Now there is no such thing as over defense

Infinite justifiable defense is a beautiful word. It gives us unlimited opportunities for catharsis.

Of course, there is, and the Criminal Code has not changed this.

What is the characteristic of this year, the urban hukou is changed to the agricultural hukou?

The so-called justifiable defense is a very special situation because it is a right that is vested in private use by a public authority and should only be used by a public authority.

Then his limits are very strict and obvious.

The most basic thing is that private remedies are no longer possible.

So as far as the question is concerned, the director of general affairs has asked two colleagues to pull A out, and as far as the actual situation is concerned, it is very clear who is strong and who is weak.

It was also very easy for the director of general affairs to leave the scene in the worst-case scenario, and she had no choice, she chose to go up and fight.

This situation is absolutely not justifiable self-defense.

In this case, the Director of General Affairs needs to bear legal responsibility.

And if it weren't for other factors, it would definitely be handled in practice.

"Excessive defense" refers to criminal conduct that clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, and shall bear criminal responsibility. Excessive defence has two characteristics: first, it is objectively manifested as an act of defence that clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant damage; 2. The act of defence must clearly exceed the necessary limit and cause significant harm.

Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "punishment shall be reduced or waived".

It seems that A's injuries should not be of the same level as major damage, and minor injuries do not warrant criminal liability. So the word overdefense cannot be used.

Looking at your description, it is difficult to judge whether the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" has been violatedIf the Director of General Affairs accidentally injures A while avoiding A's injury, then the Director of General Affairs does not have to bear any responsibility, and if the Director of General Affairs is fighting against A, then he has violated the Public Security Administration Punishment Act and is responsible.

The first step here is to clarify the concepts of justifiable defense and excessive defense:

Justifiable defense refers to acts that do not exceed the necessary limits to stop acts that endanger the state, the public interest, or the person, property, or other rights of oneself or others. The so-called excessive justifiable defense refers to the act of stopping sexual acts that clearly exceed the necessary limits and cause major harm to the unlawful offender. "Not exceeding the necessary limit" means that the state of stopping the wrongful act is limited, the state of the unlawful infringement has been completed, and the dangerous state has been eliminated.

For example, if a person robs with a knife, and the person being robbed resists in self-defense, knocks over the person who is robbing and takes the knife he is holding, and stabs the person who robs, and the illegal infringement of the person who robs has been stopped, and the state and danger of the illegal infringement have ended, the damage caused by the act of stopping has ended "not exceeding the necessary limit".

The situation you are talking about here gives people the feeling that it is more like a woman who has a dispute or dispute with someone because of some trivial matter, and in the process there is a tear, someone scratches or a nose bleeds, etc., and it does not rise to the level of defense, and as for the minor injury of A, it can be resolved through mediation, such as compensation for medical expenses, reasonable settlement of disputes, etc., which cannot be said to be excessive defense.

The above is for your reference.

This is legitimate self-defense, not excessive self-defense.

It is justified self-defense; I won't say much about the concept of excessive defense, let's have an example, a person steals your wallet, in order to recover the wallet, you pick up a stone on the ground and throw it at the opponent's head, and the stone hits the opponent's head, causing serious injury (death), it is considered excessive defense (intentional injury causing death), and it is still okay to hit the leg.

First, whether B can be criminally liable depends on the circumstances at the time, and if the emotions cannot be controlled, then there is no criminal responsibility. If unfortunately A is established as an excessive anti-counterfeiting, the general CDE is not responsible.

Second, it depends on the management of the school, such as the issue of A entering the school, but since the university is an open place, if it is not a dormitory building, the school may not be responsible.

Third, it is impossible for family B to claim compensation from the school after the compensation.

Hehe, it's good, it's good that I didn't stab someone to death.