When the thief was "chased" to death

Should you chase it?

The stolen property, chasing a thief is the subconscious response of most people. But in the process, what should I do if the thief was "chased"?

Recently, related cases have attracted attention. After receiving the owner for help, a property security guard in Suzhou, Jiangsu chased the thief Qin Moumou. Qin Moumou jumped into the river and was rescued ashore. Afterwards, Qin's family members appealed to the court to claim more than 1.58 million yuan in compensation compensation compensation and mental damage solemn.

In this case, the demands of Qin Moumou's family were not supported. The court trial believes that there is no fault in the process of chasing the property security, and its catch -up behavior has a legal cause and effect with Qin's death.

Theft is undoubtedly serious illegal or even criminal acts, but it is not equal to the parallel parallel to the parallel consequences such as death. In their opinion, even if the parties have violated the law, they are "sin." China News Weekly retrieved the China Magistrate Document Network and found that in such judgments, the "necessity" is the keyword. In many judgments, the key is whether the behavior of the parties belongs to the results of their behavior that should be expected to harm the society or due to negligence, such as negligence without foreseeing or foreseeable faults that can avoid over -confidence.

"Thief" was chased by the river drowned

"There are thieves trying to steal". On September 14, 2020, the property staff in a Jingwan Community in Kunshan received a call from the owner ...

As a typical case, the Kunshan Court disclosed the details of the case: the afternoon of the day, the owner Chen Moumei was at home, and suddenly heard the sound of someone opening the door. Looking at the cat's eyes. Because the other party was a thief, Chen Moumei immediately called her husband and asked him to notify the property investigation and verification.

The two security guards of the property company went to the verification after receiving the phone. As soon as the guard room went out, he saw the man Qin Moumou, who was in line with the owner. People are gone.

The owner Liu Mouhua heard that he was shouting and catching the thief downstairs, and looked down from the window. When he saw a man in the water grass in the east of the community, the security guards in the community shouted "come up" many times on the shore. For a while, the man climbed from the river to the bridge opposite. At this time, a person walked through the bridge, and the security guard pointed to the man who passed by and said, "That is a thief, grab him", and the man jumped into the river east of the bridge as soon as he heard it, and finally in the water I can't swim back.

Ding Mouqiang, the manager of the property company, found that the man patted the lake randomly with his hands and sank into the river, and immediately jumped into the river, but the rescue was unsuccessful. Soon, 110 and 120 arrived, and the man was rescued from the water, but had lost his life signs.

The owners of many witnesses confirmed that they did not see the property staff violently beating the chase. The public security department found more than a dozen plastic packaging bags on the drowning of Qin Moumou, which contained pearl earrings, rings, necklaces and other items and some cash. That night, another owner of the community lost 10,000 yuan in cash and a shopping card worth 2,500 yuan to the police.

After that, Qin Moumou's family members sued the property company to the Kunshan Court and asked for compensation for compensation for compensation for compensation and mental damage. The court listed the focus of the case: Qin Moumou's family believed that Qin Moumou was walking normally in the community. There was no evidence that he had theft or other illegal acts. "It caused the serious consequences of Qin Moumou's death, and it should be responsible for this.

The property company believes that after Qin Moumou's "theft" was discovered on the day, in order to avoid legal responsibility, the risk should be borne by the initiative to jump into the river without any person who had the initiative to jump into the river without any person. The staff's catch -up behavior was to fulfill the management responsibilities of the community, and there was a nature of righteousness. When they found that the deceased jumped into the river, they jumped into the river to rescue. There was no improper in the process.

In addition, the court found that Qin Moumou had been sentenced to three years and two months in March 2017 for three years.

After hearing, the court believed that Qin Moumou's physical characteristics were similar to the man who opened his house as described by Chen Moumei. Qin Moumou escaped immediately after being discovered by the security guard and did not clarify it. The staff chasing Qin Moumou should be a normal performance. In the process of chasing, there was no evidence to prove that the staff held a weapon and had violence when they were chasing. Qin Moumou first jumped into Hanoi at the scene of the river by chasing the people. There was no case where the defendant staff had forced to jump into Hanoi. save. The public security organs are engaged in the delivery site to extract some items. Combined with the facts of Qin Moumou's predecessor and the owners in the community, Qin Moumou had a suspicion of major theft of property.

In the end, the court determined that the defendant had no fault in the process of catching up with Qin Moumou. His catch -up behavior and Qin Moumou's death were incapable of causal and effect. The court did not support it and rejected all Qin's family members' claims.

Where is the boundary between the thief?

Although the results of Qin Moumou were regrettable in the end, in the court's opinion, it should be responsible for his actions. Qin Moumou jumped into the river and drowned. Why don't security guards need compensation? As an ordinary person, where is the boundary between the thief and the thief?

China News Weekly noticed that the court cited Article 942 of the Civil Code in the judgment that the property service person should maintain the basic order in the property service area and take reasonable measures to protect the owner's personal and property safety. For the violation of laws and security, environmental protection, fire protection and other laws and regulations in the property service area, the property service personnel should take reasonable measures to stop it in time, report to the relevant administrative department and assist in handling. "Qin Moumou has a suspicion of major theft of property. According to the above provisions, the security guard chasing the thief performing his duties normally. During Qin Moumou's escape, the security guard did not implement violence. , Legal cause and effect with the chase of security guards. Therefore, security guards do not need to be infringement and do not need to compensate Qin's family members. "Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner and well -known public welfare lawyer of Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, introduced China News Weekly.

