Group 1 - The defendant Liang Mouying's actions are classified as intentional homicide due to multiple disturbances to other residents and the fatal stabbing of Wang Mouya during a confrontation [1][5] - The court rejected the defense's claim of self-defense, stating that Liang's actions were not a legitimate response to unlawful aggression [1][5] Group 2 - Liang Mouying did not qualify for self-surrender as he did not voluntarily confess to his crime and was unable to escape from the scene [2][6][7] - The court found that Liang exhibited signs of mental illness prior to the crime, supported by testimonies and records from various sources [3][8] Group 3 - The court determined that Liang Mouying was a person with limited criminal responsibility due to his mental condition at the time of the crime, which influenced the sentencing [4][9] - Liang was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve, reflecting the severity of the crime while considering his mental health status [4][9]

从严审查证据，准确界定行为性质。严格依照正当防卫相关规定，从行为起因、时间、意图、对 象、限度五个要件入手，结合具体案情综合判断反击行为是否属于合法防卫。一是起因条件与时间条 件：刘某以毒药方式偷狗并将狗装车欲逃离的行为，证实盗窃行为处于持续状态；其驾车撞向张某的行 为，使张某的人身安全面临现实、紧迫的危险，符合不法侵害正在进行的要件。二是防卫意图：张某持 刀的目的是制止偷狗行为、保护他人财产及自身安全，而非主动追求伤害结果，主观上具有防卫意图。 三是对象条件：张某的反击行为针对的是不法侵害人刘某，符合防卫对象的特定性。四是限度条件：张 某虽使用水果刀致刘某轻伤，但面对驾车撞击的暴力威胁，其防卫手段与不法侵害的程度具有相当性， 未明显超过必要限度造成重大损害。通过以上分析，彰显了法不能向不法让步的法治原则，为公民依法 行使防卫权提供了司法保障。 公开听证，凝聚社会共识。为增强不起诉决定的公信力，检察机关及时举行听证会，邀请侦查人 员、人大代表、政协委员、律师、基层群众代表等参与。听证会上，检察官详细阐述案件事实、证据及 法律依据，重点说明正当防卫的认定理由；张某陈述事发经过及防卫意图；被害人就现场情况进行说 ...

每经记者｜杨煜 每经编辑｜何小桃 廖丹 一起命案，一场轩然大波，打破了山西小县城的平静。 时间拨回今年农历大年初二，申家父亲申某良挥刀刺伤了邻居——郭家父亲郭勇刚。郭勇刚后经抢救无效身亡。 冲突的起因是一条狗。申家儿子被郭家的狗咬到后将狗摔死，电话协商未果后，郭家数人踹开大门、砸破玻璃，闯入申家住宅，冲突持续升级，直到申某 良在黑暗中捅刺郭勇刚，致后者失血性休克死亡。 检方以申某良涉嫌故意伤害罪提起公诉，辩护律师则为申某良作无罪辩护。辩护律师认为，申某良的行为构成正当防卫。 11月13日，该案开庭审理。截至发稿时，案件尚未宣判。 人狗冲突、正当防卫与故意伤害之争，使得这个案件掀起了一重又一重波澜。 两位父亲 申家与郭家都久居长治潞城。 11月的潞城，体感温度已经到了零下。到了晚上，夜色席卷留下一片漆黑与安静。这样的画面并不令人陌生，每一个山西小县城都会上演。 确切地说，潞城已经不是一个县。1994年4月，潞城撤县设市，2018年9月，又变为长治市的一个区。 郭家在当地做全屋定制生意，申家则经营着一家涂料厂。两家人比邻而居。 申家的宅子显露出岁月的痕迹，院外的白墙不再鲜亮，雨雪浸染出淡淡的灰痕，墙上大大小小、不 ...

每经编辑｜陈柯名 据智通财经报道，11月13日9时，申红良涉嫌故意伤害案在长治市中级人民法院开庭审理。申红良家属12日表示，他们认为，对方破门砸窗侵入住宅，而 且先动手，父亲系正当防卫，辩护律师将做无罪辩护。 据都市快报，13日下午，记者从被告人辩护律师李圣处获悉，该案法院并未当庭宣判。 事发后现场画面。图片来源/申某倩 图片来源：智通财经 今年正月初二，因狗咬人被摔死，山西省长治市一家多人破锁砸窗侵入对方住宅，双方发生冲突，狗主人被捅伤致死。 据长治市检察院起诉书，2025年1月30日15时许，被告人申红良之子申宇浩外出打水时，被被害人郭勇刚家拴在路边的狗咬到，其将狗摔死。申宇浩将此 事告知家人后，申红良妻子申某芝同郭勇刚姐姐郭某荣微信语音协商未果。随后申某芝电话报警，民警电话联系郭勇刚妻子赵某晖到派出所处理，赵某晖 未配合。 19时许，赵某晖同妹夫韩某、外甥刘某伟三人来到申红良家门外，边砸门边喊，让申红良开门，三人将申红良家玻璃砸破，韩某将大门踹开。申红良、申 某芝与女儿申某倩从家中厨房出来，双方在院内发生争吵。邻居贾某民听到争吵后，来到申红良家进行劝解。郭勇刚之女郭某璇、郭某婕也来到申红良家 中争吵。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The series "Justifiable Defense" explores the complexities of human nature and the advancement of judicial concepts through the lens of self-defense, diverging from the typical fast-paced narrative style of domestic crime dramas [1] Group 1: Narrative Structure - The show features a mirrored structure with three cases spanning 14 years, reflecting the progress of judicial concepts while maintaining suspense typical of detective dramas [1] - The transformation of the character Duan Hongshan from prosecutor to suspect serves as a profound commentary on empathy within the judicial process, emphasizing the relationship between law and emotion [1] Group 2: Social Issues Addressed - The series integrates social issues such as the recognition of self-defense and domestic violence, contextualizing the limits of self-defense through visual storytelling [1] - It effectively conveys the message that true judicial justice requires law enforcement to balance professional rationality with empathy, which is crucial for gaining public trust [1]

