The case of disabled masseuse’s anti killing
At 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 2018, a drunk man Lu Mou forced a foot massage shop in Fushun City, Liaoning Province to smash the door into the room. Yu Haiyi, a disabled masseuse in the stay in shop, stabbed Lu Mou with a fruit knife in the process of fighting with Lu Mou, and the other side eventually died. Yesterday (15), the case was heard in the detention center court of Fushun intermediate people’s court, and live broadcast in China’s open court trial network.
In yesterday’s trial, whether Yu’s counterattack exceeded the necessary limit became the focus of the debate between the prosecution and the defense. According to the public prosecutor, Yu Haiyi’s act is justifiable for defense, but it obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant damage. It is improper defense and constitutes the crime of intentional injury, so he should bear criminal responsibility according to law. Yu Haiyi’s defense lawyers believe that Lu committed a violent crime that seriously threatened the personal safety of Haiyi, and Yu Haiyi took a counterattack with a knife, which constituted an unlimited right of self-defense and was not liable for criminal responsibility according to law. In addition, Yu’s physical condition is also the focus of this trial. The whole trial lasted for more than three hours, and the case will be pronounced on a certain day.
According to the court’s investigation, just after 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 2018, LV Mou, the victim, came to the foot therapy shop where Haiyi is located after drinking. At that time, the foot therapy shop had been locked and closed, and Yu Haiyi had a rest on the first floor of the shop. Yu Haiyi, who was woken up, did not open the door to Lu for the reason of shutting down the business. There was a quarrel between the two sides. Lu repeatedly pushes and drags the store door to try to enter the store. During the trial, the prosecutor showed the surveillance video in the foot therapy shop where Yu worked.
The prosecutor said: “at 2:9:4, Yu Haiyi returned to take the folding knife and opened it after returning. At 2:9:31, Lu pulled the door open and entered the store, slapped Haiyi with his hand, stabbed LV with a knife in the abdomen before Haiyi, then the two sides had a fight. LV, the victim, fell to the ground. “
According to the public prosecutor, Yu Haiyi’s act is a defensive act, but it obviously exceeds the necessary limit and belongs to excessive defense, so he should be investigated for criminal responsibility with the crime of intentional injury. “Yu Haiyi has the time to call the police and the leeway to deal with it. Lu’s behavior did not cause serious harm to his personal safety, but Yu Haiyi chose to enter the store without a weapon. The victim who only used slight violence directly used a knife with a total length of 24cm and a blade length of 10.1cm, which stabbed Lv’s abdomen, causing Lv’s death. The intensity of its defense is far greater than the intensity of illegal infringement and beyond the necessary limit. “
In response, Yin Qingli, Yu’s defense lawyer, said that Lu’s forced entry into the room and beating Yu had posed a serious threat to Haiyi’s personal safety. Yin Qingli said: “Lu Mou, the victim of this case, entered the house by force and beat the defendant’s body first. In this case, we believe that it is a violent crime that seriously threatens the personal safety. In this case, the defendant in Haiyi counterattacks with a knife, which constitutes the unlimited right of self-defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility according to law. “
Yin Qingli said that the parties are in a specific environment and are suffering from illegal infringement. It is unreasonable to require the defender to implement proper defense. “For the act of defending violent crime, the defender cannot be required to give judgment at the moment of defense. The defender must realize that the personal safety of citizens is being threatened by serious violence and that it is happening. So we can’t ask the defender to judge the criminal nature of violence at the moment of defense. As long as the existence has its own perception, we can’t ask the defender to realize whether the other party has tools, what will happen next? These expectations are too demanding. “
In addition, Haiyi’s physical condition has also become one of the focuses of court debate. According to the public prosecutor, Yu Haiyi’s fourth degree disability did not have a great impact on the case. “The surveillance video broadcast in court, the surveillance video of the hospital of the Mining Bureau, the state of the defendant Yu Haiyi in the process of today’s trial, and the testimony of Yu Haiyi’s colleague Cong and others all reflect that although Haiyi has four level disability certificate, it can work normally and move freely.”
Yin Qingli thought that Yu Haiyi was disabled, and his power was inferior to that of the lawbreakers, forcing him to use knives. “Lu Mou, the perpetrator of the illegal act, is a normal person, and the defendant has experienced a traffic accident in Haiyi, so in terms of power contrast, Yu Haiyi must use more means than the perpetrator of the illegal act to protect himself and others’ personal safety. It may not be a big problem for us to watch him walk normally, but when using great power, there are obvious differences between disabled and normal people. “
In this regard, the lawyer acting for the family members of the deceased believed that although Yu Haiyi had a disability certificate, his life and work were not affected by the disability. In addition, the lawyer acting for the family members of the deceased believed that although the massage shop was not open 24 hours, there were customers who had received services in the massage shop after 12 o’clock. Therefore, we should not pursue the responsibility according to the justifiable defense and excessive defense, but should investigate the criminal responsibility with the crime of intentional injury.
At the same time of public prosecution, the family members of the deceased also filed an incidental civil action, claiming for more than 30000 yuan of funeral expenses, 650000 yuan of death compensation, 100000 yuan of spiritual comfort, totaling more than 820000 yuan.
At the end of the trial, the court adjourned and announced that it would be sentenced at a later date.