Is it a violation of personal safety to keep people in a building knowing that there are people in t

If it's between colleagues, knowing each other, making a joke, I don't think it's a crime, it's just an apology, I don't think it's a violation of personal safety, but it can't be like this in the future, it's a bit too much, don't make the joke too big.

Knowing that there are people in the building who are still locked inside, the length of time you will be hurt is not great, it doesn't matter if the time is short, if the time is large, it is a violation of human rights, and if you cause harm, you will be sentenced

Calculate. This is an intentional act which is sufficient to constitute an offence if it causes serious consequences. They will be held legally responsible.

If it's deliberately locked inside, it should be, but if it's unintentional and it's just a work error, then it's hard to determine. FYI.

This is uncertain, because people can not admit it, say they don't know, or forget, even if the personal safety of the channel is only a punishment such as an apology, and it will not be a serious punishment in terms of punishment!

This is an infringement of the personal liberty of another person and is an offence.

It certainly doesn't count, it's probably what's going on in the building, try to understand others.

This should be counted. Tell him to lose money. Not reallyJust sue him. Also pay for mental damages.

According to Chinese law, count.

This seems to be an illegal detention.

Was violence used?

Tell him, this kind of person is very bad.

You can't tell if you've broken the law based on the description alone, it depends on whether you've committed another violation or caused you harm.

If there is no statutory reason, the other party is not legal, as for whether it is a general violation or a suspected violation of the law, the specific situation can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Blocking the door is itself breaking the law.

One is that you can call the police, and the other is that you can sue.

Premise: Audio and video recordings preserve evidence.

Hello, this depends on how much he reads you, if he has a mantra or something, it shouldn't be considered a violation of the law, but if he does it, it will cause harm to your life, then he has caused a certain amount of personal injury to the law, so it depends on the situation.

If he often blocks you at the door and affects your normal daily life, he is illegal, but then again, if you owe money, you don't deserve it.

Hello, friends!

If someone uses violent means to block you for a long time, it is a restriction of personal freedom and a violation of the law.

Of course, it's the law of touching. When someone blocks himself at the door, he restricts his personal freedom.

If you go to the door to block you from talking about things, it is not considered to be a violation of the law, if you are beaten and injured, you will be touched by the law.

This can only be said that he violated the kind of rules that people interact with.

If someone blocks you at the door and threatens your personal safety, of course it is illegal.

It is a restriction of personal freedom, and it is not allowed.

If someone is blocking your way at the door, is it a violation of the law? This is a roadblock.

Ask the reason why you were blocked, and if it's because of you, it's not a crime.

Someone deliberately blocked you at the door, threatening personal safety, call the police to deal with it.

If personal freedom is restricted, it is recommended to report to the police.

1. Counted as justifiable defense, refers to the act taken to stop the unlawful infringement against a person who is in the process of unlawful offense, causing a certain amount of damage to the unlawful offender, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

2. If the situation is not very serious at that time, and your defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit, it is excessive defense. In the case of excessive self-defense, the conviction shall be made in accordance with the crime committed, but article 20, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "the punishment shall be reduced or exempted". ”

The so-called justifiable defense refers to the act of self-defense that causes certain damage to the wrongdoer in order to protect the state, the public interest, or the legitimate rights of others or oneself from ongoing unlawful infringement.

The first question: in limited circumstances, it is justifiable defense.

The second question: there are generally two criteria for identification. 1. The nature, means, intensity, and consequences of an act of defense and an act of unlawful infringement should be basically commensurate 2. The strength of the act of defense should be such that it can effectively stop the ongoing unlawful infringement as the necessary limit of legitimate defense.

The third question: If the other party only beats you, which is not very serious, and you seriously injure the other party, it is excessive defense or intentional injury.

In the case of excessive self-defense, the conviction shall be made in accordance with the crime committed, but article 20, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "the punishment shall be reduced or exempted". ”

Is being beaten back considered justified defense, and how is justifiable defense determined?

Being beaten back is not justified defense! You can only fight each other! Justifiable defense is in criminal law!

There is no limit to the defense of the person who does not infringe only on the person who has committed a serious violation of the person, property, etc., and for the ongoing illegal infringement. If you are seriously injured by being beaten with a short stick, you will be held criminally responsible! There is also a civil compensation attached!

If you are beaten, if the other party is barehanded, as long as you fight back, you will definitely beat each other and you will not be able to run. At that time, the police station will each play 50 boards, and he will not care who will do it first.