Lawyer Fu Jian, Henan Yulong Law Firm, also believes that Qin Moumou's purpose of going down the river after going ashore was to avoid criminal punishment. It was Qin Moumou's own willingness to take risks and responsibilities.

In this case, the court also mentioned that the pursuit of the security guard and the death of Qin Moumou's death were irregular. Generally speaking, the legal causality in criminal law refers to the causal relationship between the harmful behavior and the results of the hazard. From the perspective of results, the court did not believe that the pursuit of security is harmful, and it does not matter the consequences of harm.

Zhao Shan Shan said that the legal cause and effect directly leads to whether the harmful people bear civil liability. In this case, although the thief jumped into the river with a certain relationship with the security guard, the security guard chasing the thief was performing his duties normally. In Fu Jian's view, security security behavior does not necessarily cause Qin to jump into the river. Qin's behavior is accidental, so the two have no causal relationship.

After this case attracted attention, when a thief encountered a thief, how should the civilians deal with it, which attracted heated discussions.

In Zhao Liangshan's view, the judgment of this case can bring some effects: the thief is illegal first, and it must be responsible for the death of the thief to the thief; the victims and security guards should dare to catch up with the thief. Give up and catch up. As long as the chasers grasp the "degree" and do not deliberately violence against the thief, they will not bear responsibility.

The Supreme People's Court commented on the case that the judicial referee was a stabilizer for the fixed dispute, and it was also a living textbook that demonstrated the spirit of the rule of law and the navigator leading the social style. In this case, after being discovered, theft jumping into the river to escape the security guards, which is regrettable, but the judiciary must have a distinct position and orientation. Once a "crying child" compromises and concessions, it may be able to give the deceased’s deceased’s. The relatives bring a little comfort, but it will make the rules dust, disordinate order, and make people unswerving.

Do not exceed the necessary limit

According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, those who have a large amount of public and private property, or those who have a large amount, or theft, theft of households, the theft of the murder weapon, and picker, will be sentenced to three years in prison for three years. In the past case, the unfortunate death of the person involved had also caused some family members to dissatisfy and believed that "the crime was not dead."

Whether the behavior of the parties exceeds the necessary limit is usually the focus of the court. China News Weekly retrieved the China Referee Document Network found that in some cases of parties' responsibility, the judgment usually has "intentional" or "negligence". Needless to say, negligence usually includes negligence negligence and overwhelming faults.

Take several judgments as an example. Also related to security guards, the case occurred in a steel company in Harbin. In 2016, five people, Li, Zhang, Tang, Tang, and Tang Xiaomou, after discovering Liu Mou, who chased Liu, and sat on him, eventually led to the pressure on his chest to cause pressure to cause pressure on the chest and caused Mechanical suffocation death. Five involved in the case was sentenced to 5 years in prison for intentional injury.

In 2017, in Nantou Town, Zhongshan City, the man Lian Mou Gao and Lian Mouheng chased the "thief" Liu, and Liu escaped while spraying chili water to the two. The latter two caught up with Liu, and Lian Mouheng pulled Liu's clothes and turned over to cover Liu's head. Lian Mougao hit Liu's body with bricks, causing Liu to die due to breathing and circulating dysfunction. Essence In the end, the court determined that the behavior of the two obviously exceeded the necessary limit to cause significant damage, and was sentenced to intentional injury but exempted of punishment.

In addition, there are some cases that have caused heated discussions. According to media reports, in 2017, after the Yueyang people found that the motorcycle in the family was stolen, they drove Fu, who was riding a stolen motorcycle and injured the latter. The court determined that the loss of medical expenses and misunderstandings in the first instance of the court had a total of more than 120,000 yuan, and Xu bears 10%of the responsibility. But then, the court of second instance overturned the judgment. The trial chief of the case pointed out that if Xu's liability for civil compensation is tantamount to encouraging crimes.

Zhao Shan Shan pointed out that the behavior of stealing things is undoubtedly illegal. In the face of illegal infringement, legitimate defense can be implemented, but it must also grasp the "degree", that is, it does not significantly exceed the necessary limit. For example When a thief is facing danger of life, he must do his best to rescue the timely rescue. If the thief is injured or even died in the chasing medium, if it is caused by the thief's own reasons, the chase does not need to take responsibility. However, if the chase deliberately violence against the thief during the catch -up, causing the thief to be injured or even died, then the chaseer needs to bear a certain amount of fault compensation liability.

Fu Jianze believes that in life, it is found that the thief can chase or directly report to the police.If it is a victim, it is a legitimate defense.If you have legal duties, it is a normal job.If the thief has stopped infringement and the hand is captured, and the attack is still taken to cause the opponent's casualties, it cannot be exempted accordingly.If a thief is only slightly injured, it is a limited behavior and can be exempted.He emphasized that from the law, chasing thieves is only a moral obligation for ordinary citizens, not a compulsory provision of law."In the process of chasing a thief, we need to weigh on the means. If the thief is injured or died due to legitimate defense or emergency risk aversion, it will not bear legal liability.Comprehensively determine the plot, reduce the punishment to a certain extent. "

Author: Chen Weijing

Edit: Li Zhiquan

- END -