I was watched by the Internet police during the live broadcast of law popularization?

Chapter 168 The Ministry of Justice speaks out again, this is self-defense!
After the trial, the three members of the collegial panel in charge of the trial also had disagreements on the outcome of the case:

Judge Zhang believes that, no matter what, it is not a direct reason for the murder.

The opponent uses a knife to defend, and the intention of harm is obvious, so pay attention to the social impact.

If this means of protection is found not guilty, the consequences will be serious.

Assuming that when someone encounters this situation, the first reaction is to use weapons for defense. What should I do if it causes serious consequences again?
To sum up, this kind of protection method cannot be supported, and the defendant should also bear its due consequences.

The judge in charge of the trial also nodded when he heard the words.

This is the main point of contradiction.

Because of previous cases, the result was intentional injury.

However, with the Ministry of Justice's new regulations one after another, while resolving the confusion of the masses, it has also brought enormous pressure and challenges to the presiding judges who are in charge of hearing the cases.

Trial of a case is not an interpretation of justice, and when encountering similar problems, it must be considered comprehensively.

If the sentence is intentional injury, it will contradict the interpretation of the Ministry of Justice.

But if they really wanted to judge self-defense, they became the first trial judges to support counterattack with knives. If nothing happened, it was a fair trial. If something went wrong, everyone would have to follow suit.

Judge Kang, on the other hand, was completely opposite to Judge Zhang's opinion.

A case is a case and cannot be compared with each other.

In the case, Zhang Zhenyu had no intention of harm, and his intention of defense was obvious. He could not ignore the real situation he was facing because of the subsequent impact.

Not supporting is the final conclusion of the case, and how to judge him are two completely different concepts.

Not advocating for not supporting his approach, but not justifying his retaliation is wrong.

Especially in the stage of Zhang Zhenyu's final statement, the problems reflected are also the problems that every victim of violence struggles and faces.

What would have been his situation had he not fought back with a knife?

There are many similar cases, and the physical and mental pressure on the victim is huge. The mild ones will develop depression and autism, they will hate and fear going to school, and in severe cases, they will even commit suicide.

This is not the case, but many.

Since the judiciary has not clearly stipulated, so what if we, as judges, should be pioneers?
If you dare to inflict violence on others, you will bear the corresponding consequences.

Isn't the purpose of legislation to restrain the perpetrators so that they dare not do it?
This is a very difficult choice.

Whether it was a legitimate defense or an excessive defense, the three of them couldn't agree on it for a while.

the other side.

As the live broadcast media of the case, Mingdu TV Station also had a strong interest in the follow-up development of the case.

The initial purpose of the TV station staff responsible for filming was to accurately popularize the law and tell others not to act impulsively, and to use the most reasonable means to deal with the violation of their legal rights.

But as they patted, they discovered that the originally set script had gradually deviated from their control.

Whether it is self-defense or intentional injury, two different voices appeared in their trial documentary column group.

One kind of meaninglessness is justifiable self-defense.

The other one, it doesn’t matter if you don’t mention it…

Because this incident became a hot topic as soon as they aired it.

The vast majority of netizens support justifiable defense, and even expressed their angry views that the perpetrators should be damned.

Some people also came forward and talked about the real situation of their children being depressed by other people's violence.

In the face of such problems, the law enforcement unit only conducts mediation.

Others have no criminal responsibility at all because they are too young.

If the other party is a minor, even if he kills someone, there will be no criminal record.

The minor protection law makes people feel angry.

He killed someone, why can't he be sentenced?
Just because the perpetrator is a child and does not have the capacity for civil liability?

This is unfair to the victim's family.

On the other hand, the discussion was based on Zhang Zhenyu's behavior, thinking that he was the most typical example of excessive defense.

The reason is simple, that is, the consequences of his defense.

If Zhang Zhenyu was defensive and had no intention of harming, then there would be no final result of the death of the two people, at most it would be just people being injured.

In the case, Zhang Zhenyu was killed with a knife, killing two people in a row. The intention to hurt was very obvious. How could it be a legitimate defense?

In the face of such an answer, netizens who thought it was a legitimate defense directly replied:

When you are being beaten, you still think about where to stab someone?

Could it be because he was afraid that he would not be stabbed to death and angered the assailant, so he directly killed him with one blow?
When your child is beaten by a group of people, do you still care about where he was stabbed?
Dozens of netizens will follow his comment and ask rhetorical questions under a comment in support of the judgment.

As time passed, the case became more and more serious.

There are still many netizens who went to the public account of the judicial department to speak out, hoping that they can stand up and continue to speak out.

Because of the last train incident, the Ministry of Justice's "outstanding" behavior has won the favor of many netizens.

The Ministry of Justice also lived up to expectations and came forward again to deal with the incident.

Luo Dazhuang was the first to come forward. In his remarks, he did not clearly point out the case, but talked about the issue of defense with a knife from a different angle.

Is self-defense with a knife a legitimate defense?

In the provisions of justifiable defense, there is no provision for the means of defense that the perpetrator needs to pay attention to, but only that the degree of defense cannot be exceeded.

If you slap me, I will give you a knife. This is not self-defense.

Under reasonable circumstances, defense with a knife is also a means of self-defense.

Immediately afterwards, Professor Zhao from the Ministry of Justice came forward and re-described the "whole process" of the case for netizens.

First the cause of the event:

Zhang Zhenyu was not at fault when two drunk people caused trouble, and the whole process could not prove that he was at fault.

During the course of the case, what Zhang Zhenyu faced was a situation where the more bullies the less, and the incident occurred in the early hours of the morning, which is likely to increase his fear of the environment.

It is precisely because of the existence of this fear that the self-protection awareness of holding a knife to protect oneself arises.

Defense means:

During the course of the case, Zhang Zhenyu was forcibly pulled out of the dormitory, and he did not fight back immediately after taking the knife, which is enough to prove his defensive nature.

It can also be clearly seen from the school's surveillance video that Zhang Zhenyu's legal rights have been continuously violated.

In the video, Zhang Zhenyu was surrounded by several people, in a highly tense environment, and there was no possibility of anyone avoiding danger, so his method should be considered as legitimate self-defense.

At the end of the case, he still persuaded everyone that if conditions permit, they should take legitimate and legal means to protect their rights from being violated by others.

And a week after the Ministry of Justice spoke out, Zhang Zhenyu also ushered in his final judgment...

　I took a look. So far, my real monthly pass is less than [-]. I didn’t know the function of the monthly pass before, but now I know it. I just want to say, ask for a monthly pass! !
　　It's the end of the month, ask for a monthly ticket!It's less than a thousand this month.

　　
　
(End of this chapter)