What constitutes legitimate defense? With the hangzhou knife-wielding anti-homicide case and the fermentation of the Yongzhou university student kicking and injuring and molesting a man, more and more people have put forward their own views on legitimate defense. But there are still many people who still retain the erroneous view that "who is injured is justified", such as a real case in Guilin.
On July 10, 2018, Chen Mou, who lives in Guilin, Guangxi Province, encountered a door-to-door thief in the evening. Chen Mou did business in Guilin, getting up early every day and being busy in the dark, although he made a lot of money, he did not have time to rest, and he could go home at night until midnight. Therefore, he was also on top of the thief Huang Mou, and it was obvious that Huang Mou stepped on it in advance and knew when Chen Mou would return home.
But on this day, Chen Mou had to close the stall with his son Xiao Chen in advance because of some small things, and as a result, he just entered the house and found Huang Mou who was rummaging through boxes and cabinets. The father and son rushed forward to catch the thief, and Huang was even more startled by the father and son who suddenly returned home, and immediately prepared to jump out of the window to escape.
But between the busy hands and feet, Huang Mou fell to the ground and was overwhelmed by Chen Mou and his son, and Xiao Chen took the opportunity to report to the police. In order to prevent Huang from struggling to escape, Chen pressed Huang to death. But Huang claimed to have a heart attack and felt breathless. Chen Mou listened and relaxed the strength of his hands, but Huang took the opportunity to struggle, and the simple Chen suppressed Huang again, this time he said that he would not relax his hands.
Finally, half an hour later, the police arrived at the scene, but the situation of Huang Mou, who had been suppressed for a long time, was not optimistic. After dialing the ambulance, Huang had fallen into a fainting. After the medical staff arrived, they made a preliminary diagnosis and found that Huang had lost breath. What led to his death was Chen's act of pressing his chest and abdomen.
Therefore, Chen was also detained on suspicion of causing death by negligence, and Huang's family learned of this matter and claimed 810,000 yuan from Chen. It is claimed that Chen killed Huang, so he is fully responsible for Huang's death. Chen mou did not agree with this, he believed that he had lost his hand when stopping Huang Mou's theft, which was a legitimate defense.
Of course, out of sympathy, Chen paid 50,000 yuan in humanitarian compensation to Huang Moudu's family, but did not admit his responsibility for Huang's death. So whether Chen mou is ultimately responsible for Huang Mou's death, and what judgment did the court make on this case?
First of all, the procuratorate initiated a public prosecution against Chen mou for suspected manslaughter, which stipulates in the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China that manslaughter refers to unintentional or premeditated homicide, homicide caused by negligence, and the act of causing the death of others due to general negligence. The object is the right to life of others. In order to convict this crime, there are three objective requirements:
1. The perpetrator has committed an act that causes death to a person;
Second, objectively, the result of causing death must have occurred;
Third, there is a causal relationship between the perpetrator's negligent conduct and the outcome of the victim's death
Obviously, this case satisfies the above three requirements, Chen suppressed Huang, resulting in his death from heart disease, and Huang's death was caused by Chen's hand, so there is a direct causal relationship between the two parties. So can it be concluded that Chen constitutes manslaughter?
In fact, there is a special principle in our law, that is, the principle of fault liability. The principle of no-fault liability must have an objective existence of the fact of damage. And there is a causal relationship between the special tort and the fact of damage. The assumption of responsibility does not consider whether the actor is at fault, and when determining responsibility, there is no need for the victim to provide evidence of the fault of the actor, and the actor does not need to provide evidence that he is not at fault, and even if he provides evidence that he is not at fault, he shall be liable.
That is to say, Chen Mou is under the premise that Huang Mou has damaged his own interests, and then the behavior he took led to Huang Mou's death. This is clearly consistent with the principle of no-fault liability. It is a legitimate defence within the scope of our laws. The first paragraph of article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates that an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement in order to protect one's personal, property and other rights from ongoing unlawful infringement is a legitimate defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility if it causes harm to the wrongdoer.
Of course, in judicial practice, it is also necessary to accurately grasp the conditions for determining excessive defense. According to the second paragraph of article 20 of the Criminal Law, the determination of excessive defense should meet the two conditions of "clearly exceeding the necessary limit" and "causing major harm" at the same time, and both are indispensable. In the case, Chen did not exceed the necessary limits, nor did he cause major damage, and the direct cause of Huang's death was his heart attack, so Chen was not overly defensive at the same time.
In summary, Chen is not responsible for Huang's death. The local court also made a judgment in accordance with the law, and Chen did not exceed the limits of the law when he carried out legitimate defense. Huang knew that he had a heart attack, but still struggled fiercely, causing Chen to be unable to relax his hands, which eventually led to his death, so Huang needed to take full responsibility for his own death.
The court's decisions have done justice, and this is in line with our attitude towards similar cases. On September 3, the state pointed out that the opinions require earnest correction of the erroneous tendency of "who can make trouble who is justified" and "who is justified in death and injury", and that illegal and criminal acts that are committed in the name of defense should be resolutely avoided as legitimate defense or excessive defense.
However, in judicial practice, there are many factors that can affect the determination of legitimate defense, such as the fact that the public is faced with facts that have been given by the media; the determination of reasons for exemption from liability such as legitimate defense has higher requirements for the professional level of law enforcement and judicial personnel, and is inevitably subjective; at the level of legal rules, there are indeed certain deficiencies.
All in all, in judicial practice, it is inevitable to encounter similar cases, and how to make reasonable and legal judgments according to the facts of the case will be the focus of the test for courts and judges. Absolute justice may be difficult to achieve, but relative justice is real in life. The law is also born to uphold justice, and under the advocacy and support of more and more people, the erroneous idea of "who is hurt is justified" has also been changed to a certain extent.