In fact, our country's law does not recommend violent resistance, even in the face of robbery**, it is generally recommended to flee or temporarily obey, and there are very few cases of people being judged to be justified due to resistance.

1.Being beaten back is justified self-defense.

2.If the other person asks to stop, or stops fighting, then you can't fight anymore! Otherwise, it would not be justified defense!

3.As mentioned above, if the other party stops fighting, and you continue to fight, it won't work! That's going too defensive!

Remember! In the case of legitimate defense, if the other party is injured, it is legally justifiable. For you who don't know much about the law, if you are no longer violated, don't fight, if he runs away, you can't chase anymore!

It is advisable to read more books such as law to avoid unnecessary consequences!

You can fight back, but if you defend too much, you still have to bear legal responsibility.

Count as justifiable defense! But if you defend too much, you will be held legally responsible!

Justifiable defense refers to the use of the state, the public interest, the person or property of oneself or others.

property and other rights from ongoing unlawful infringement, and the act taken to stop the unlawful infringement.

According to the regulations, the following five elements must be met at the same time for justifiable defense:

1. It must be implemented for the purpose of protecting the state, the public interest, the personal, property rights and other rights of oneself or others from illegal infringement.

2. There must be an illegal infringement. The so-called "unlawful infringement" refers to the infringement of certain rights or interests that is expressly prohibited by law, including both criminal acts and illegal infringements.

3. It must be an ongoing illegal infringement. The purpose of justifiable defence is to stop the unlawful infringement and avoid the harmful consequences, so the unlawful infringement must be ongoing, not yet started, or committed, or the perpetrator has indeed stopped voluntarily. Otherwise, it is an inappropriate time to defend itself and should bear criminal responsibility.

4. It must be carried out against the wrongdoer himself. That is, the act of justifiable defense cannot cause damage to a third party who has not committed the unlawful offense.

5. It is not allowed to cause significant damage beyond the necessary limit. Justifiable defense is a lawful act that is beneficial to society and should be subject to certain limits, that is, legitimate defense should be limited to the extent that it is sufficient to stop the unlawful infringement.

1. Assaulting others, causing minor injuries;

2. Illegally restricting the personal freedom of others, or illegally trespassing into the homes of others;

3. Publicly insulting others or fabricating facts to slander others;

4. Abusing a family member, and the abused person requests to deal with it;

5. Writing threatening letters or using other methods to threaten the safety of others or interfere with the normal life of others;

6. Coercing or enticing persons under the age of 18 to perform horrific or cruel programs, destroying their physical and mental health;

7. Concealing, destroying, or opening other people's mail or telegrams without permission.

1) Assaulting others, causing minor injuries;

2) Unlawfully restricting the physical liberty of others or illegally trespassing into the homes of others;

3) Publicly insulting others or fabricating facts to slander others;

4) Abuse of a family member, and the person being abused requests that it be handled;

5) Writing threatening letters or using other methods to threaten the safety of others or interfere with the normal lives of others;

6) Coercing or enticing persons under the age of 18 to perform horrific or cruel programs, destroying their physical and psychological health;

7) Concealing, destroying, or privately opening other people's mail or telegrams.

Calculate. Security officers do not have the right to search bodies. This is only possible if the police show their police ID.

Restricting your freedom or monitoring and tracking all belong to it, but the law is so determined, and it is difficult to say in this society where power is greater than the law.

In legal terms, the limit of legitimate defense is limited to the suppression of violations and crimes.

Accidentally killing and maiming is not a big problem, but at a time when he is a threat to you.

Count the fact that the guest room belongs to the guest's private space during the guest's lease period, and unauthorized trespassing is of course an invasion of privacy.

It should be counted, but it usually knocks on the door first, and if there is no answer or you don't hear the answer, open the door and go in to answer.

This is not an invasion of privacy. Because I don't want to let the waiter come in, the guest will generally hang a Do Not Disturb sign at the door, and some hotels are a small light. So if you don't want people to come in, it's best to put up a sign.

I didn't study law, I think so. Waiters should knock on the door in advance and get permission to enter the guest's room. Unless the room is unoccupied or there is an emergency.

Go in, go in, as long as you're not doing anything bad. Even when you do bad things, people don't blame others for going in, and people do it on other people's turf? Fortunately, it's the waiter who goes in, and if the police go in, you see who is prosecuting whom?

It's okay don't bother with the waiter, it's not easy for people, especially when you come across a guy who threatens to sue someone with privacy if you don't get it!!

Counted, except for special cases and special treatment.