news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

🔹the scene of the incident. source: internet

recently, the incident of "qingdao land rover female driver driving against traffic, cutting in line and beating people" has continued to attract attention.

according to public reports, on august 28, a woman surnamed wang drove a land rover in laoshan district, qingdao, shandong province, but failed to cut in line. she beat the driver lin, who was driving normally in the opposite direction, causing bleeding from his mouth and nose. the next day, the local police reported that wang violated the public security administration punishment law and was sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention and a fine of 1,000 yuan.

in the following days, the incident continued to ferment online, sparking heated discussions. a big reason for this was that netizens were dissatisfied with the punishment. the woman involved not only ignored traffic rules and drove against traffic, but also maliciously insulted and beat others. many netizens believed that "the punishment for the woman who beat others seemed too light."

by cutting in line and beating others, what legal red lines did the woman involved violate and what legal responsibilities should she bear? in addition to "detention for 10 days and a fine of 1,000 yuan", are there any follow-ups?

1. illegal acts cover many aspects

"what's wrong with driving against traffic and hitting someone?" this is not only the question the female driver asked when she was shouting at the person being hit, but also a legal issue that should be clarified.

meng guangyuan, senior partner of heilongjiang meng fanxu law firmwhen interviewed by china news service's national affairs express, she said that the illegal behavior of the female driver who beat people covered multiple levels.

first of all, the woman's behavior of cutting in line in the wrong direction violated the road traffic safety law and the regulations for the implementation of the road traffic safety law. she should be deducted points from her driver's license and fined.

in addition, the woman got out of the car and beat the driver who was driving normally, which violated article 43 of the "public security administration punishment law" and can be administratively detained and fined. therefore, the local police imposed an administrative penalty of "administrative detention for 10 days and a fine of 1,000 yuan" on her.

at the same time, this behavior may meet the provisions of article 293, paragraph 4 of the criminal law, "causing serious disturbance of public order by causing disturbances in public places", and thus constitute the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.

he zhijuan, partner of beijing hanting law firmin an interview with guoshi direct, the female driver added that the female driver who beat the driver needs to compensate the driver for medical expenses, lost wages and other related expenses. at the same time, the beating may also cause mental damage to the driver, so she also needs to bear the responsibility for mental damage compensation.

2. administrative penalties do not mean no criminal involvement

the bad behavior and arrogant attitude of the female driver who beat people caused public dissatisfaction. regarding the handling results reported by the police, many netizens believed that the punishment was too light and "not painful enough."

meng guangyuan said that the police's administrative punishment of the woman was in line with the law, but it did not mean that the case did not involve criminal offenses. whether a criminal offense is involved requires the necessary legal procedures and a comprehensive judgment based on relevant legal provisions.

in meng guangyuan's opinion, in the videos that have been released, the woman's behavior of causing trouble in public places lasted for a long time, she entered the car many times and beat others outside the car window, and she also pushed the security personnel (suspectedly). therefore, it may constitute the crime of provoking trouble.

he zhijuan believes that if the man who was beaten is found to have suffered minor injuries or above through judicial appraisal, or if the order at the scene was disrupted and other adverse social impacts were generated, the attackers may be involved in the crime of provoking disturbances or intentional injury. however, the incident cannot be characterized as provoking disturbances simply because of public pressure.

she also emphasized that there were many rumors about the incident on the internet, and even people had exposed the family background and identity of the so-called female driver, and there were also rumors. this was actually an infringement of personal information and could even turn into cyber violence. in serious cases, it might violate laws and regulations such as the "personal information protection law of the people's republic of china" and the "regulations on the governance of cyber ​​violence information."

according to media reports, the man who was beaten, lin, is a veteran. in an interview with the media, lin said that he was not satisfied with the current punishment result, had applied for an injury assessment, and would continue to apply for administrative reconsideration and safeguard his rights through legal channels.

in response to this incident, the official account of china's veterans affairs commented that the laoshan district veterans affairs bureau had contacted the comrades-in-arms as soon as possible and would provide free legal services to fully safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of veterans.

when a veteran is beaten, should the attacker bear more serious responsibility or consequences?

he zhijuan said that the "public security administration punishment law" stipulates that beating or injuring disabled people, pregnant women, people under the age of 14 or people over the age of 60 are considered aggravating circumstances.

she also pointed out that in my country, veterans enjoy special protection according to law. the veterans protection law stipulates that if the legitimate rights and interests of veterans are infringed, they should be resolved according to law. public legal service agencies should provide veterans with necessary assistance such as legal aid according to law. therefore, if the incident has not been reasonably and legally resolved for a long time, the veterans who were beaten can seek help from the provincial competent authorities.

3. “fighting back means you are in the wrong” is not true

in this incident, in sharp contrast to the behavior of the female driver who beat others, the person who was beaten, lin moumou, exercised restraint from beginning to end.

in the various versions of the video circulating online, lin did not fight back while being beaten, and onlookers repeatedly mentioned "if you fight back, you'll be in the wrong, so don't fight back."

would he be in the wrong if he fought back? many netizens disagreed and believed that lin had the right to self-defense.

"'if you fight back, you're in the wrong, so don't fight back' is not legally valid."meng guangyuan cited the movie "article 20" as an example, arguing that legitimate defense is applicable to this case. he also emphasized that legitimate defense should not exceed the degree of violence of the other party. at the same time, in order to avoid subsequent behavior being identified as "mutual fighting", it is best to use a mobile phone to record the early process of the other party's violence.

"although the legal provisions are very clear, the real society is extremely complex. it is difficult to grasp the right balance between what kind of 'fighting back' is both effective and has no legal risks," said he zhijuan.

he zhijuan suggested that when facing unlawful infringement, one should first defend rights by shouting, calling for help, calling the police, etc., depending on the degree of infringement, and immediately take photos and videos to fix evidence. when life is threatened, unlimited right of defense can be exercised. article 20, paragraph 3 of the criminal law stipulates: if a person takes defensive actions against an ongoing violent crime such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, or other violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, and causes casualties to the unlawful offender, it does not constitute excessive defense and the person shall not bear criminal responsibility.