[4] Compiled from: China Economic Net, The Paper
 
Case review
[5] At 18:36 on June 1, in a shopping mall in Lengtan District, Lei (male, born February 4, 1966) intentionally bumped into Ai (female, born September 17, 2002) with his arm, hitting her chest. Ai's accompanying boyfriend Hu (male, born January 7, 2002) then argued with Lei over the incident.

 
 

Later, when the two went to the mall's monitoring room to review the footage, Lei took the opportunity to run out of the monitoring room. Hu chased him to the parking lot outside the mall and kicked Lei twice but missed. The third kick caused Lei to fall and get injured. According to judicial appraisal: Lei suffered a comminuted fracture of the right humeral head and a comminuted fracture of the right femoral intertrochanteric region, both fresh fractures, with the two injuries each constituting first-degree leg injuries. Regarding Lei's act of indecency, the public security organs accepted the case for investigation on June 1. Given that he is still undergoing treatment, no compulsory measures have been taken for the time being.
 
On June 10, hearing that Lei needed surgery, Hu's parents paid 10,000 yuan for his surgery. On July 14, Hu, accompanied by his family, went with Lei to the police station for another mediation. "Lei demanded 200,000 yuan in compensation," said Hu's father, Hu Moujun. After the demand was rejected, on August 21, Hu was criminally detained.

 
 

On August 26, the Yongzhou City Court, regarding the case of "male student kicking and injuring a molester" that recently drew netizens' attention, attached great importance to it and ordered the Lengshuitan Branch to withdraw the case, immediately release Hu from criminal detention, and upgrade the investigation to the city court for re-examination.
 
For Lei's act of indecency, the Lengshuitan Branch imposed 15 days of administrative detention in accordance with the "Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China."

 

 
Analysis: How to characterize Hu's behavior?
1. It does not meet the timeliness requirement for acting righteously.
According to the relevant provisions of China's General Principles of Civil Law, acting bravely for a just cause is a lawful act, referring to an individual's behavior of protecting national and collective interests as well as others' personal and property safety by fighting against illegal and criminal acts or engaging in rescue, disaster relief, or life-saving efforts, regardless of personal risk. Acting bravely for a just cause mainly involves combating "ongoing unlawful infringement," and its timeliness requirement is relatively strong.
 
In this case, if Lei was molesting a female student and Hu kicked Lei, causing minor injuries, Hu's act would constitute acting bravely for a just cause and would not constitute a crime. However, Hu kicked Lei to prevent his escape during identification in the monitoring room, at which point the purpose was no longer to avoid ongoing unlawful infringement, and Hu's act caused Lei minor injuries, so it does not qualify as acting bravely for a just cause.
 
2. Acting bravely for a just cause falls under the regulation of civil law, while the crime of intentional injury isa crime defined in the Criminal Law for acts that intentionally and unlawfully harm others' physical health.
First, China's Criminal Law contains no provisions regarding acting bravely for a just cause.
 
Article 20 of the Criminal Law clearly defines justifiable defense: an act taken to stop ongoing unlawful infringement in order to protect national, public, personal, or others' rights to person, property, and other rights from such infringement, causing damage to the infringer, constitutes justifiable defense and bears no criminal liability.
 
[1] However, in this case, Lei’s unlawful infringement had already ended. Even if Hu suspected that Lei would continue the unlawful infringement and kicked him, his act should be classified as preemptive defense or imagined defense. If such defensive acts cause harmful consequences that constitute a crime, criminal liability shall be borne.
 
[2] 3. It can be regarded as an apparent citizen’s arrest.
[3] Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Any citizen may immediately seize and deliver to a public security organ, a people’s procuratorate, or a people’s court any of the following persons: (1) those who are committing a crime or are discovered immediately after committing a crime; (2) those who are wanted; (3) those who have escaped from prison; (4) those who are being pursued.
 
[4] Regarding whether causing minor injuries to another person during a citizen’s arrest by ordinary members of the public exceeds the necessary limit, Professor Luo Xiang of China University of Political Science and Law believes that even if Hu’s act exceeded the necessary limit, it would be “negligence,” and “negligence” does not constitute a crime for minor injuries. Therefore, even if Hu’s act is considered an excessive citizen’s arrest, it does not constitute a crime, and criminal detention is not appropriate. Additionally, Professor Luo believes that even if citizen’s arrest is limited to criminal acts, Hu’s act can be regarded as an apparent citizen’s arrest, which can exclude criminal intent. Since negligence does not bear criminal liability for minor injuries, it does not constitute a crime.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[5] The law not only regulates social behavior but also guides public values and social trends. The Civil Code clarifies the respective responsibilities of the tortfeasor and the beneficiary, and also stipulates that those who act bravely for a just cause shall not bear civil liability according to law. This helps eliminate the phenomenon of “heroes bleeding and crying” and fosters a positive social trend of acting bravely for a just cause.
 
[6] In this case, although Lei violated the law first, the victim should also pay attention to methods and means when asserting rights, adopting non-aggressive measures to detain the infringing party or seek other assistance as much as possible, to minimize harm to themselves and others.
 
Society advocates for righteous acts of courage, but if the unlawful infringement has ceased, attention should be paid to the intensity of the intervention. Good deeds and goodwill should be respected and protected, so that the traditional virtue of righteous courage can be promoted in society.