[2] Outrage! Foreign COVID-19 patient assaults nurse! Australian jogger demands apology from Chinese people!
[2] 1. Foreign COVID-19 patient bites and injures female nurse
[3] On April 1, while queuing for nucleic acid testing at a community health service center in Laoshan District, three foreign nationals cut in line. After being condemned by residents waiting in line, one foreign national threw a resident's documents on the ground and shouted, "Chinese people, get out."
[4] Additionally, at approximately 7:28 a.m. on April 1, the Guangzhou City Court received a report via 110 that a foreign COVID-19 patient at a local hospital refused treatment and assaulted a female nurse. (Source: Global Times)
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,[5] Many people do not understand why, despite our country's strength, we still seem to bow before foreigners. In reality, a large part of this is not due to a lack of confidence, but rather because our laws and regulations for handling foreign-related cases are not comprehensive enough, often hindering police officers in dealing with such cases.
[6] Police officers are often reluctant to detain foreign lawbreakers, largely due to fear of "trouble." Most officers lack sufficient knowledge of international law, have weak foreign language communication and interrogation skills, face objective obstacles, and find the procedures for handling such cases too complex with a lack of detailed operational guidance. Even the latest revision of the "Procedural Regulations for Public Security Organs Handling Administrative Cases" contains only a few provisions on foreign-related administrative cases, while the issues officers encounter in practice go far beyond these.
When detaining a foreign national, the local authorities must notify the embassy of that person's country in China, and grassroots units often need to contact foreign embassies or consulates through provincial-level or higher agencies. In other words, handling a foreign-related dispute may require a police officer to alert the provincial public security department and the provincial foreign affairs office, with a report traveling from the police station to the sub-bureau, then to the municipal bureau, and finally to the provincial department—all within 48 hours. If the notification is delayed beyond the stipulated time, triggering a "diplomatic dispute," who bears the responsibility? The provincial department? The municipal bureau? The sub-bureau? None of them; the blame will inevitably fall on the handling police officer.
To enable police officers to enforce the law with confidence, there must be clear and explicit rules to support them, preventing public opinion from swaying law enforcement and avoiding making frontline officers scapegoats for public sentiment. Otherwise, with the mindset of "more work, more mistakes; less work, fewer mistakes; no work, no mistakes," even the simplest game theory would deduce that "better to do less than more" is the optimal enforcement choice. (The above is compiled from the article "Why Are Police Officers Reluctant to Detain Foreign Nationals?")
2. The Australian-Chinese jogging woman demands an apology from China's 1.4 billion people.
On March 19, a representative from the Beijing court publicly stated that the work-type residence permit of Australian-Chinese Liang Mouyan was legally revoked, and she was ordered to leave the country within a specified period.
This Liang Mouyan, ordered to leave the country, is the "Australian-Chinese jogging woman" recently exposed. On March 16, a video circulated online showing a woman jogging outdoors without wearing a mask. In the video, a woman in sportswear was running in a residential area without a mask. Epidemic prevention staff stopped her and shouted for her to halt, but she ignored their阻拦 and continued running.
[1] In the second exposed video, community health and epidemic prevention personnel advised the woman, emphasizing that she must self-isolate at home for 14 days and must not go out without wearing a mask. However, Liang Mouyan became agitated, claiming she needed to run and exercise, and questioned who would take care of her if she got sick. She then shouted for help, alleging someone was harassing her.
[2] Some netizens revealed that the woman was an Australian-Chinese employee of Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Subsequently, Bayer China issued a statement on the evening of the 17th via its official social media account in China, stating that upon learning of the online video of the woman running, the company immediately arranged for verification. After investigation, it was confirmed that Liang Mouyan was indeed an employee of Bayer. In accordance with company regulations, it was decided to terminate her employment. The statement also expressed Bayer China's firm support for China's fight against the epidemic.
[3] After the Australian "running woman" was taken away by the police, there has been a recent response. The Australian "running woman" has made new demands! She demands that the Chinese government pay for her return ticket to Australia, that the Chinese people apologize to her, and that the Chinese police respect her foreign nationality! However, the "running woman" may not be able to return!
[4] The Australian "running woman" speaks out for the first time.
[5] She has made six demands to China:
[6] 1. Demand that the Chinese government pay for her return ticket to Australia.
2. Demands that the Chinese government pay for the losses from renting a house.
3. Demands compensation from China for economic losses due to being fired.
4. Demands compensation from China for mental distress caused by online harassment.
5. Demands an apology from China's 1.4 billion people.
6. Demands that Chinese police respect her foreign status. (The above is from Sohu Video)
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,If the news is true, I just want to borrow a phrase from a Henan village chief ↓↓↓
3. The full story of the Wu Chunhong case
On April 1, the "Wu Chunhong poisoning case" was retried and pronounced in the Henan High Court, with Wu Chunhong acquitted. Wu Chunhong's retrial defense lawyer, Li Changqing, stated that Wu Chunhong was choked with tears after hearing the verdict. Additionally, Wu Chunhong's son, Wu Yunlei, said that he would pick up his father today and would subsequently apply for state compensation.
According to earlier reports, on November 15, 2004, the two sons of Wang Zhansheng, an electrician in Zhougang Village, Minquan County, Henan, were poisoned one after another. The 3-year-old younger son, Wang Cheng (pseudonym), died despite rescue efforts. Tests showed both were poisoned by "tetramine." Seven days later, the criminal police brigade of the Minquan County Court announced the case was solved. From June 23, 2005, to October 30, 2007, the Shangqiu Intermediate Court three times sentenced Wu Chunhong to death with a reprieve for intentional homicide, but each time the Henan High Court remanded the case for retrial on the grounds of "unclear facts." Later, the Shangqiu Intermediate Court held a fourth trial and again sentenced Wu Chunhong to life imprisonment for intentional homicide.
After Wu Chunhong appealed, the Henan High Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original verdict. Subsequently, Wu Chunhong's petition was also rejected by the Henan High Court. During his imprisonment, Wu Chunhong resolutely refused to admit guilt and declined any commutation of sentence. On June 3, 2016, he filed an appeal with the Supreme People's Court. On October 3, 2018, Wu Chunhong's daughter, Wu Lili, received the Supreme Court's "Retrial Decision": "The evidence for Wu Chunhong's conviction of intentional homicide is not solid or sufficient. The Henan High Court is instructed to retry this case."
Today, the "Wu Chunhong poisoning case" was retried and pronounced in the Henan High Court. Wu Chunhong was acquitted. By this point, Wu Chunhong had been detained for 5,611 days.
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,I believe those who have watched *The Shawshank Redemption* remember Brooks, who, after 50 years in prison, was completely institutionalized by Shawshank. After his release, working at a supermarket, he habitually raised his hand to ask for permission to urinate, finding himself utterly out of sync with the outside world. In the end, he chose to end his life. Not every wrongfully convicted person can restart their life after release; delayed justice is not justice.
Image source from the internet, delete if infringing!
