My life turned upside down after the divorce

Chapter 172 The Evidence of Excessive Defense

"We judge whether it is self-defense. We can't imagine it. The fact is that the defendant has not been attacked at the time. She can run away, but she can't intentionally drive into someone. If she drives into someone, it is tantamount to killing someone intentionally and fighting back in self-defense. , does not constitute a relationship at all!" said the plaintiff's lawyer.

"I would like to ask the plaintiff's lawyer, under what circumstances, the victim is entitled to fight back in self-defense?" the defendant's lawyer asked.

"Of course, it is only when the law permits that a legitimate self-defense counterattack can be carried out." The plaintiff's defense lawyer said.

"The defendant was provoked for no reason, and was almost forced to have a relationship with the plaintiff and his accomplices. In this case, isn't it also a case where the law allows self-defense to fight back?" The defense lawyer for the defense asked rhetorically.

"Of course, this is within the scope of self-defense counterattacks allowed by the law. Therefore, several friends of the plaintiff were injured by the defendant, but did not sue the defendant and demand compensation from the defendant!" said the plaintiff's defense lawyer.

"However, when the defendant drove into the plaintiffs Fang Tianyi and Wei Dagou, she was not attacked in any way. She drove into someone at this time. She knew that the consequence of driving into someone would be the danger of death of the defendant, so she still drove into the plaintiff. People, isn’t this an intentional homicide, or a counterattack in self-defense?”

"According to what you said, you know that someone is going to kill you, but you can't do it first. You have to wait for someone to kill you before you can fight back. If someone kills you, you are dead, so how do you fight back? The so-called Wouldn't it be a display to fight back in self-defense?"

"I am a lawyer. I will act in accordance with the law. If the victim is sexually assaulting the defendant, the defendant can of course fight back in self-defense. That is, the plaintiff was killed by mistake. I believe the plaintiff The family has nothing to say."

"Conversely, when the plaintiff was knocked down by the defendant's car, the plaintiff did not violate the defendant. If the defendant knocked down the plaintiff, it wasn't intentional murder, so what?"

"We even have reason to suspect that the defendant was killing in revenge."

"I would like to ask, why did the plaintiff stop the car in front of the defendant's car? Didn't he want to continue to commit unfinished violations against the defendant?"

"I think we all should be very clear that the plaintiffs were in a state of drunkenness at the time, that is to say, when they were not conscious, the reason why they blocked the defendant's car at this time was a completely unconscious behavior. "

"I would like to correct the plaintiff's defense lawyer. According to the criminal law of our country, drunken crimes are also subject to criminal responsibility. It does not mean that you can forcibly rape women when you are drunk."

"The problem now is that the two victims did not forcibly violate the defendant. From the beginning to the end, the defendant was only a helper at most. When they forcibly violated the defendant, the two did not really do anything. Responsibility."

"According to the laws of our country, the mistakes committed by the two of them while intoxicated can be punished lightly."

"Everyone knows that drunkenness will lead to the weakening of people's ability to recognize and control. This has been recognized by medicine and forensic psychiatry. my country's transportation management laws and regulations clearly prohibit drunk driving is a good example."

"Compared with crimes committed under normal conditions, when the ability to identify and control is weakened, the perpetrator's subjective viciousness is correspondingly smaller, and the degree of moral condemnation is correspondingly reduced."

"Thirdly, in terms of personal danger. The degree of personal danger should be comprehensively grasped from the perpetrator's criminal record, usual performance, and repentance after committing a crime."

"When people are drunk, they are prone to emotional excitement and behavior out of control. Drunken homicide usually occurs suddenly between the parties without any conflicts beforehand. The perpetrators are mostly first-time offenders. , the perpetrator's personal danger is relatively small."

"Fang Tianyi and Wei Dagou, the plaintiffs, have no previous criminal convictions. This is a first-time offender, so they are eligible for a lighter treatment. The defendant intentionally drove and injured the victim, which is obviously a retaliatory act, which belongs to intentional homicide. The scope of the crime should be severely punished!"

"All I know is that although the defendant, Fu Xiaoqin, temporarily escaped the control of the six plaintiffs, the six did not lose their mobility at the time and were in a state of drunken excitement. The defendant was still in extreme danger."

"At this time, the defendant is undoubtedly very nervous. When encountering a blocker, even if what the plaintiff's lawyer said is true, the defendant is not mainly responsible for this incident, but everyone feels that the defendant Fu Xiaoqin, this time Can I still think calmly at this time, should I drive into the two plaintiffs?"

"Still, the defendant should stay and wait for the other party to chase her, and then drag her out of the car to carry out a successful assault process."

The lawyers on both sides are well-known barristers in Shenzhen. One side believes that the defendant committed the murder intentionally in retaliation, while the other thinks that the defendant fought back in self-defense, causing serious injuries to the two plaintiffs and should not bear criminal responsibility.

Around this issue, the two had a heated debate tit for tat.

But obviously, the result of the debate was very unfavorable to Xiaoqin.

The main reason is that Fu Xiaoqin did not suffer substantial injuries. The six plaintiffs failed to forcibly assault Xiaoqin, and two of the plaintiffs were seriously injured by Fu Xiaoqin's car. Remnant is a fact.

Moreover, the law also clearly stipulates that when there is no violation, it is not considered a self-defense counterattack.

So on this point, Fu Xiaoqin was at a disadvantage.

After the adjournment, when the trial was held again, the presiding judge asked the jury members: "Members of the jury, has the result of your negotiation come out?"

"Come out! According to our jury's consultation, the defendant Fu Xiaoqin was unanimously ruled not guilty of intentional murder. The plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant Fu Xiaoqin had reasons for intentional murder."

"But the defendant, Fu Xiaoqin, was not being violated when he drove into someone, so he was obviously a bit too defensive, and the factual evidence is solid, so it should be judged as too defensive. The above results are the opinions of all our jury members. Unanimous decision."

"it is good!"

"The next step is for the defendant to defend himself. Defendant, do you have anything else to say, or is there any new evidence that proves that you were in danger at the time and had a reason to drive into someone?"

(End of this chapter)