Don’t let the good guys feel chilled when the driver saves a person and "family refuses to testify"
Viewpoint
To safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of those who do what is righteous, it is obvious that we should not only rely on the cooperation or testimony of the beneficiaries, but should build a complete investigation mechanism to restore the facts as much as possible.
"The driver of the online ride-hailing company even ran the red light to save the baby, and the parents refused to testify." The news occurred in Dongguan, Guangdong.
Not long after a family of three got into the car of the online ride-hailing driver Ai, the baby suddenly became unconscious.
Mr. Ai ran three red lights to send the child to the doctor. For this, he was deducted 18 points and fined 600 yuan.
The traffic police said that they needed to provide relevant hospital certificates, but the baby's family refused to testify, saying that running a red light had nothing to do with him.
As soon as the incident broke out, it was immediately regarded as a modern version of the "Farmer and Snake" story.
The situation that Mr. Ai did a good job but failed to pay for it has caused many people to worry about it.
In the latest news, the Chinese police online official WeChat account responded that the punishment of Master Ai has been cancelled, "We can't let good people get cold after doing good things."
The platform also stated that it had provided the in-vehicle audio and video recordings to the police and awarded Mr. Ai as a bonus.
The ending is undoubtedly called "the painting style causes comfort."
Although it is necessary to be cautious when criticizing individuals, it is hard not to be criticized by the public for the “big kindness and gratitude” of the baby's family in this matter.
After all, this is too unreasonable.
When people are indifferent, there is no such thing as "gratitude and revenge" is innocent. Obviously, this kind of practice cannot be promoted.
But the more important question is, what should we do if we encounter this situation in the future?
From a long-term perspective, to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of those who do what is righteous, it is obvious that we should not only rely on the cooperation or testimony of the beneficiaries, but should build a complete investigation mechanism to restore the facts as much as possible.
In particular, acting bravely is an act of rescue in an emergency, and it is unlikely that people will first ask whether the beneficiary will be grateful and whether it will be worthy of a certificate of cooperation.
In other words, people often do not check whether the beneficiary is a good person or a bad person when they act bravely. If the beneficiary is a bad person, they will not be rescued, that is, they will demand the morality and character of the rescuer.
This is where the nobleness of acting bravely should be commended and praised.
However, those who act bravely need not demand the perfection of the rescued target. The relevant departments should consider various possibilities in safeguarding the rights and interests of the rescued target. That is, the worst factors such as non-cooperation and non-testing of the rescued target should be taken into consideration, so that the target can be Take other investigative measures to restore the truth and ensure that those who do what is right are not wronged.
As far as this incident is concerned, with the testimony of the beneficiary, it is naturally easy for online car-hailing drivers to eliminate their violation records.
But if the testimony of the beneficiary is lacking, or the beneficiary refuses to cooperate, will it be impossible to restore the truth?
Obviously not, the relevant departments can also restore the facts by obtaining public surveillance, video, and evidence materials such as hospital records.
And the final result of this matter is indeed the same direction.
Therefore, when dealing with similar incidents, it is obviously not necessary to demand harshly that "the beneficiary must have the testimony of the beneficiary in order to protect their legal rights", and it should not be an additional obligation to find the beneficiaries to beg them to testify.
Relevant departments should take the initiative to provide help and guidance to those who are righteous and brave, assist them in collecting evidence, or collect relevant evidence in accordance with their duties, and then restore the truth.
For good people to be rewarded, what is needed is not only good people self-certifying that they are good people, but also a flexible processing mechanism that invokes circumstantial evidence as soon as they should be called—that way, even if the recipient is absent, it can still prove that the person has done a good deed and done a good deed.
□Shi Fengchu (legal worker)