Do you still remember the case of "Brother Long" who stabbed someone and was killed in Kunshan?

There is also the case of Zhao Yu, who "bravely acted against justice and was detained"; the case of killing an intruder in Laiyuan, Hebei...

In recent years, many cases involving legitimate defense have become public opinion The focus has triggered heated discussions in society, and legal terms such as legitimate defense, excessive defense and special defense have gradually become familiar to people.

When it comes to legitimate defense, there are always many questions in practice. We always ask, isn’t this considered legitimate defense?

So what is the definition of legitimate defense?

Let’s talk about a case first:

Xiao Wang is the owner of a barber shop and likes to gamble online. She won some money when she started gambling, but basically It means spending it all as soon as you get it.

Thinking that gambling makes money easily, the bets become bigger and bigger.

Everyone has bad luck. In an online gambling, Xiao Wang quickly lost 200,000 yuan of his savings.

She had no choice but to overdraw her credit card, and finally found Hu to borrow 100,000 yuan, with interest of 500 yuan per day. The loan period was one month, and the interest was paid daily.

But unexpectedly, Xiao Wang lost all his money again.

One month later was the day to pay back the money, but Xiao Wang lost all his money and could not pay back the money, so Hu asked Xiao Wang to use his body to pay off the debt, 10,000 yuan at a time. Of course Xiao Wang did not dare, so Hu tied him up, and Xiao Wang reluctantly agreed in the end, but this was just a roundabout strategy. The next day, she took the initiative to ask Hu out, and used the prepared knife to kill Hu when he wasn't paying attention. He was stabbed three times and died on the spot.

In this case, the method Hu used when he wanted to "force" Xiao Wang was to tie up Xiao Wang.

Generally speaking, Hu’s behavior of tying up Xiao Wang here is obviously the “coercive means” stipulated in the crime. This act of tying up a person restrains the person’s hands and feet, making the person Without the ability to move freely, you will eventually be unable to resist and temporarily lose the ability to resist.

In addition, when Hu tied up Xiao Wang, it was not necessarily just a simple binding. He may also have verbally threatened Xiao Wang himself, intending to harm Xiao Wang himself if he disagreed. , which will further suppress Xiao Wang’s resistance. To sum up, Hu's behavior was to use coercion to suppress the woman's resistance and then have a relationship with the woman, which complies with the constituent elements of the crime of rape.

Hu’s behavior constitutes rape.

So does Xiao Wang’s behavior count as self-defense?

Xiao Wang’s behavior was not self-defense, but intentional homicide.

The elements of legitimate defense are as follows:

1. Cause condition: illegal infringement actually exists

2. Time condition: illegal infringement is ongoing and has not yet ended< /p>

3. Subjective conditions: having a sense of defense: that is, the subjective purpose of the defender is to protect his or others’ interests from illegal infringement

4. Target conditions: targeting the offender Personal defense (including damage to the person's own property)

5. Limitation conditions: It does not obviously exceed the necessary limit (except for unlimited defense). Let's look at the objective situation when Xiao Wang stabbed Hu to death. .

Before Xiao Wang stabbed Hu to death, Hu’s illegal purpose had already succeeded.

It was already the next day, and Xiao Wang pretended to promise Hu that he would still obey Hu’s wishes, and Hu was convinced of this.

We can also see that Hu himself did not actually commit any illegal infringement against Xiao Wang at this time (neither tied up Xiao Wang nor verbally threatened Xiao Wang). He was about to stab himself with a knife and was completely unprepared. Therefore, we can conclude that at this time, Xiao Wang stabbed Xiao Wang three times while Hu was not being attacked. Because the time condition for legitimate defense was not met, his behavior did not constitute legitimate defense.

Her behavior was premeditated and intentional homicide. To put it mildly, it is also a crime of intentional injury (causing death).

The final result was that Hu was dead, so there was no need to pursue criminal responsibility; Xiao Wang himself was sentenced for intentional homicide.

We can see that legitimate defense is not something to be taken for granted, but has extremely strict constituent requirements. Although we certainly defend the subjective motivations of people, motivations are motivations and behaviors are behaviors.

If legitimate defense is not properly regulated, chaos will inevitably occur.

So how is legitimate defense defined legally?

1. Knowing that someone intends to harm yourself and carrying a knife or other self-defense weapons does not affect the recognition of legitimate defense

For example: If a doctor is harassed by a patient’s family, and the family threatens to Injury to doctors. Doctors also believe that this threat is real and not groundless, so they carry hard objects such as knives or sticks with them during work.

Later, the family members actually fulfilled their threat and physically harmed the doctor. At this time, the doctor took out the weapon he carried and wounded or even killed the family members.

In the past, this situation would have been considered "excessive defense" with a high probability; but under the new standards, doctors are considered "legitimate defense" and do not bear criminal liability.

2. If someone cuts you with a knife, you can use the knife to cut back

In the original judicial practice, it mainly compared whether the injuries of both parties were equal. If the injuries of the defending party were obviously minor, For the injuring party, it is very likely to be deemed as excessive defense.

Nowadays, the interpretation principle of the Supreme Court is not to judge whether the defense is excessive based on the results, but to judge whether the defense is excessive, but based on the violent means. As long as the violent means are equal, it can be regarded as legitimate defense.

For example, if you are walking on the road and encounter a gangster slashing at you with a knife, and you use the knife to slash back at you, under the premise that the violent means are equal, even if the results are seriously unequal, it will be deemed legitimate. defensive.

However, it should be noted that if the gangster only gives you two flying legs, but you take out a dagger and stab him through, it will not work.

The means of violence must be reciprocal, that is to say, the level of violence that the other party uses will determine the level of violence that you can use in response. This is very important.

3. If someone stabs you with a knife, you grab the knife and chop it back, then chop at the other person and run away. If you feel unsafe, you can continue to chase and chop.

Remember the one with the knife? Is it the "Brother Long" who slashed Yu Minghai but was killed by the other party?

That incident clearly reflected this.

In this case, the police initially determined that after Yu Haiming picked up the knife, Brother Long had lost the ability to continue to inflict harm, and Yu Haiming's actions were suspected of excessive defense.

But it was ultimately determined to be self-defense. The reason was that Yu Haiming believed that Brother Long could not rule out committing dangerous acts again when he ran back to the car, so he chased him and slashed him several times because he felt unsafe and it was self-defense.

4. As long as the offender shows the possibility of committing a crime, the victim can defend himself as if he has committed a crime.

If A threatens B with a knife and demands that B take out the money or else he will kill B, and even touches B with the back of the knife, then B takes away A's knife and chops A.

In the past, this would most likely be considered excessive defense or intentional harm.

But now this is legitimate defense, because B is under a substantial threat of personal injury, and he does not need to figure out A's true purpose to implement defense.

When we are injured by violence, if we instinctively dodge and defend, we will bear criminal liability and civil compensation. Then, using the law to protect our legitimate rights and interests is empty talk, and the authority of the law will be questioned.

Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the country, the public, and the personal, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, actions taken to stop illegal infringement will cause consequences to the illegal infringer. If the damage is caused, it is a legitimate defense and will not bear criminal responsibility.

But where is the maximum limit of the law, we also need to grasp that once the number of "untimely defense" behaviors like the above-mentioned cases increases, then in the name of legitimate defense, acts that are actually intentional homicide will be carried out. They will spring up like mushrooms after a rain. At that time, the legal provisions will become zombie clauses, and the most basic personal rights of citizens will not be protected.