Core Viewpoint - The revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law will take effect on January 1, 2026, aiming to adapt to the changing social security landscape and improve legal frameworks for public security management [1][2]. Group 1: Key Changes in Law - The new law clarifies that actions taken to prevent ongoing illegal harm will not be penalized, promoting the concept of legitimate defense [2][3]. - For minors aged 14-16 and 16-18, the law now allows for detention in cases of serious initial violations, addressing concerns about repeat offenders [3][4]. - Specific provisions against bullying in schools have been established, mandating penalties for acts of bullying and requiring schools to report serious incidents [4]. Group 2: Animal Management Regulations - The law introduces penalties for failing to secure animals, leading to harm to others, including fines or detention [5][6]. - It also addresses the sale and breeding of dangerous animals, establishing a legal framework for enforcement [6]. Group 3: Record Management and Enforcement - The law stipulates that records of administrative violations can be sealed and not disclosed to any entity, enhancing privacy for individuals [7][8]. - It includes provisions for humane treatment of individuals facing detention, allowing for deferment under certain circumstances [7]. Group 4: New Offenses Added - New offenses have been added to the law, including actions that disrupt public transport, high-altitude throwing of objects, and unauthorized drone flights, which will now be subject to penalties [9]. - Other behaviors such as harassment, abuse of vulnerable individuals, and identity fraud have also been classified as punishable offenses [9].

Core Viewpoint - The newly revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective from January 1 next year, establishes the legitimacy of self-defense measures for citizens against unlawful acts, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding self-defense [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Changes - The new law explicitly allows citizens to take defensive actions to protect themselves or others, ensuring that those who act in self-defense are exempt from administrative penalties [1][2]. - The law outlines five specific scenarios that clarify the legality of self-defense, define the limits of defense, and establish the burden of proof, thereby providing a solid legal foundation for citizens to act in self-defense [2][3]. Group 2: Social Implications - The revision addresses the previous ambiguity in recognizing self-defense in public security cases, which often led to a culture of fear where victims hesitated to defend themselves due to potential legal repercussions [2][3]. - The change is expected to enhance public safety and restore confidence in the legal system, allowing individuals to distinguish right from wrong and promoting social justice [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective from January 1 next year, emphasizes the legitimacy of self-defense, introducing a new Article 19 that clarifies the conditions under which individuals can take defensive actions against unlawful infringements without facing penalties [1][2]. Summary by Sections Article 19 Introduction - The new Article 19 states that actions taken to prevent ongoing unlawful infringements that result in damage are not considered violations of public security management and thus are not punishable. However, if the defensive actions exceed necessary limits and cause significant damage, penalties may apply but should be mitigated [1][3]. Legal Continuity and Philosophy - The addition of Article 19 is seen as a continuation and unification of legal provisions regarding self-defense, reflecting the principle that "the law cannot yield to unlawful acts." This principle asserts that every individual has the right to defend their rights against infringement [2][4]. Social Implications - The revision has garnered attention due to past cases where victims faced penalties for defending themselves, leading to a culture of fear in exercising self-defense. The new law aims to provide a solid legal foundation for citizens to protect their rights within reasonable limits, thereby enhancing social justice awareness [2][3]. Conditions for Self-Defense - Article 19 includes conditions that encourage self-defense while also cautioning against excessive responses. It specifies that if the aggressor has ceased their actions, continued retaliation by the victim would be inappropriate, emphasizing the need for proportionality in self-defense [3][4]. Legislative Purpose - The overarching legislative purpose of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, organizations, and other entities. The revised Article 19 provides legal grounds for citizens to assert their rights in the face of unlawful actions [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case of a restaurant owner in Zibo, Shandong, who was involved in a mutual fight with a drunken customer, highlights the complexities of self-defense laws in China, emphasizing the need for a clearer understanding and application of the principle that "the law should not yield to unlawful acts" [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Principles - The principle of "the law should not yield to unlawful acts" is well-known but often faces challenges in specific cases, leading to prolonged judicial processes [1]. - The concept of self-defense should apply universally, regardless of the severity of the incident, and individuals should not be expected to rationally assess the appropriate level of response during an unlawful attack [2][3]. Group 2: Judicial Practice - There is an urgent need to activate self-defense provisions in both criminal and administrative law, particularly in common public disturbances that may not involve severe criminal implications [3]. - The handling of minor cases requires enhanced professional competence among law enforcement to avoid simplistic resolutions like "both sides are at fault," ensuring that self-defense claims are properly recognized from the outset [3].