The teenager was beaten and killed 1 person and sentenced to 10 years. What did the prosecutors reiterate in their protest?
■ Observer
The local prosecutor’s protest against the verdict in this case reiterated the principle of the proper defense system and the application of citizens’ unlimited defense rights.
On May 8th last year, Wang Moufeng, a man from Anfu County, Ji’an, Jiangxi, gathered 7 men and forcibly broke into a local hotel room with a knife and beat 16-year-old Wu Mou.
In desperation, Wu fought back with a knife and caused 1 death and 2 injuries.
In May of this year, the Anfu County Court ruled that Wu was guilty of intentional assault and assault and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. However, the local procuratorate believed that the sentence was wrong, resulting in an abnormally heavy sentence and filed a protest.
In this regard, many netizens believe that the sentencing is indeed excessive, and even think that this is "legitimate defense."
In recent years, as the "legitimate defense" clause has been activated by a series of benchmark cases such as mother-in-law and homicide, the front sight of justice has been re-adjusted: the law cannot be difficult for others, and judicial officials should put themselves in consideration for the parties, "prevent normal circumstances afterwards. Calm, rational, objective and accurate standards are used to judge defenders."
As far as this case is concerned, the 16-year-old minor was not at fault for the conflict. On the contrary, the perpetrator repeatedly deliberately provoked and fought with a knife.
A 19-year-old man Wang Moufeng met the girl Liu Yi and others near a local hotel. He was refused inviting her to go out. Then he took his companions to knock on Wu's door, thinking that the girl was inside.
After Wu opened the door and told them that they had knocked on the wrong door, Wang Moufeng felt that Wu had a bad tone and stared at him, so he broke into the room with many people with daggers and hatchets and beat Wu.
The law cannot be difficult for others, and cannot require a 16-year-old minor to make precise "rational judgments" when surrounded by eight people with a murder weapon.
In fact, the Criminal Law clearly grants citizens the "unlimited right of defense": "To take defensive actions against ongoing assaults, murders, robberies, rapes, kidnappings, and other violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, causing unlawful violations of human casualties. , It is not an excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility."
The "Guiding Opinions on the Application of the Justifiable Defense System in accordance with the Law" issued by the Supreme Law and other three departments further defines "assault": no murder weapon or lethal weapon was used, but according to the number of illegal infringements, the location and intensity of the attack, etc. Circumstances have indeed seriously endangered the personal safety of others.
Although it has not caused actual damage, but has caused serious and imminent danger to personal safety, it can be regarded as an "attack."
And it is clear that "when facing illegal infringements, the defense personnel should not be demanded to adopt a counterattack method and intensity that is basically equivalent to the illegal infringement."
Someone died in this case, but it is not possible to engage in the "whoever dies, who is justified".
Faced with the beating of eight people in a closed space with a lethal weapon, self-defense with a knife is considered a legitimate defense or an excessive defense. How to use the sentencing standard? Judging from this protest by the prosecutor's office, it is obvious that there are different judgments among the judicial authorities.
The local prosecutor’s protest against the verdict in this case also reiterated the principle of the proper defense system and the application of citizens’ unlimited defense rights.
For this reason, after the prosecution lodges a protest, we expect the court to give a more convincing judicial decision when the case is retrial in accordance with the law. We also hope that this case can enjoy the “policy dividends” that should be obtained after the adjustment and determination of “legitimate defense”. ".
□Xu Mingxuan (Legal Worker)