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 horrifying and vicious incident occurred in Dalian, Liaoning Province. The suspect, Liu (male, born in 1989, a barber), was driving a black sedan west to east along Wuhui Road in Zhongshan District. Upon reaching the zebra crossing at the north gate of Labor Park, he struck multiple pedestrians and continued driving to the intersection of Wuhui Road and Jiefang Road, where he rear-ended a box truck before abandoning the vehicle and fleeing. By around 13:00, Liu was apprehended by the police.
After the "5·22" incident, the Ministry of Public Security, the Provincial Party Committee and Provincial Government, and the Municipal Party Committee and Municipal Government attached great importance to the matter. The Municipal Court immediately established a special task force. Through on-site investigation, interviews, forensic examination and identification, and evidence preservation, the facts of the case have now been ascertained as follows:
On May 22, criminal suspect Liu, unable to accept his investment failure and having lost confidence in life, developed a desire to take revenge on society. At around 11:40, while driving along Tangshan Street and reaching the intersection of Wuhui Road, after waiting for the green light, he suddenly accelerated his vehicle from 0 to 108 km/h within 7 seconds (the speed limit for that section is 60 km/h), ran the red light, and carried out the crime by driving into pedestrians in an extreme manner, causing 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 procuratorial authorities in Dalian approved the arrest of criminal suspect Liu on charges of endangering public safety by dangerous means in accordance with the law.
"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) Racing or chasing each other in driving, where the circumstances are flagrant;
(2) driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated;
(3) Engaging in school bus services or passenger transport, carrying passengers seriously in excess of the rated capacity, or driving at a speed seriously 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.
In summary, in this case, Liu, motivated by his own failed investments, sought to take revenge on society. Moreover, he suddenly accelerated and struck pedestrians in the crosswalk while waiting at a red light, which demonstrates that Liu had the direct intent to hit people. Objectively, after striking the pedestrians, Liu continued driving and subsequently rear-ended a truck. This shows that Liu not only failed to take any measures to avoid further harm but also hoped to cause even greater casualties and damage. Both the subjective and objective elements satisfy the criteria for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. Liu caused the sacrifice of five lives and injured five others simply because of his own investment setbacks. From a moral standpoint, this is utterly intolerable; from a legal standpoint, he will inevitably face severe punishment.
