Okay,this is a complexโ case revolving around the legal โคconcept of justifiable/excessive defense (special defense in this context). Here’s a breakdown of the arguments, the legal framework, and the key points ofโ contention, along withโฃ an analysis of the likely โissues the judge is grappling with:
The โCore Dispute: Was Shen Hongliang‘s Action justifiable Defense or Excessive Force?
Theโ prosecution is arguing Shen Hongliang’s actions were not justifiable defense and went beyond the necessary limit, leading โto guo Yonggang’s death. The defenseโค is arguing it was justifiable defense, or at โthe very least, did not exceed the necessary limit given โthe circumstances.
Here’s a โbreakdown of the arguments:
Prosecution’s Argument (Against Justifiable โคDefense):
* No Initial Threat of Serious โฃDanger: The prosecution emphasizes that there was no proof Guo Yonggang had a weapon, and the Shen family didn’t experience a violent attack that seriously endangered their โขlives. They argue the initial altercation didn’t โขmeet the threshold โfor triggering the right to self-defense.
* Disproportionate Force: Shen โHongliang used โa boning knife and inflicted fatal wounds (severed artery, ruptured lung) while Guo Yonggang’s actions, though involving โa group beating, didn’t involve weapons or life-threatening attacks. The prosecution highlights the severity of the injuries inflicted by Shen Hongliang compared to the injuries sustained by the Shen family.
* Exceeded Necessary Limit: โคThe prosecution argues the defensive response was excessive,particularly given the fatal outcome.
Defense’s Argument (For Justifiable Defense/Notโ Excessive):
*โข “Assault” Defined Broadly: The defense argues that Guo Yonggang and his family’s actions constituted an “assault” under Chinese law, โeven without a weapon, due to the number of attackers, the beating, โand verbal threats (“kill the whole family”). They rely on โthe interpretation of Article 20 โand the “Guiding Opinions” โคwhich state that a serious threat can be established even without a weapon, based on the circumstances.
* Severity of โขInitialโ Attack: The defense points to the injuries sustained byโ the Shen family (fractured โฃnose,orbitalโ bone,soft โฃtissue โdamage) as โevidenceโข of the intensity of the beating. This is meant to demonstrate the reasonable belief of serious danger.
*โข Imminent Danger & Realistic Possibility: The defense argues that the assessment of harm shouldโ consider the potential for future harm, not just โwhat has already happened. โคThey argue Shen Hongliang didn’t need to wait forโข a โฃlife-threatening injury to occur before defending himself.
* Practical Considerations of a Melee: Theโ defense emphasizes the chaotic nature of the fightโ (“dark melee”) andโ argues it’s unrealistic to expect precise control over the force and location of โขstrikes inโ such a situation. They also point to the window sill height as supporting the plausibility of a fall and the need for immediate defense.
* No Clear โขWitness: The lack of clear witnesses to the stabbingโ itself supports the argument that it happened in a chaotic, fast-moving situation.
Relevant Legal Framework (as provided in the text):
* Article 20, Paragraph 3 of Chinese Criminal Law: โข Thisโฃ is the core legal provision. It protects individuals who โฃuse defensive force against ongoing violent crimes (assault, murder, etc.) even if it results in the death of the attacker, as long asโ the โฃdefense wasn’t excessive.
* “guiding Opinions” of โขSupreme Courts: These โopinions clarify the definition of “assault” and emphasize that a serious threat can โexist even without a weapon, based on the number of attackers, โthe intensity of the attack, and the potential for harm.
key Issuesโ the Judge is Likely Considering:
* Was there a genuine and reasonable belief of serious danger? this is the crucial question.The prosecutionโ is trying to downplay the threat, while the defense is trying to establish it. The judge will weigh โthe evidence of the beating, the threats, and the โnumber ofโ attackers.
* Was the โforce used proportionate to the perceived threat? โ Even if a threatโ existed, was using aโฃ knife and inflicting fatalโข wounds a reasonable response? This is where the disparity in injuries is significant.
* The โ”necessary Limit” of Defense: The judge mustโ determine if Shen Hongliang’s actions exceeded the bounds of what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. The defense is arguing that the chaotic nature of the fight โand the โpotential for โคescalating harm justify the forceโ used.
* Credibility of โขWitnesses: The lack of clear witnesses to the stabbing itselfโข will be a factor.The judge will need to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testified โabout the initial altercation.
Why the Judge โAdjourned:
The judge adjourned the trial because the case is complex and requires โฃcareful deliberation. The arguments are nuanced, and the legal framework is open to interpretation. The judgeโ needs time to weigh the evidence,โข consider the legal precedents, andโข determine whether Shen โHongliang’s actions were legally โjustified.the fact that the โคjudge is considering reopening the trial suggestsโค they โฃare not convinced by either side’s argument and need further information orโ clarification.
this case hinges on the interpretation โof “reasonable belief of serious danger” and “necessary limit” within the context of Chinese law.It’s a difficult โcase with strong arguments on both sides,and