Recently, the high-speed rail beating incident, with the police release notice and the full version of the video, there have been many reversals, many people have been slapped in the face.
Recently, negative news about women has dominated the list, and it continues to occupy the hot searches of major platforms. However, it is very interesting that they all occurred during May Day: the Hengdian Posun Cutting Incident, the Changsha Occupying a Parking Space Incident, and the Sichuan High-speed Railway Mutual Assault Incident.
I have to say that there are indeed many rights and wrongs of women, and a small event can be put into a hot search.
First of all, let's talk about this high-speed rail mutual assault incident. The approximate process of the incident is as follows: a woman on the high-speed train was noisily kicking the seat because of the child in the back row, so she stopped it, and in the process there was a dispute with the child's parents, and was slapped by the child's parents, and then the woman involved fought back. Later, the police determined that the two parties were beating each other and punished each other, and then the woman in the front row felt that the other party hit the person first, so she insisted on not reconciling, and claimed to conduct an administrative reconsideration.
The above is the course of events circulating on the Internet. For this incident, many people feel that it should not be characterized as a mutual assault, and the woman in the front row should be in legitimate defense.
Regarding whether to beat each other, looking at the specific details of the incident, let's take the latest notice issued by the police to take a look at the detailed process of the incident.
On May 10, the police issued a notice of the incident, detailing the incident. The specific process is as follows:
On May 2, 2023, train C6276 ran between Meishan East Railway Station and Chengdu East Railway Station, and a passenger dispute occurred in car 14.
After receiving the police, the Chengdu Railway Public Security Department promptly carried out an investigation, collected on-site audiovisual materials in accordance with the law, collected witness testimony, party statements and other relevant evidence materials, ascertained the facts of the case, and imposed administrative punishments in accordance with the law.
After investigation, at 19:59 on May 2, passenger Yang Moumou (female) and his party (including 3 children) took the C6276 train from Leshan Station to Jiangyou Station.
At 20:24 on the same day, passenger Wang Moumou (female) took the same train from Meishan East Railway Station to Chengdu East Railway Station and sat in the front row of Yang Moumou.
At 20:27, Wang Moumou stood up and turned around to stop the children in the back row from making noise, and then quarreled with Yang Moumou. Yang's companion first insulted Wang Moumou, and Wang Moumou scolded back.
At 20:28 and 29, the safety officer and conductor of the train rushed to the scene to dissuade and mediate. During this period, Yang's companions used their mobile phones to photograph Wang Moumou, and Wang used their mobile phones to photograph Yang Moumou and his accompanying children.
At 20:34:46, when Wang Moumou insulted Yang Moumou again, Yang Moumou slapped Wang Moumou in the face once with the back of his right hand.
At 20:34:50, Wang got up and hit Yang Moumou's face with the palm of his left hand.
Later, in the process of dissuading the train conductor and surrounding passengers, at 20:34:57, Wang Moumou hit Yang Moumou again in the face with the palm of his right hand.
After the incident, Wang called the police through 110. After the public security organs accepted the case, they conducted a comprehensive and in-depth investigation. According to the investigation, it was determined that Yang Moumou's hitting Wang Moumou's face with the back of his hand was an illegal act of beating others: Wang Moumou hit Yang Moumou's face with his palm after being hit, and after being dissuaded by train staff and passengers, hitting Yang Moumou's face again with his palm was an illegal act of beating others.
According to the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Punishments for Public Security, the public security organs fined Yang 500 yuan and Wang 200 yuan.
At least the following conclusions can be drawn from the above police report and the full video.
First, Wang's secondary insults led to the escalation of the incident. According to the police notice and videos circulating online, there was a five-minute gap between the first confrontation and the slap of the child's parents. During this period, the two sides had stopped scolding.
However, this Ms. Wang began to insult Ms. Yang again, which led to another escalation of the incident. Let's imagine that if Ms. Wang stopped abusing and there would be no follow-up. It can be said that it was Ms. Wang's chatter that led to the second escalation of the incident.
In addition, we can speculate that Ms. Wang's words insulting Ms. Yang for the second time may be more extreme, and it cannot be ruled out that it involves the eight generations of ancestors, which caused Ms. Yang to bear to beat people.
Second, it was found that there was no problem with Ms. Wang and Ms. Yang beating each other. From the above analysis, it is not difficult to see that Ms. Wang's second insult to others objectively led to the escalation of the incident, and her behavior was not to prevent the continuation of the incident.
