Dalian Car Crash Case: A Moment of Emotional Turmoil Cost Five Lives Their Crown
Compiled from: National Business Daily, China Court Network
Case review
At approximately 11:40 on May 22, 2021, a heinous incident occurred in Dalian, Liaoning. Suspect Liu (male, born in 1989, a barber) drove a black sedan west along Wuhui Road in Zhongshan District, hitting multiple pedestrians at the zebra crossing near the north gate of Labor Park, then continued to the intersection of Wuhui Road and Jiefang Road, rear-ending a box truck before abandoning the vehicle and fleeing. Around 13:00, Liu was apprehended by police.
Following the "5·22" incident, the Ministry of Public Security, the provincial party committee and government, and the municipal party committee and government placed high importance on the case. The municipal court immediately established a special task force. Through on-site investigation, interviews, forensic examination, and evidence collection, the facts of the case are now clarified as follows:
On May 22, suspect Liu, unable to accept investment losses and losing faith in life, developed a mindset of retaliating against society. At approximately 11:40, Liu drove along Tangshan Street to the intersection of Wuhui Road. After waiting for a green light, he accelerated his vehicle from 0 to 108 km/h within 7 seconds (the speed limit on that section is 60 km/h), ran a red light, and committed the crime by ramming into pedestrians, resulting in 5 deaths and 5 injuries.
Forensic examination ruled out alcohol impairment, drug use, psychiatric medication use, or a history of mental illness for suspect Liu. He was clear-headed and coherent during the act, with a specific target and location for the crime.
On May 26, the Dalian procuratorial authorities approved the arrest of suspect Liu on suspicion of endangering public safety by dangerous means.
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 115: Crime of Endangering Public Security by Dangerous Means
Whoever commits arson, breaches dikes, causes explosions, spreads poisonous, radioactive, or infectious disease pathogens, or uses other dangerous methods that cause serious injury or death to others or significant damage to public or private property shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death.
Article 133a: Crime of Dangerous Driving
Driving a motor vehicle on the road under any of the following circumstances shall be punishable by criminal detention and a fine:
(1) Engaging in drag racing under恶劣 circumstances;
(2) Driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated;
(3) Operating a school bus or passenger transport service, severely exceeding the rated passenger capacity, or severely exceeding the prescribed speed limit;
(4) Transporting hazardous chemicals in violation of hazardous chemical safety management regulations, endangering public safety.
Where the owner or manager of a motor vehicle bears direct responsibility for the acts specified in items 3 and 4 of the preceding paragraph, they shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Where the acts in the preceding two paragraphs also constitute other crimes, the offender shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions for the heavier penalty.
[1] The author's perspective
As soon as this incident came to light, it caused an uproar online. While expressing regret, some netizens also questioned why it was classified as endangering public security by dangerous means rather than dangerous driving.
The author believes that the analysis should be conducted from the following two aspects:
1、[1] Subjective Aspect
[2] The perpetrator of the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means subjectively hopes for or allows the occurrence of consequences that endanger public safety, meaning the perpetrator is aware that their dangerous driving behavior will create an abstract danger to public safety and allows this abstract danger to emerge. Their subjective malice is relatively high, and their attitude toward specific dangerous states and harmful consequences is direct intent, not negligence.
[3] The crime of dangerous driving involves the perpetrator subjectively not pursuing or hoping for harmful consequences. Their psychological attitude toward the dangerous state and major harmful results caused by dangerous driving behavior cannot be direct intent, but only indirect intent or negligence.
2、[4] Objective Aspect
[5] Another difference between the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means and the crime of dangerous driving lies in the objective harmful results. The objective behavior of the former involves the perpetrator actively promoting specific dangerous states and major harmful consequences through dangerous means, without taking measures to avoid them.
[6] The objective behavior of the latter involves the perpetrator driving a motor vehicle on the road in a racing manner with egregious circumstances, or driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. However, the perpetrator actively takes measures to avoid the specific dangerous states and major harmful consequences caused by their behavior.
[1] In summary, in this case, Liu intentionally accelerated and crashed into pedestrians on a crosswalk while waiting for a red light due to his own investment failure and desire for revenge against society, demonstrating direct intent to harm. Objectively, after hitting people, he continued driving and then rear-ended a truck, showing he not only failed to take evasive action but also sought to cause greater casualties and damage. Both subjectively and objectively, this meets the criteria for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. Liu, frustrated by his investment losses, caused the deaths of five lives and injuries to five others. Emotionally, this is utterly intolerable; legally, it will face severe punishment.
