A "sword-bearing guard" appears in a Guangzhou parking lot, a verbal dispute leads to the car owner's death
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
Case review
[2] On the evening of November 13, a netizen posted a video claiming that at a shopping mall parking lot in Tianhe, Guangzhou, a man driving a Mercedes-Benz was stabbed by a security guard. After the attack, the guard reportedly shouted at a woman holding the driver, "What's so great about having a car?"
[3] In the early hours of November 14, Guangzhou Tianhe police reported that around 7 p.m. on November 13, an intentional injury incident occurred at a parking lot entrance on Tianhe Road due to a parking management dispute. The victim, surnamed Liu (male, 39), died despite rescue efforts. The suspect, surnamed Hua (male, 39), has been detained by Tianhe police. The case is under further investigation.
[4] At noon on November 14, Guangzhou Tianhuan Plaza issued a statement regarding the injury incident at the mall's parking lot entrance on the evening of the 13th. The statement said the intentional injury was triggered by a parking dispute, expressing shock and grief over the incident. It offered sincere condolences to the victim's family and promised to negotiate assistance and follow-up matters promptly. The mall condemned the violent act and pledged to cooperate with police to improve security procedures.
[5] On the afternoon of the 14th, a public relations representative from the mall stated that the security guard, Hua, who caused the death, was an outsourced employee previously responsible for temperature checks and epidemic prevention. The tragedy was "suspected to have stemmed from friction over temperature measurement issues."
But there is also another account, reportedly saying that the car entered the parking lot too fast, which caused the security guard's dissatisfaction. The security guard then slapped the car window, and when the injured man got out to argue, he was stabbed.
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 232 [Intentional Homicide]
Whoever intentionally commits homicide shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years; if the circumstances are relatively minor, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
Article 234 [Intentional Injury Crime]
Whoever intentionally inflicts injury upon another person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance.
Whoever commits the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph, causing serious injury to another person, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; if causing death or causing serious injury by particularly cruel means, resulting in severe disability, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment or death. Where this Law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.
[1] The author's perspective
From the above legal provisions, it can be seen that the sentencing range for intentional homicide is the death penalty, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, while intentional injury causing death also carries fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. At first glance, there seems to be no difference, but these two charges differ significantly in substantive consideration.
First, intentional homicide infringes on the victim's right to life, meaning the perpetrator's purpose is to deprive another of life, and it is an intentional act. Therefore, in reality, the perpetrator usually knows that attacking another will cause death but still allows the consequence to occur, with specific actions such as striking vital parts heavily or repeatedly.
Second, intentional injury causing death infringes on the victim's right to health, meaning the perpetrator's original purpose is to harm another's physical health, but the victim's death is not intended and constitutes a negligent liability. In reality, the perpetrator's specific actions are mostly striking non-fatal areas.
In this case, the true cause of the incident and the source of the weapon are not yet known, but from online videos, after the car owner was stabbed and fell to the ground, the security guard did not immediately take first aid measures but instead argued with a woman, even saying things like "So what if you have a car?" This shows subjective malice and an indifferent attitude toward the injury outcome, but the final conclusion still awaits the police report.