In addition, Ms. Wang's original intention in beating Ms. Yang was to take revenge, and there were no objective factors to prevent the escalation of the incident. At the same time, after Ms. Wang beat Ms. Yang for the first time, the train staff and passengers discouraged both parties, but Ms. Wang beat Ms. Yang again, which obviously did not have the elements of legitimate defense.
The key to legitimate defense is to prevent the continuation of the incident, and from the perspective of Ms. Wang's approach, it is clear that it is not to prevent the development of the incident, but to retaliate.
Such an act obviously cannot be regarded as legitimate defense. Perhaps some people will take the official position of the Ministry of Justice. We said that the Justice Department's statement clearly stated that the determination of legitimate defense needs to be determined on the basis of the details of the specific incident. However, under the circumstances at that time, the police had not released specific details of the incident, so officials did not determine that Ms. Wang was in legitimate defense.
Third, Ms. Wang's application for administrative reconsideration may not change the outcome of the punishment of the incident.
According to the above analysis, Ms. Wang's behavior is not legitimate defense, so it is understandable to judge the mutual assault.
If it is judged to be a mutual assault, even if an administrative review is conducted, as long as the legal basis is sufficient, the previous punishment decision will not be overturned.
Judging from the above notice issued by the police, if Ms. Wang does not settle and the administrative reconsideration is invalid, the matter will end here.
Fourth, the reason why the parents in the back row insulted Ms. Wang was that Ms. Wang's behavior to stop the child's noisy behavior was too exaggerated, which scared the child to cry, and Ms. Yang asked Ms. Wang to apologize to the child, but Ms. Wang refused. So there was a situation of mutual scolding.
Fifth, Ms. Yang beat Ms. Wang to protect the child's privacy. When the two began to scold each other, they also accompanied each other by photographing each other. When Ms. Yang found out that Ms. Wang was filming her child, she stopped it with words, but Ms. Wang ignored it, and finally Ms. Yang couldn't bear it anymore before she hit someone.
Sixth, the first to report the case was Ms. Wang in the front row. According to the information disclosed by the police, combined with the jokes previously circulated on the Internet. We can conclude that there were two police calls in this case, the first time was Ms. Wang first called the police after getting off the bus from Chengdu. The second time was after Ms. Yang got out of the car and called the police for the second time. As for the rumors on the Internet that the second police record took too long and there was a problem of being tricky, it can be said to be nonsense.
The timing of the transcript depends on the demands of both parties and their views on events. If there is a dispute about a certain detail, it is inevitable that multiple evidence will be collected and confirmed, and it is understandable that it takes a little time.
However, in order to drive traffic and earn revenue, some people maliciously hype, deliberately exaggerate facts, fabricate stories, and even make Ms. Yang's identity information and unit information public, obviously, such online violence has exceeded the bottom line of morality.
Judging from the police notice, there was no mention of the child's father beating someone. However, many people spread rumors that it was because the child's father picked up the water cup to hit Ms. Wang, which triggered Ms. Wang's counterattack, which is obviously someone deliberately spreading rumors.
I have to say that this incident was originally not a big deal, but it was maliciously hyped by some people into a hot search.
Below, let's take a look at who is maliciously hyping up this incident.
First, unscrupulous self-media. It can be said that some self-media people acted as the fuse of the incident. In order to pull traffic, speculate hot spots, and earn profits, some people can't bear the psychology of loneliness, and carry out one-sided hype when the incident has just been exposed, which virtually gives the water army the opportunity to carry out secondary hype and acts as a tool used by the water army. In the end, it can only be the rhythm of being punched in the face.
Second, the water army. In this incident, the water army can be described as a great effort, directly concocting the so-called shady scene, determining that one of the parents of the child is a civil servant and the other is a teacher and principal. At the same time, it also concocted rumors that the two spent money to reconcile. It can be described as a good story, a good design, but unfortunately there is no evidence.
Why is it so coincidental, one is a civil servant and the other is a career editor. It can be said that these people capture people's sensitivity to these two special groups. Who can guarantee that these two parents are not ordinary people? Where does this information come from and what is the basis?
I have to say that the trolls designed a good rumor and a good story for this incident.
Third, indignant youth. These people are pulling off the shelf, doing things, and fanning the wind all day long. Grabbing the rumors and smoke bombs released by the trolls, thinking that they had grasped the life-saving straw, they hyped up and ignited the fire to swear their existence. I wonder if my face is swollen now?
Finally, I still want to say: sometimes, just looking at one segment of things is often deflected and blinded. In the end, you can only hit yourself in the face.
Let the bullets fly a little longer.