Okay,this is a complex‍ case revolving around the legal ⁤concept of justifiable/excessive defense (special defense in this context). Here’s a breakdown of the arguments, the legal framework, and the key points of​ contention, along with⁣ an analysis of the likely ‌issues the judge is grappling with:

The ‌Core Dispute: Was Shen Hongliang‘s Action justifiable Defense or Excessive Force?

The‍ prosecution is arguing Shen Hongliang’s actions were not justifiable defense and went beyond the necessary limit, leading ‌to guo Yonggang’s death. The defense⁤ is arguing it was justifiable defense, or at ‌the very least, did not exceed the necessary limit given ​the circumstances.

Here’s a ‌breakdown of the arguments:

Prosecution’s Argument (Against Justifiable ⁤Defense):

* No Initial Threat of Serious ⁣Danger: 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 ⁢lives. They argue the initial altercation didn’t ⁢meet the threshold ​for triggering the right to self-defense.
* Disproportionate Force: Shen ​Hongliang used ‌a boning knife and inflicted fatal wounds (severed artery, ruptured lung) while Guo Yonggang’s actions, though involving ‌a 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: ⁤The prosecution argues the defensive response was excessive,particularly given the fatal outcome.

Defense’s Argument (For Justifiable Defense/Not‍ Excessive):

*⁢ “Assault” Defined Broadly: The defense argues that Guo Yonggang and his family’s actions constituted an “assault” under Chinese law, ‌even without a weapon, due to the number of attackers, the beating, ‍and verbal threats (“kill the whole family”). They rely on ​the interpretation of Article 20 ‌and the “Guiding Opinions” ⁤which state that a serious threat can be established even without a weapon, based on the circumstances.
* Severity of ⁢Initial‌ Attack: The defense points to the injuries sustained by‍ the Shen family (fractured ⁣nose,orbital​ bone,soft ⁣tissue ​damage) as ‍evidence⁢ of the intensity of the beating. This is meant to demonstrate the reasonable belief of serious danger.
*⁢ Imminent Danger & Realistic Possibility: The defense argues that the assessment of harm should​ consider the potential for future harm, not just ​what has already happened. ⁤They argue Shen Hongliang didn’t need to wait for⁢ a ⁣life-threatening injury to occur before defending himself.
* Practical Considerations of a Melee: The​ defense emphasizes the chaotic nature of the fight​ (“dark melee”) and‌ argues it’s unrealistic to expect precise control over the force and location of ⁢strikes in‍ 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 ⁢Witness: The lack of clear witnesses to the stabbing‌ 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: ⁢ This⁣ is the core legal provision. It protects individuals who ⁣use defensive force against ongoing violent crimes (assault, murder, etc.) even if it results in the death of the attacker, as long as​ the ⁣defense wasn’t excessive.
* “guiding Opinions” of ⁢Supreme Courts: These ‍opinions clarify the definition of “assault” and emphasize that a serious threat can ​exist even without a weapon, based on the number of attackers, ‌the intensity of the attack, and the potential for harm.

key Issues​ the Judge is Likely Considering:

* Was there a genuine and reasonable belief of serious danger? this is the crucial question.The prosecution‍ is trying to downplay the threat, while the defense is trying to establish it. The judge will weigh ‍the evidence of the beating, the threats, and the ​number of‌ attackers.
* Was the ​force used proportionate to the perceived threat? ​ Even if a threat‍ existed, was using a⁣ knife and inflicting fatal⁢ wounds a reasonable response? This is where the disparity in injuries is significant.
* The ​”necessary Limit” of Defense: The judge must​ 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 ​and the ‌potential for ⁤escalating harm justify the force‌ used.
* Credibility of ⁢Witnesses: The lack of clear witnesses to the stabbing itself⁢ will be a factor.The judge will need to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testified ‌about the initial altercation.

Why the Judge ​Adjourned:

The judge adjourned the trial because the case is complex and requires ⁣careful deliberation. The arguments are nuanced, and the legal framework is open to interpretation. The judge‍ needs time to weigh the evidence,⁢ consider the legal precedents, and⁢ determine whether Shen ‍Hongliang’s actions were legally ‌justified.the fact that the ⁤judge is considering reopening the trial suggests⁤ they ⁣are not convinced by either side’s argument and need further information or​ clarification.

this case hinges on the interpretation ​of “reasonable belief of serious danger” and “necessary limit” within the context of Chinese law.It’s a difficult ‍case with strong arguments on both sides,and