If our side strikes first before being hard, causing serious injury or death to the other party, it does not fall within the scope of legitimate self-defense. Rather, it counts as preemptive defense. Legally, preemptive defense refers to defending against an unlawful act that has not yet begun. This type of defense is considered untily, does not et the conditions for legitimate self-defense, and is classified as excessive defense.
For instance, Zhang San saw a person coming towards him with a fruit knife on the street. Adhering to the principle of striking first, Zhang San decisively acted. He pulled out a handgun and killed the person with one shot. Not to ntion the cri of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, Zhang San’s action counted as preemptive defense, a clear case of excessive defense.
Furthermore, there is also imagined defense. Legally, imagined defense refers to an action where the actor, due to a subjective mistake in perception, mistakenly believes an unlawful infringent is occurring and executes defensive actions that result in harm. It is stipulated that cases of imagined defense should be handled based on the principle of mistaken perception: if there was negligence, it is treated as such; if there was no negligence, it is considered an accident.
For example, Zhang San was walking on the street. He saw a person with a fierce appearance and nacing face and suspected the person was about to assault him. Without hesitation, he shot and killed the person. It turned out the person was just naturally fierce-looking but was usually gentle and kind-hearted by nature. That is considered imagined defense and also a type of excessive defense.
In fact, the regulations concerning legitimate self-defense have always been controversial and consistently criticized. This is because, often, if individuals face an assailant and are already hard, they are very likely to lose the ability to fight back. Conversely, if they haven’t been hard yet, they are not supposed to strike the other party. However, in many cases, ordinary people who have been unlawfully infringed upon cannot remain calm. When they fight back, they tend to act excessively, not even considering whether the unlawful infringent is ongoing.
Fortunately, in this case, it clearly ets these criteria. The four individuals involved engaged in inappropriate touching and groping, displaying clear lewd behavior, infringing on personal and property rights. The unlawful infringent indeed existed.
"The third point: legitimate self-defense must be directed against an unlawful infringer," Qin Mu continued, analyzing. "And in this case, only four people were injured, all of whom were unlawful infringers."
This point is also particularly important, as it is intended to prevent a retaliatory ’blood for blood’ ntality from escalating the situation. For example, Zhang San encountered four robbers on his way ho. Three of the robbers pulled out knives, while one acted as a lookout. Zhang San then drew his gun and, BANG, BANG, BANG, shot the three robbers dead. The fourth person was completely shocked and turned to run. But Zhang San, who always followed the principle of "If you don’t remove the roots, the spring breeze will bring them back to life," didn’t hesitate and killed the fourth person too. Later, thinking ’in for a penny, in for a pound,’ he found the families of the four individuals and killed everyone—n, won, and children, even their chickens, dogs, cattle, and sheep. He even killed the cockroaches in the yard. The infringent by the first three people was ongoing. But the actions against the fourth person, as well as the families of the four, clearly stemd from a retaliatory ntality and cannot be considered legitimate self-defense.
"The fourth point: legitimate self-defense specifically refers to the act of causing harm while taking action to stop an unlawful infringent." This criterion limits the scope of legitimate self-defense. The purpose of the act must be to stop the unlawful infringent. Take an example: Zhang San saw soone molesting a woman on his way ho. The woman was unable to resist. Zhang San was outraged at that mont. He berated the offender, pulled out his gun, and killed him. However, if Zhang San then proceeded to molest the woman himself, that action would not constitute legitimate self-defense. Although he stopped the unlawful infringent, his purpose was not to stop the act but for his own benefit. He did not protect the safety of others’ lives and property. This clearly constitutes an act of ’black eating black.’
"The fifth point: the act of legitimate self-defense... cannot exceed the limits." Saying this, Qin Mu frowned.
In this case of wedding hazing, the unlawful infringent was indeed ongoing. The first four criteria were fully t: the actions were all aid at stopping the unlawful infringent, and the unlawful infringent was in progress. But the fifth criterion explicitly demands that legitimate self-defense cannot exceed limits. If one can stop the unlawful infringent by injuring the infringer, then one should not maim the infringer. If one can stop the unlawful infringent by maiming the infringer, then one should not kill the infringer. And the bridesmaid’s action clearly exceeded the legal limits. Adding to the complexity was the special nature of the case: it occurred during a wedding hazing, an event with traditional folk characteristics. Therefore, the unlawful nature of the infringers’ actions, while present, was not perceived as directly or severely malicious.
"But... Xiao Lan kept telling them to stop, yet they didn’t stop! We couldn’t persuade them; that’s why Xiao Lan took out a folding knife to defend herself...," the bride Peng Songyue, hearing this, couldn’t help but interject. She had witnessed the entire scene. Many people involved in the wedding hazing saw it too. The four individuals—one dead, three injured—were simply those closest during the hazing. Many others who had engaged in inappropriate touching and groping avoided this fate.
"The other three were rely injured. Categorizing this as legitimate self-defense is acceptable, aning there’s no need to assu criminal responsibility for intentional injury," Qin Mu nodded, then continued, "But the person who died... that situation is more complicated."
User Comments
0 comments from readers