illegal.
However, the cause of the incident was that Zhou Haomin, his mother and others were dissatisfied with the compensation for the expropriation of their own land, built shacks on the expropriated land without authorization to obstruct construction, and were forcibly demolished by the relevant departments to obstruct and cause conflicts.
The court of second instance's reasoning for the conviction was that
Zhou Haomin's deliberate collision with a crowd of people by driving a car during the conflict and causing injuries met the constituent elements of the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means and should be punished according to law.
The so-called endangerment of public safety means that its behavior is not aimed at a specific individual, but a dangerous act committed without considering the consequences endangers the life and health safety of an unspecified majority of people, then the social danger of the act is still very large, and the punishment in law is relatively heavy.
In fact, after the first-instance judgment came out, many netizens also said that the sentence was heavy, and felt that Zhou Haoming had the characteristics of legitimate defense.
However, a prerequisite for legitimate defense is to target the illegal infringement that is occurring, specific to this case, one is the urgency of the illegal infringement, that is, whether it is necessary to drive a car to stop it, and the second is that the illegal infringement comes from a few specific demolition personnel.
From the perspective of motives, Zhou Haomin drove into the crowd because his mother fell to the ground due to a physical conflict with the demolition personnel, and this indiscriminate attack caused injuries to many innocent people at the scene, which was not in line with the characteristics of legitimate defense.
Therefore, from the perspective of conviction, the law still has a negative evaluation of Zhou Haomin's behavior of driving into the crowd, believing that the crime is established and that the behavior is not worth encouraging.
But everything is also a cause, in fact, Zhou Haomin is not not seeking public relief, although the police are also at the scene after the police, but the scene is complicated, the police have not been able to prevent the demolition of the violators of the beating behavior, at this time the private relief must be on top, because the person who fell is his mother and brother, who can not guarantee, if you do not drive to hit people, what will happen next bad things.
Legitimate defence cannot be established, but failure to do so only does not negate the justification of the conviction, but does not preclude sentencing considerations.
Previously, the relevant law enforcement departments have been identified as having irregular law enforcement behavior, the scene situation is a large number of demolition personnel, Zhou Haomin's mother was beaten and slightly injured and comatose on the spot, Zhou Haomin's driving into the crowd is indeed excusable, it belongs to the lawless confrontation lawlessness, although it is illegal, but it is reasonable.
More importantly, judging from the results, Zhou Haomin's behavior only caused minor injuries, and the circumstances of the crime were minor.
Because of the crime of endangering public safety, it was originally to punish those who retaliated against society for no reason and emphasized the social harm of criminal suspects, but Zhou Haomin's behavior obviously left room for collision with the crowd, only causing minor injuries, which did not belong to the most heinous type of behavior, and there was a reason for the incident, in order to save his mother from hitting people, Zhou Haomin's social harm was low, and he could not be punished criminally.
After the second-instance judgment was rendered, Zhou Haomin said, "After receiving the verdict, I am guilty and exempted from criminal punishment. ”
Is Zhou Haomin's claim based on it? Will his complaint be successful?
Although Zhou Haomin was not convinced, he was a guilty person after all, and he must also pay the price for his own behavior, although he was imprisoned for two years, but these two years were in the process of criminal investigation and trial of the case, and finally found guilty, not belonging to the "white pass", therefore, Zhou Haomin's appeal is likely not successful, and can not apply for state compensation.
What do you think of the final outcome of the case?
Welcome to @Legal Discussion has the law, comment on the case story, interpret the attitude of life, and live in the legal net.
---------------------------------
#Hunan side affairs # #普法行动 #
